The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2017 was +0.63 deg. C, up from the September, 2017 value of +0.54 deg. C (click for full size version):
![](https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1-550x317.jpg)
Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months.
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 22 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPICS
2016 01 +0.55 +0.72 +0.38 +0.85
2016 02 +0.85 +1.18 +0.53 +1.00
2016 03 +0.76 +0.98 +0.54 +1.10
2016 04 +0.72 +0.85 +0.58 +0.93
2016 05 +0.53 +0.61 +0.44 +0.70
2016 06 +0.33 +0.48 +0.17 +0.37
2016 07 +0.37 +0.44 +0.30 +0.47
2016 08 +0.43 +0.54 +0.32 +0.49
2016 09 +0.45 +0.51 +0.39 +0.37
2016 10 +0.42 +0.43 +0.42 +0.47
2016 11 +0.46 +0.43 +0.49 +0.38
2016 12 +0.26 +0.26 +0.27 +0.24
2017 01 +0.32 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.19 +0.07
2017 03 +0.22 +0.36 +0.09 +0.05
2017 04 +0.27 +0.28 +0.26 +0.21
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41
2017 06 +0.21 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.41 +0.46
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.53
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through October 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
Why Are the Satellite and Surface Data Recently Diverging?
John Christy and I are a little surprised that the satellite deep-layer temperature anomaly has been rising for the last several months, given the cool La Nina currently attempting to form in the Pacific Ocean.
Furthermore, the satellite and surface temperatures seem to be recently diverging. For the surface temperatures, I usually track the monthly NCEP CFSv2 Tsfc averages computed by WeatherBell.com to get some idea of how the most recent month is shaping up for global temperatures. The CFSv2 Tsfc anomaly usually gives a rough approximation of what the satellite shows… but sometimes it differs significantly. For October 2017 the difference is now +0.23 deg. C (UAH LT warmer than Tsfc).
The following charts show how these two global temperature measures have compared for every month since 1997 (except that September, 2017 is missing at the WeatherBell.com website):
![](https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/LT-vs-CFSv2-Tsfc-global-550x688.jpg)
Monthly comparison since 1979 of global average temperature anomalies (relative to the monthly 1981-2010 averages) between UAH LT deep-layer lower tropospheric temperature and the surface temperatures in the CFSv2 reanalysis dataset at WeatherBell.com.
As can be seen, there have been considerably larger departures between the two measures in the past, especially during the 1997-1998 El Nino. Our UAH LT product is currently using 3 satellites (NOAA-18, NOAA-19, and Metop-B) which provide independent monthly global averages, and the disagreement between them is usually very small.
While we can expect individual months to have rather large differences between surface and tropospheric temperature anomalies (due to the time lag involved in excess surface warming to lead to increased convection and tropospheric heating), some of the differences in the above plot are disturbingly large and persistent. The 1997-98 El Nino discrepancy is pretty amazing. As I understand it, the NCEP CFS reanalysis dataset is the result of collaboration between NOAA/NCEP and NCAR, and uses a wide range of data types in a physically consistent fashion. I probably need to bring in one of the dedicated surface-only datasets for further comparison…I don’t recall the HadCRUT4 Tsfc dataset having this large of disagreements with our satellite deep-layer temperatures. Unfortunately, these other datasets usually take a few weeks before they are updated with the most recent month.
…UPDATE…(fixed)…
…the 2nd of the following two plots has been fixed)…
Here’s the comparison between UAH LT and Tsfc from the HadCRUT4 dataset, through September 2017. Note that the difference with the satellite temperatures isn’t as pronounced as with CFSv2 Tsfc data, but the HadCRUT4 data has more of an upward trend:
![](https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/LT-vs-HadCRUT4-Tsfc-global-1-550x688.jpg)
As in the previous figure, but now CFSv2 Tsfc data has been replaced by HadCRUT4 surface data (with the latter having anomalies recalculated relative to the 1981-2010 base period).
The UAH LT global anomaly image for October, 2017 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Nothing to be surprised about. Temperatures can vary majorly on a monthly basis. Long term 13 monthly average still showing downward plunge
The 13 month average hasn’t been updated for 3 months. There should be 6 months clear of the red line at the end, but there is 9.
Yup, my bad. Excel plot for that time series is 12 months short, I’ll fix it. (Done.)
Still shows overall trend going downward. Brief upticks don’t mean anything.
Unless the red 13 month average surpasses the 2015/2016 El Nio boost it will never cease to concern me.
It does for real observation of surface temperature.
Read to quickly…. Thought you were on 1998….
For sure there is generally the need of an Nino to go above the previous Nino.
Correct
Shhhhh. The warmists don’t like the word El Nio.
Are you telling us the following ”there is no global warming since 2016. Global warming stopped in 2016” ?
I’m sure he meant there is no warming since the El Niño of 2016. Which is sad.
There is no such thing as the current speed of tamperature change. Anything shorter than 130,000 years is a natural cyclic fluctuation, not climate. No, I can’t be serious.
Yes a fluctuation that goes in one direction…
ClimateChange4realz says:
“Still shows overall trend going downward”
Nope. The “overall” trend is very positive, +0.13 C/decade.
“Bargaining” is the third of five stages in the acceptance of death.
DA,
You`re in the 5th stage of stupidity. Stages 1-4 were identical.
Precisely I was reffering to the past couple years. David assumed I was reffering to the trend over decades.
A trend over “the past couple years” has no relevance to climate change, either physically or mathematically.
it does when you reference it to what happened to the climate in the past before every grand solar minimum.
No – the Sun is a natural fluctuation, and says nothing about manmade warming.
No it is going up at the end. Look at the plot. I am sure you can make it.
I know that. That is why I said small upticks don’t mean anything unless the 13th month average surpasses the peak of the “Godzilla” El Nio 2015/2016. Yes it is starting to go up but it is likely and will start trending downwards soon and will not pass the peak of the 2015/2016 El Nio. the sleepers are gonna continue to sleep sleep sleep sleep sleep and the truth seekers are gonna continue to seek seek seek seek seek. Nothing you can do to change my mind nor others.
Have a nice day snow flake
Look at the real observation of surface temperature and tell me there is no warming in thw lasr years…
UAH is very uncertain (just compare with previous version and with RSS). Also tropo temp depends strongly on a small fraction of the globe so it is very sensitive to variabilty.
I know that I won t change your mind
I know that stupid people are around.
Not able to recognize that they is a warming. I am not asking more than that.
The real question today is : how do we deal with stupid people?
Some people think we should elect them to be the US
president.
That would be too much presidents.
Use a mirror, mickey prumt.
gbailkie: Some people think we already did.
Davie, do you fear your welfare check will be affected?
Of course, you could always go into comedy full time.
Dear mr. Spencer
I have also been wondering about the discrepancy between satellite and ground data 97/98.
I have recently done some research into the 97/98 el Nino satellite/ground-data discrepancy, and have found this document.:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1
On page 45 of that document there’s a record of all the satellites that have been used to procure data for both the RSS and UAH temperature-calculations.
Four different satellites were in operation in the above mentioned period ( 97-98 ) where the satellite-data differs significantly from ground-data.
I can see three interesting incidents from that period :
1. NOAA-11 reinstated 8/1997, withdrawn again 4/1998!(Actually two incidents )
2. NOAA-12 withdrawn 11/1998!
3. NOAA-15 launched 8/1998! (With new AMSU instruments )
What really strikes me is, why was NOAA-11 retired in 1994, reinstated in august 1997 and withdrawn again 4/1998!
And where’s NOAA-13? Well it failed! ( Don’t ever use the number 13 in space-matters 🙂 ).
I have an idea on what happened then, excuse me if I am wrong. The temperature satellite program was “undermanned” ( 1993 ), as far as operational satellites concerned, and they just had to cope with the remaining satellites
( NOAA-11, 12 and later from july 1995 NOAA-14).
NOAA-11 was retired from service in december 1994, but for some reason was “re-drafted” for a brief period from august 1997 to april 1998 .
Why ?
I have no idea, but my guess is that it might have something to do with the up-coming of an extreme El Nin 97/98 which they wanted to have as much data about as possible. So they decided to pull 11 “up from the dust”.
But what about the instruments aboard 11, were they
still fully functional and intact after almost 2 years 8 months?
I have a clear suspicion that the data after august 97 appears faulty!
The statement at the end of this link seems to confirm my hunch, that something might have been wrong with the instruments aboard NOAA-11 :
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/703808/
“The visible channel on NOAA-11 was much noisier, with a detrended standard deviation of /spl sim/3%, indicating that this satellite experienced month-to-month sensitivity changes. Data processed for November 1988-February 1991 showed a linear increase in sensitivity of 0.5%/year.”
It is also of interest that NOAA-15 ( launched august 1998 ) was equipped with a new version of the Microwave Sounding Unit, namely the Advanced MSU ( Wikipedia ).
All in all this info make me suspect that something must be wrong with the satellite-data for this period, but I have no chance to see if I am right or not, so therefore I turn Your attention to my observations.
Hope this is useful
Yours truly
Brge Krog
A wee sweep on the October anomaly from last thread:
MikeR: 0.51* & 0.58
g*e*r*a*n: 0.44
Isaac: 0.37
barry:0.27
Result: 0.63
Mike gets the car, I get a goat.
(* mean value of a range Mike gave)
Me too. It must the conspiracy or Russian hackers finally got the doctor denier. 🙂
Oh Chist, they steal my ascii smileys and replace them with unicode garbage.
Obviously all the hurricanes had more of an effect than I estimated.
But barry, I came in second, and you came in last, yet I get nothing and you get the goat?
A goat has SOME value. I got nothing, and you got something!
I want to see the rulebook. . . .
Oh …. “obviously”
Oh, I forgot, des has trouble with 4-syllable words.
Obviously.
No science from you.
I would think the amount of heat moved northward by the hurricanes etc, had a substantial influence. It was certainly warmer here after the hurricanes moved by – one to the east of us, one to the west.
But warmer is better than colder, so good!
You me and Isaac get goats. We should have switched.
Barry I await anxiously for the delivery of my car. I am hoping for a Tesla S but I probably should expect a matchbox car instead.
I did volunteer the fact that I had some inside information, so the bet wasn’t fair. The regression to the mean heuristic, which I suspect Barry used, would also have been my choice in the absence of the Aqua satellite data.
Unfortunately this heuristic isn’t that effective with what appears to be a non stationary data set.
I just made a guesstimate based on SSTs, which dropped fairly precipitously during October.
Sorry Barry, I forgot you said that SST was the basis of your prediction, my bad.
SST for some reason correlates only moderate well with UAH with,if I recall correctly, an Rsq of about 0.5, so it may not be the best metric to use as a predictor.
I want to play for Nov!
0.24
😀
0.41
Updates are allowed up to the last few days of Nov.
Winner gets a holiday in the Southern Hemispheric summer (I’ll provide the wine).
.33 C
I am playing the price is right
I’m not playing, I believed in a sharp drop but I was way off.
It’s strictly for fun.
I hope I am not too late with my prediction. The aqua satellite data seems to indicate, with the first 25 days in, a value of 0.39 C, so I will go with this value. The standard error (unbiased ie. no serial correlation for either data set) is 0.05 C gives a range from 0. 29 to 0.49 C.
Thank you for cheering me up barry, I say 0.41, thank you MikeR.
My guess… the anomaly map for the NH will show some persistent heat pockets that match the locations and paths of large, slow-moving storms.
Looking forward to testing that idea.
Regarding the long and somewhat distracting disclaimer for the 13 month running average: would it not be simpler to plot the 12 month average and forego the disclaimer? With the amount of data in the plot nowadays, the half-month lag between where the 12-month average is calculated (start/end of the months) and where the monthly averages are calculated (middle of the months) probably isn’t even visible.
My apologies in advance if you answered this question already (many times) before.
Then I would need a long and somewhat distracting disclaimer stating that the 12 month average doesn’t quite apply to the center month it is plotted on.
No you would not. Everybody used 12 month. Nobody care.
Using 13 month does not change anything but illustrate perfectly that you are limited in being smart.
Advice, write what you want to say, step away for many minutes, return and delete if it’s inflammatory or name calling.
The point I was trying to make is that you simply don’t plot the 12-month average on the center of the month.
Should be simple to plot the 12-month running average on the start/end of the month while the monthly averages are on the center of the month? The data table might become messy (with the time axis having center-month and start/end-of-month values), but in the graph, nobody would even see it (or care)?
Dr. Spencer:
“Then I would need a long and somewhat distracting disclaimer stating that the 12 month average doesn’t quite apply to the center month it is plotted on.”
That’s not quite true, because your data points are averages over months, and so represent the midpoint of each month. That is, your data represent times of 0.5/12, 1.5/12, 2.5/12, … 11.5/12, not 1/12, 2/12, 3/12,…12/12. The average is referred to the time which is the average of the sample times, and the average of the former is 0.5. So, a 12 month average of monthly averages does reflect the midpoint of the year.
A 13 point average applies at the average of -0.5/12,0.5/12,1.5/12,…11.5/12, which is at 0.46 years, so it is actually biased from the midpoint.
A concern is that there is a strong annual signal in the data. Let’s say I have a signal measured nominally in 30 day months that goes as sin(pi/6*t). I average this for t = 1,2,… 12, and I get zero. I tack one more month onto it, and I get an average of 0.0385. So, I am introducing a spurious annual component into the measurement.
It is not, however, a terribly significant concern if successive years overlap by one month, because the average for t = 1,2,…13 is 0.0385, but the average of 13,15,…24 is also 0.0385. Which means that the yearly component has aliased to a bias, and we don’t care much about a bias, because the baseline is arbitrary to begin with.
Bottom line: it’s not a big deal either way, but 12 month averaging is likely to raise fewer flags, leading to discussions like this.
Or better still, since the stated aim (in Dr Spencer’s disclaimer) is that the “13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data”, and given that this is a regularly sampled time series, why not simply use one of the numerous potential approaches used by engineers to remove high frequencies from data. e.g. a zero-phase digital filter with a corner frequency of 1/1 year. That would allow every point to be plotted at the same time as the sampled data, irrespective of what the phase of those samples is. It would also provide the benefit of having the smoothed line extend to very ends of the data set.
Another option is to use a Loess filter with the appropriate smoothing parameter that corresponds to a 12 month average. This has the advantage that it outputs smoothed and centered data that includes the last 6 months.
Sorry, but this is wrong , zero phase filters are only non-causal filters, meaning that they need to know the future data … which means that there is no filter that you could apply for the month of October, that would be zero phase.
And besides the 13 months moving average filter, used by Dr Spencer , shifted in time by 6 months as he did … is a zero phase filter, but only because of the 6 months delay ( and the fact that a moving average is symmetrical and “even”. )
There is nothing wrong about using a 13 months moving average filter, except for the fact that it far from being the best filter to filter out the high frequencies, as the FFT of a moving average filter is a sinc function with a tail that decrease slowly with frequency… It would be easy to suppress the high frequencies with any good standard lowpass filter with the appropriate cutoff frequency. A very minor change to the 13 months average filter , would be to divide the values of the first and last month by 2 when doing the sum , the filter would then be more like an average over one year, while cutting the high frequencies a little better than the 13 months moving average filter ( but the filter would still need to applied with a 6 months shift.
There’s no reason to prefer a 12-month running average over 13-month. The difference is unimportant. Different institutes have made different choices (21-point binomial filter anyone?) at different times.
Non-issue.
The WxBELL GMSTA reported for month-to-date through Oct 31 was 0.39C, which is 0.24C lower than the TLT for October. The WxBELL September GMSTA was 0.284C, so October was up by 0.09C.
There was a big high spike in the tropical Pacific temperatures in April and May with a smaller high spike in June – an almost mini El Nino event. Perhaps the TLT Sep-Oct upward spike is a delayed response to this very weak near El Nino event, similar to what we see with major El Nino events.
Oops, meant to say “tropical Pacific SSTA” instead of “tropical Pacific temperatures” in the second paragraph.
And I can’t add this morning either. The WxBELL GMSTA was up by 0.11C from Sep to Oct.
There are different reason of why it is different. Calculations from satellites observation are very uncertain. They are also more sensitive to variability. More generally, they are not an estimate of the same thing…
Interesting to see that you didn’t now that as well.
If satellite measurements are “very uncertain”, why do the RSS and UAH satellite measures correlate at 0.95 with each other (monthly anomalies since 1979), but HadCRUT4 and CFSv2 only correlate at 0.75 over the same period?
Ah ah you are do bad Spencer! You can get awsome correlation but not the same trend… Just compare the trend.
Also satellite calculations comes from same data and cover samebgeographical regions.
Nothing to say about the very strong sensitivity to variability? (And also to the method for adjusments)
you obviously think the satellite adjustments are bigger than the surface data adjustments. Wrong. We worry about adjustments of hundredths of a degree, the surface thermometer people deal with adjustments 10 times as large.
If I read SkS, I might end up thinking something else. But I do guess you should not put time in something as stupid as trying to debunk what Cook writes about you as we have a limited time on the Earth to work on.
No this is not what i think.
I think satellite drift slowly so it is difficult to adjust. Also there are very few satellites (so it is difficult to adjust) but a lot of thermometers.
Just look at difference between uah rss or different versions.
Yet the surface data sets are constantly tampered with and left unaccounted for to show a biased warming trend. Yeah surface data is way better then sattelite for sure! Pffft give me a break.
They purposely adjust it to fit there political needs and desires to support there stupid global warming agenda and you say surface data is better? Are you kidding me?!
Unless you had absolutely no idea I feel very bad for your lack of intelligence. Bahhhh screw it this whole generation is full of dumb turkeys. What could I say!?
Says the guy who doesnt know the difference between their and there.
Wow. Really? What does that have to do with anything? This is professional science not kindergarden grammar class. Perhaps next time you should consider making your conter arguments more scientific related.
And FYI I do know the difference between “there” and “their”. For example:
Look at all those global warming shills with THEIR billions of tax dollars in THEIR tax wallet. how did they get THERE? Oh… I know! By misleading the public into thinking that THERE is global warming and we are the cause of it and by slamming us with all THEIR carbon taxes to promote THEIR fake agenda. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
That makes no sense, Mickey. Slow, predictable drift is the easiest thing in the world to adjust. And, having a few satellites makes the measurements more, not less, homogeneous – you don’t have to take account of variations between all the hundreds of different instruments. And, the satellite measurements cover almost the entire Earth uniformly, whereas the ground measurements are sparse.
So, the measurement didn’t come out the way you expected. It’s only a couple of months of apparently anomalous measurements. Either the long term signal will assert itself sooner or later, or the divergence will be persistent, and a cause will have to be determined. You just have to have patience.
Just look at the difference between old and present UAH versions, between RSS and UAH : we are not able to adjust diurnal drift.
No all measurements come the way expected :
Increasing.
Since 1998? Nope don’t see an increase.
Roy,
You lie. The entire satellite data set is one massive adjustment.
Which of the surface adjustments do you believe is not statistically valid?
des spouts: “Roy, You lie.”
That’s pure DESperation, folks.
des knows his beliefs are caving in on his head. He lashes out, helplessly.
des-peration!
Roy, UAH made some huge changes going to version 6, much bigger than Karl et al’s surface changes in 2015:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/noaas-data-changes-actually-smaller.html
Several of your monthly regional changes were well over 1 C (!)
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/some-big-adjustments-to-uahs-dataset.html
I don`t want to be the first to visit da`s blog.
The origin of the Internet use of “troll” came from the action of an unknown blogger posting on a popular blog, “trolling” for viewers.
Davie has been blogging for years and is still trolling. . . .
‘We worry about adjustments of hundredths of a degree’
UAH 5.6 97-17 trend 0.160/decade
UAH 6.0 97-17 trend 0.079/decade
according to http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Lots of data must have been adjusted by ~ tenths of a degree to account for this.
The trend worshipers strike again.
Yes, facts must be frustrating for you guys? Best to downplay them..
Point-missers strike again.
Roy,
A few corrections are in order to the above. The UAH v6 and RSS TLT v4 data sets correlate at 0.92 while UAH v5.6 correlates at 0.94 with the same set.
You did show some concern above in the main text about the discrepancy between UAH and the surface data sets. In light of the following I would be too.
A full set of correlations between relevant data sets are shown at – https://s20.postimg.org/45cwop5fx/Correlations_UAH_Land.jpg . The regions highlighted are for correlations less than 0.7. Note these are only for UAH v6 .
UAH v6 correlates with CFSv2 (Weatherbell data used) at only 0.61 while both UAH v5.6 and RSS TLT v4 correlates better at 0.7 and 0.71 respectively.
Similarly with respect to H**RUT4 , UAH v5.6 (Rsq = 0.73) performs significantly better than UAH v6 (Rsq = 0.64) and RSS TLT v4 performs the best by far (Rsq=0.81).
The other think to note is amongst the surface data sets, the Waetherbell data is the odd man out and correlates relatively poorly with the other surface data sets (0.74 to 0.81). In comparison the correlations between the other 4 data sets are much better (0.92 to 0.98) .
No wonder Roy chose to emphasize Weatherbell data.
Sounds like time to go back to the drawing board for Roy and work on version 7 as UAH v6 seems to be a far inferior product than v5.6 . Maybe Roy should reinstate v5.6 . The trend would also more closely match every other data set, including Weatherbell, but that may not suit his narrative.
Thank you Dr. Roy for providing more data showing that Global Warming is real! Clearly the hottest October in your data set.
Let’s not confuse a single month’s anomaly (weather) with long-term climate.
Apparently Barry dr mark h Shapiro seems to be too stupid to understand
Iare all figures higher than a flat line an anomaly. There seem to be a lot of them in the last few years. Also, 4realz opinions do not even match Roy Spensors, who believes the globe is warming, albeit by natural processes.
Graham, you are correct. There has been no statistically significant global warming for almost two decades now. Although the earth has been warming since then from the late 1800s it is a natural warming cycle that occurs every couple 100 years and that is why we are not warming up anymore and we are heading into a cooling trend like before the dalton minimmum back in the 1800s. The climate is changing, weather is getting weirder, seasons are getting screwed up and out of flux. I get it. But it has always been a natural cyclical pattern that man has no detectable influence over no matter how much fossil fuels we burn into the atmosphere. I believe in natural cycles. I believe the climate is changing. I believe hurricanes are getting worse and so are extreme weather events like heat waves, droughts, flood, hail, snow etc but it is not caused by us. Mother Nature is sending us a message I suggest we pull our heads out of the sand immediately and start heeding it.
If Mother Nature is sending us a message, what is it? If the increase in the trend line is another part of a natural cycle, why would MN send us a warning (especially as you say we have no influence on global temperatures, regardless of how much carbon we release into the atmosphere)? Also, I dont understand your comment on lack of statistical warming over the last 2 decades. Are you using the peak El Nio as the initial reference point. I hope not, this would be a high level of buffoonery.
That the sun is going into hibernation and we are about to plunge into a grand solar minimum just like we did back in the 1800s and 1600s. Examples of this are dalton minimmum and maunder minimmum. This isn’t something that will happen over night. You still have time to prepare. Do your homework and good luck in your preparations
From:
https://moyhu.blogspot.ca/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
Temperature Anomaly trend
Sep 1994 to Sep 2017
Rate: 0.884C/Century;
CI from -0.010 to 1.778;
That is 23 years and 1 month.
“The Roman Warm Period or the Roman climatic optimum has been proposed as a period of unusually warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic that ran from approximately 250 BC to AD 400”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
So about 650 years
Medieval Warm Period
… lasting from about c. 950 to c. 1250.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
“The Maunder Minimum, also known as the “prolonged sunspot minimum”, is the name used for the period starting in about 1645 and continuing to about 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
And:
“The Maunder Minimum roughly coincided with the middle part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America experienced colder than average temperatures. Whether there is a causal relationship, however, is still controversial.”
I could look up the dark ages or other warm periods
But anyhow it seems to me that medieval Warm period as “counted” by wiki, is time of peak warmer times of period, and seems to me we might might not be in the peak warmer times of this present warming period.
Or if we dive back into temperatures of LIA within 50 years, I think it would counted as never leaving LIA.
Or in period of 1300 to 1900 I think there were a couple “failed attempts of warming” and currently at a very promising attempt to leave LIA. But haven’t reached the peak
time of this warming period.
Or think it will be centuries which are warmer and as warm as it is currently- though it’s possible that we are screwed.
Hahahahahaha!! One month hot and it is the hottest and global warming is real…. wait, it is real, so is cooling… I fail to see your point?
I cannot identify anything out of the ordinary in the anomalies.
Would you be as kind as to expand a little. You wouldn’t like us to think that comment is at the top of your I.Q. Doctor, now, would you?
Try a 39-year trend of +0.13 C/decade. Just a blip, right?
Just a “blip”, Davie.
39-year trend… it is a blip, but when you take into account the integers the IPCC predicts, it is not only a blip, but a marginal rounding error
If by “Global Warming” you mean a modest and possibly beneficial warming rate of uncertain origin, then I agree with you.
And, you’re welcome.
First define ”modest”.
The impacts is a more complex question but for sure the guy who say they will be all good is at least as stupid as the guy who say there will be all bad.
I’ll define “modest” when Dr. Shapiro defines “Global Warming”.
Well global warming refer generally to a surface temp index.
indeed it is good that you ask at a point view that UAH is not surface.
–mickey prumt says:
November 2, 2017 at 9:53 AM
Well global warming refer generally to a surface temp index.
indeed it is good that you ask at a point view that UAH is not surface.–
There is no surface 5 feet above the surface.
Surface temp refers to “air surface” which is not same the ground which is actually the surface.
Though ocean surface is pretty close to ocean air surface temperatures.
Difference air surface / surface is second order in this story. This is not the case for what is (supposed to be) observed by UAH satellite.
Your comment is not relevant.
Roy,
“modest and possibly beneficial warming rate of uncertain origin”
Science from your govt, led by fellow travellers, now officially disagrees with you.
” U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials”
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html
All appointees at DOE, EPA, etc and underlings had opportunity to point out flaws in the science, or conclusions of report.
This was all they could muster:
”
The only significant turbulence, according to one person familiar with the process, came from a midlevel political appointee at the Department of Energy who grilled the reports authors on changes that had been made to temperature and other climate data over the years. The authors responded by adding a more detailed explanation of their methodology and all of the agencies then gave their approval, the person said.
“
The importance of how much UAH differed from other data sets during the 1998-9 El Nino cannot be understated. Without that huge spike in UAH temperatures, the favorite talking point of the anti-AGW crowd for a decade and a half would have died a much shorter death. I just heard yesterday a quote from another Trump nominee that global temperatures stopped rising over ten years ago. Ted Cruz was fond of saying that “the satellites show no warming”. The “pause” lives on in the blogosphere even though it is nothing more than cherry picking a start date of 1998 in the UAH data set for comparison.
“understated”?
understate
verb
past tense: understated; past participle: understated
describe or represent (something) as being smaller, worse, or less important than it actually is.
“the press has understated the extent of the problem”
synonyms: play down, downplay, underrate, underplay, de-emphasize, trivialize, minimize, diminish, downgrade, brush aside, gloss over, put it mildly;
The importance cannot be understated ~ it is friggin important.
The importance cannot be understated means there is no lower bound on the importance, i.e., it could be zero.
The importance cannot be OVERstated ~ it is friggin important.
–I just heard yesterday a quote from another Trump nominee that global temperatures stopped rising over ten years ago.–
And the Trump nominee was and is correct.
“Ted Cruz was fond of saying that the satellites show no warming. ”
The satellites are suppose to accurately measure global temperature- if didn’t show warming and cooling then they would be inaccurate.
But in terms of a trend, the satellites are not showing any significant warming trend- nothing that indicate global temperature will be 2 C warmer within a century of time or temperature projection from Climate models are over estimating
future warming.
gbaikie:
“The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through October 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”
The satellite data definitely is suggesting 1.3 C for a century, which on top of the warming that already has occurred would make 2C.
Not sure where your data is coming from, but I imagine somewhere near where you keep your wallet.
George Rogers says:
“The satellite data definitely is suggesting 1.3 C for a century, which on top of the warming that already has occurred would make 2C.”
No, it is not.
You can’t extrapolate a 39-year trend over a century if there’s no expectation warming will remain linear. (And there’s not.)
” George Rogers says:
November 2, 2017 at 10:22 AM
gbaikie:
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through October 2017 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The satellite data definitely is suggesting 1.3 C for a century, which on top of the warming that already has occurred would make 2C. ”
If politicians if talking about 2 C rise from the time period of Little Ice age, it should be noted that no one wants to live in one the coldest period of the Holocene- that would be psychotic to want this- though politicians have a consistent track record of wanting the wrong thing- which on numerous occasions as resulted in tens of millions of people being killed with lots of human suffering.
No one thinks all warming since the Little Ice Age was caused by human activity- that also would be crazy.
If average temperature were to lower by .5 C, that would kill people and cause suffering- and everyone knows this.
Finally if simply using a trend determines future average temperature, we had no need of using expensive “supercompters”- why waste tens of billions of public monies.
“Not sure where your data is coming from, but I imagine somewhere near where you keep your wallet. ”
Yeah money from my wallet is related to climate models.
More important in terms of dollars wasted, is trillions of dollars over the years related to all the unneeded laws which are paying for government corruption related to solving “global warming”
Trillions of dollars wasted with zero wanted result other government oppression and corruption. Or the “future of the children” being flushed down a huge toilet.
German’s measured amount is about 800 billion on wind and solar which caused a increased in electricity costs and increase in CO2 emission. Essentially, or actually, a huge tax upon the poorest majority of Germans. And graft for those involved in the corruption.
Germany is a small country and it’s stupidity is most obvious. And I would say German accounting is better than most.
re: “though politicians have a consistent track record of wanting the wrong thing- which on numerous occasions as resulted in tens of millions of people being killed with lots of human suffering.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-communist-century-1509726265
There isn’t a huge difference between these communist politican leaders and the politicians in general.
The difference is some politicians are restrained and these communist leaders were in charge.
That’s the big difference,
Their ideology even their morality is not the big difference.
How did Germany’s wind and solar power plants increase CO2 emissions?
Because they used coal power energy to provide electrical energy when there wasn’t enough wind and sunlight.
They also had abundance of wind and sunlight in which the electrical power generated couldn’t be used and/or requiring other electrical powerplants to run inefficiently. And coal
power has advantage in terms dealing with fluctuating electrical power needs as compared to more efficient ways to make electrical power and to make electrical power which causes less CO2 emission per MW hour of power.
Or wind and solar make coal more competitive as compared other ways to make electrical power with lower CO2 emission costs.
Or quite simply, Germany is adding more coal powerplants into it’s energy mix because it makes more money compared to other ways.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does it match the facts. Show us data.
See data here for example
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/lightbox_image/public/images/factsheet/fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2016-new.png?itok=id8gqwD-
gbaikie: “Because they used coal power energy to provide electrical energy when there wasnt enough wind and sunlight.” As opposed to both when there isn’t as well as when there is?
As for “Or quite simply, Germany is adding more coal powerplants into its energy mix because it makes more money compared to other ways”: The reason for more coal isn’t wind and solar (although those are more expensive and driving up Germany’s electric bills), but Germany’s wrongheaded decommissioning of its nuclear power plants.
“At one point this month renewable energy sources briefly supplied close to 90 percent of the power on Germanys electric grid. But that doesnt mean the worlds fourth-largest economy is close to being run on zero-carbon electricity. In fact, Germany is giving the rest of the world a lesson in just how much can go wrong when you try to reduce carbon emissions solely by installing lots of wind and solar.”
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
Read the whole article.
“renewable sources accounted for nearly one-third of the electricity consumed in Germany in 2015. The country is now the worlds largest solar market. Germanys carbon emissions in 2014 were 27 percent lower than 1990 levels.”
Contradicts your statement that co2 emissions higher as a result of these policies.
Choice of coal vs gas or nuclear seems to be political or fear based, ie Russian gas, Fukushima.
— Nate says:
November 6, 2017 at 7:44 AM
renewable sources accounted for nearly one-third of the electricity consumed in Germany in 2015. The country is now the worlds largest solar market. Germanys carbon emissions in 2014 were 27 percent lower than 1990 levels.
Contradicts your statement that co2 emissions higher as a result of these policies.–
The policies I am referring started a decade or so before now, and 1990 level is almost 3 decade ago. 1990 level is picked
because it was at high level [why I will not get into] and was Germany’s Emission was dropping before these policies were invented.
It’s rising now, because of these policies. Or if policies worked, they should be dropping and they are not.
Wiki has two graphs of wind and solar installed capacity by year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
–The reason for more coal isnt wind and solar (although those are more expensive and driving up Germanys electric bills), but Germanys wrongheaded decommissioning of its nuclear power plants.–
Well more nuclear power used, gives less Co2 emission- and we had decades proving this.
But nuclear power has to be operated competently.
It’s possible the German nuclear power plants were badly managed with no easy solution to improve it.
Second if one has highly varying electrical grid, it’s going increase the costs of operating a nuclear power- and that generally makes an incompetently run nuclear power plant more dangerous.
I would favor laws outlawing politicians from ever managing the operations of a nuclear plant plant- because they are inherently and demonstratively incompetent at doing anything.
‘Its rising now, because of these policies. Or if policies worked, they should be dropping and they are not.’
I agree that CO2 emissions dont seem to be dropping rapidly as hoped–must be because of drastic reduction in nuclear–seemed like overreaction to Fukushima. No?
Warm is the word no doubt about it. Can not say anything to counter that fact.
Time will tell but if the global temperatures stay up like this, given cooling overall sea surface temperatures, given La Nina tendency if not outright La Nina coming, given very low solar coming into play, given above average snow cover, above average cosmic ray counts then rethinking would have to be done.
It is still early but if by next summer we are still running high with the above conditions in play then my view will be in trouble.
Agree. If, combination of La Nia, low solar, Cooling PDO and AMO in next few years doesnt result in lower global temperatures will have to rethink global warming issue
Might have to rethink global temperature itself, as these items are fundamentally incompatible with expectations.
Observations don’t match your theory? Just throw out the observations. /Sarcasm
Just to clarify, I suggested reexamining the theory, not the observations.
Real scientists reexamine both the observations and the theory. Constantly. Have been for centuries.
Not sarc for Bart..he has repeatedly shown that he believes this.
The bottom line is it is warm but still not convinced it is due to AGW.
Humans are having little effect upon Ocean temperatures, ocean temperatures are global average temperatures.
But we are recover from the cooler period of the Little ice age- a time period of cooler ocean temperatures and had periods of sea levels falling [slightly]. In last century we not had sea levels lowering and continue to recovery from LIA or continue to have warming in the Holocene period.
No indicate that Holocene period is ending and enter a glacial period.
Or if the Little Ice Age wasn’t “little” there would be evidence of the ending of the Holocene period.
gbaikie says:
“But we are recover from the cooler period of the Little ice age”
What’s causing the recovery?
Or is warming created out of nothing?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“The bottom line is it is warm but still not convinced it is due to AGW.”
Trust me, none of us are waiting breathlessly for your opinion — you’ve been consistently wrong all along.
—
“…here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
About reliability and trends : https://i0.wp.com/www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/polar2.png
It is good to have some elements in mind, for example, that regional and global trends in surface temperature series are never confirmed by independent observations.
Mickey writes in one of his replies to me:
“Look at the real observation of surface temperature and tell me there is no warming in thw lasr years
UAH is very uncertain (just compare with previous version and with RSS). Also tropo temp depends strongly on a small fraction of the globe so it is very sensitive to variability”
Look at the real observation of surface temperature and tell me there is no warming in thw lasr years
UAH is very uncertain (just compare with previous version and with RSS). Also tropo temp depends strongly on a small fraction of the globe so it is very sensitive to variabilty.
Average for decade of the :
80s -.142
90s .001
00s .1045
10s .230 so far
Is it too early to sing it?
‘Ding-dong the pause is dead, which old pause, the 10 y pause, the 20 y pause, whatever pause you think you see…’
1900’s: – slope
1910’s: + slope
1920’s: + slope
1930’s: ++ slope
1940’s: -slope
Please, explain to me Nate …. what’s your point? Natural variation FTW?
And yes, natural variations are present, some decadal, but these dont falsify the fact that there is ongoing upward trend, larger and longer than the one in the 1930s.
In 1958 atmpospheric CO2 levels were only around 315 ppm. This would not be sufficient to completely overwhelm natural variability – hence the fluctuations.
However, we’re not seeing decades long negative slopes now. A pause of a few years – perhaps but no long term cooling trend. I’ve followed the AGW debate for a number of years and I think I disagree with Roy that the cause of the warming is unknown. I don’t necessarily think it will be harmful but I’m convinced it is related to the addition of GHGs to the atmosphere.
I agree, we haven’t seen decades long negative slopes, as we saw from about the year 1000 AD to 1700 AD ……
Men, there’s a whole forest out there, and if we’re looking at four decades of data, it amounts to staring at one tree.
I agree that the science would indicate that, due to our rise from 280 to just a pinch above 400 ppm that some warming is due to CO2/GHG’s, but we have no idea to what degree and that warming is just buried in the noise.
Since the Industrial Revolution the plight of humans has improved tremendously, and cheap energy in the driving force. But we, as humans, are flawed, so let’s search for the apocalypse, it’s ingrained in us as part of the human condition. Oh Noah, where art thou ……..
We are not going backwards, that’s a fact, there will be riots in the street so that the masses can charge their cell phones …. and if we do go backwards it’s only going to hurt the peons, certainly not those well placed like Gore and DiCaprio. Renewables aren’t ready. Either give us fossil fuels, or give nuclear. Pick your poison.
“Men, theres a whole forest out there, and if were looking at four decades of data, it amounts to staring at one tree.”
Nevermind four decades, skeptics stare at the years 1998 – 2014.
More like a large branch than a tree.
I think I disagree with Roy that the cause of the warming is unknown
Roy does not dispute greenhouse warming. He thinks it probably has little effect, making up a small part of the warming.
Yes, Dr. Roy has a somewhat reasonable opinion. That’s why he’s likely, someday, to become an “extreme skeptic”.
Obviously, from all the data and theory at hand it is quite reasonable to suspect that the anthropic CO2 is indeed the main culprit and it is much less reasonable to contend that the cause of GW is “unknown”.
Yet it is quite true that the cause is not yet established and might still be of natural origin because we do not know enough about natural variability and are not capable to predict accurately enough the climate sensitivity.
Now whenever facing a (possible) threat alarmism is almost certainly an inappropriate posture. It triggers usually just idiotic behavior.
In fact, in present instance, we merely cannot even act and curb seriously the CO2 emissions without doing more harm than good. The laws of Physics and technology do not allow it right now and that cannot be modified by politicians or activists.
gammacrux
Your comment seemed very rational and an intelligent assessment of climate concerns.
I do think maybe if we could open up fusion energy it might satisfy most. I like the polywell concept (using electrostatic repulsion rather than magnetic confinement). Bussard was the chief designer of this process, the hope given was that single proton hydrogen (quite abundant and non radioactive) and boron (also very abundant) could be fused to release energy with the byproduct normal helium and no neutrons so radioactive shielding from a neutron flux would not be needed. Also, without a neutron flux, the materials used to build the confinement would not become radioactive. Without the threat of radioactive waste, the power plants could be smaller and require less manpower and be considerably lower cost than the deuterium/tritium reactors using magnetic confinement (which also release neutrons in the reaction).
It could be a dream too good to be true. I have read it would take about $100 million to build a prototype to test if the hypothesis is valid. I think the government could use some of the money they waste on wind energy subsidies to at least check this idea out and see if there is any hope to pursue it.
Norman
Yes, thanks. Indeed, B11 with H1 fusion is potentially promising because it would be very clean and fuel is naturally abundant. Besides polywell concept there is also the (pulsed) Z-machine (20 billions K obtained).
http://www.sandia.gov/z-machine/
As you point out if fusion of H2 with H3 is tamed it would not be “clean”. And that’s also because one could hardly economically resist and use the fast neutrons to initiate fast-neutron fission and breed fissionable fuel by surrounding the fusion chamber with a blanket of U238 or Th and so get 10 times more energy…
Physics Nobel Prize laureate Robert B. Laughlin published a relevant book “Powering the future”
http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/
— gammacrux says:
November 3, 2017 at 5:42 AM
Obviously, from all the data and theory at hand it is quite reasonable to suspect that the anthropic CO2 is indeed the main culprit and it is much less reasonable to contend that the cause of GW is unknown.–
What is obvious is the urban heat island effect are making urban environments unnaturally warmer by a very considerable amount- such as 5 C warmer.
And what obvious is more people live in such urban environments and CO2 levels are unrelated to causing such unnatural warmer conditions.
In terms of nature, nature has been in much warmer condition then present average global temperature.
And in terms of nature, the tropical region has average temperature of about 27 C- and life likes it.
And even humans, being a tropical creature, likes the warmer conditions in the tropics.
Human evolution has been human entering regions outside of the tropics and adapting to these colder condition, and have done this using human technology.
And much of these land regions have average temperature of about 10 C or lower.
Much of vast land regions which has fewer people in it, are colder than 10 C.
Canada and Russia having average of -4 C and the coldness in these largest countries, is economic barrier that even with modern technology can be difficult place to live- such regions have limited viable activities which are available- therefore less people are living there.
The crazy Soviets had big plans of expaning settlements in such undesirable regions, and that is related to the Russia Gulag. Which didn’t work out well, in a quite few different ways.
Dont think we had satellite measurements then….
but if you want to look at surface measurements the recent trends are even larger and pause even less apparent.
It’s 9:00 Am 50 degrees F, Now 10:00, and now 60. Now it’s 11:00 and now 70. By midnight we will all be melting!!!!!
I think this measurement, coupled with that of last month, is very anomalous, and deserves investigation. Where is the driving signal coming from? Is it at specific latitudes or zones? Or, was there a general uptick? Did anything happen to change the measurements? Did a satellite start losing thermal control? Are the ephemerides accurate? Did some floating point value in the computer code get accidentally integerized, and suddenly transition up or down a full value?
It may just be noise, and next month will see a plunge consistent with the ground observations. But, it is worthwhile getting out ahead of the situation, and start sifting through the data for insights. I don’t mean to appear like a know-it-all, as I’m sure Dr. Spencer et al. are continuously combing through the data for quality assurance. This is directed more at the general audience as things to keep in mind when forming impressions of the data.
Bart
“Just to clarify, I suggested reexamining the theory, not the observations.”
10 minutes later you’re doing just the opposite.
These data are not simple empirical observation, smh.
Observations have to be checked for consistency. These observations are odd, considering that we know La Nina conditions are developing, and the surface data sets reflect this as expected. It doesn’t mean they’re wrong, it just means they need to be scrutinized.
Bart
I expect surface data sets will be up sharply as well, close to or breaking all time highs for the month of October.
To my point:
“In the Moyhu NCEP/NCAR index, the monthly reanalysis average rose from 0.317C in September to 0.372C in October, 2017, making it the warmest month since May.”
https://tinyurl.com/y7c974gg
Bart
?….. My prediction is for October.
You think that line’s going to jump up higher than the peak?
Higher than the peak? Pay attention. I said, “close to or breaking all time highs for the month of October.”
Bart says:
“https://tinyurl.com/y7c974gg”
What an idiotic chart. You should be ashamed for trying to pass it off as meaningful.
The monthly data (all data, not a cherry pick) show a trend, from 1/1998, of +0.14 C/decade.
You know that. If you do, you’re being deliberately dishonest. If not, you are woefully incompetent. I don’t know which is worse.
PS: Had_CRUT is now on v4.6, not v4.5.
Now that’s ridiculous and dishonest.
The trend is A) way less than projected by the models B) only up because of a temporary El Nino blip at the end.
The recent UAH October anomaly is an all-time high for the month of October in that data set.
So, a single month’s measurement settles the argument?
Isaac is talking about Octobers. That was “the argument.”
Bart says:
“The trend is A) way less than projected by the models”
I’m sure you — especially you — can’t prove that in anything resembling an honest fashion.
I concur. I am having trouble finding any time in this data set when warming occurred over 4 consecutive months. There should be a clear reason why something so anomalous is happening, and if one cannot be found, errors are likely present.
I am having trouble finding any time in this data set when warming occurred over 4 consecutive months
From May 1989
Mar 1993
Feb 1994 (5 months consecutive warming)
Jan 2000
Jun 2003
May 2006 (5 consec months)
Mar 2011
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0.txt
Thanks
1. warming after La Nina
2. warming after Pinatubo? ENSO and UAH diverged here too
3. 3 months after minor El Nino
4. warming after La Nina
5. 3 month lag to moderate El Nino
6. 3 month lag to mild El Nino
7. warming after La Nina
Eyeballing it, this appears most similar to the warming from June-Oct 2003 — same time of year, occurred after weak El Nino conditions. Perhaps the magnitude of warming this time around is due to how soon after the major El Nino it occurred and although short-lived, the May-July El Nino conditions were moderately strong (stronger than 2003) according to the multivariate index.
Perhaps the September-October anomalies make more sense than at first glance.
And it helps when using the better fitting 3-month lag than 2-month lag that I was initially assuming.
I often see a 5-month lag posited – instead of basic it on peak-to-peak, the lag is calculated from the whole ENSO period, IIRC.
I am having trouble finding any time in this data set when warming occurred over 4 consecutive months.
RSS is not in for October, but they have warming over 3 consecutive months now.
RSS is now in, with a small drop in TLT since September. Interestingly however, their TTT dataset shows a further increase – smaller, but similar recent trend to UAH 6. The UAH weighting function (i.e. with altitude) is now more similar to RSS TTT (since UAH 6 versus 5.6) than their TLT, which is affected more by surface temperatures, so this suggests that some of the recent deviation from surface temperatures results from additional heat in the upper part of the troposphere that is included in the TLT data.
“Where is the driving signal coming from?”
ENSO 3.4 with usual tropo delay perhaps
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml?bookmark=nino3.4
Typically it’s a two month lag if I remember correctly. Even if the lag were delayed by a month, the amount of tropo warming doesn’t agree with how weak the midsummer 3.4 warming was.
Anomalies temperatury- the eastern Pacific and the Humboldt Current.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomw.11.2.2017.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Sorry.
Temperature Anomalies – Pacific.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Has there ever been a consecutive 4 month increase that is not associated with El Nino? This result is very surprising to me considering the SH and tropics surface cooling.
The main warming has been over the Arctic ocean, just like this time last year.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#GFS-025deg.ARC-LEA.T2_anom
Antarctica has been warm as well.
(for the Gordon’s out there: I’m talking anomaly, not actual temperature).
Where is Arctic sea ice NOW?
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00944/x37wvgslnkyq.png
Ren
Despite the anomalous warm temperatures over the Arctic Ocean, actual temps are around – 20 C. Plenty cold for lots of ice to form.
Let’s hope we never see an ice free winter in the Arctic.
I could buy that, but that data is for 2m above the surface, not from 2m-the upper troposphere.
Not buying it? Where was TLT warming most pronounced?
RWTurner,
Check my reply to you here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-270972
How much did the Koch brothers pay you to lie on this website?
Did it take both neurons to come up with that?
Actually Duchamp (de navets) is equipped with one neuron and cooperated with Dufumier (de la ferme), same equipment.,
Annual Antarctic sea ice extent (total area of at least 15% ice concentration) for the last 7 years.
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/extent_s_running_mean_amsr2_previous.png
Operational SST
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.11.2.2017.gif
Winter will be severe in North America.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00944/0hjfvdmy64od.png
Winter in America is cold,
And I just keep growing older.
Enrico Fermi said the US had every advantage going for it, except for climate.
Alas.
It appears that the 4012 replies have been entombed in High Fells of Rhudaur.
I wonder how many blog post have had so many. The vast number seemed to slow things down.
Looking at it, I see one of my post in still in moderation- no doubt a ghost rather possibly alive.
And elsewhere I was asking about copper cubes and there rate of cooling. No one had answers.
But there was reply:
-bobdroege says:
October 31, 2017 at 11:57 PM
Newtons Law of Cooling.
You Sir, have been schooled.-
Anyways, I was wondering [related to reply] if all would agree that a cube touching another cube [of solid cooper] with temperature difference would conduct more heat than compared to amount it could radiate. Or if you separate them by 1 mm, one gets a lot less heat transfer via radiation.
Could this increased difference between surface and troposphere temperature tell us something about the heat flux between the surface and space?
Intuitive I would think that this means that more thermoenergy is now transported away from the surface.
— Ryddegutt says:
November 2, 2017 at 2:18 PM
Could this increased difference between surface and troposphere temperature tell us something about the heat flux between the surface and space?
Intuitive I would think that this means that more thermoenergy is now transported away from the surface.–
I would agree, but say transporting rather than finished transported.
But rather say it indicates less energy was absorbed by the entire ocean at that time.
–absorbed by the entire ocean–
I meant absorbed within the ocean, though another possibility could more was absorbed of which was more immediately evaporated so as to increase global air temperature.
Though might have something to due with hurricanes [as G said] drawing up tens of meters of warm ocean water and quickly dumping it atmosphere. But I don’t think the “more hurricane activity” was much of factor.
Basically I would say we had large El Nino which is a big butterfly.
Effects still echoing.
And why did we have such a large El Nino?
Because the ocean temps in the El Nio zone are higher. What made the ocean temps higher over multidecadal timescales? Increased penetration of Solar short wave electromagnetic radiation into the ocean, particularly at Tropic latitudes. What caused the increase in Solar short wave electromagnetic radiation at the surface, particularly at Tropic latitudes, over multidecadal timescales? Reduction in low level Cumulus cloud, particularly at Tropic latitudes. What caused the reduction in low level Cumulus cloud, particularly at Tropic latitudes? Unknown.
GC, tropical cloud reduction has been predicted by multiple scientific papers.
Ask me again if you can’t find them.
re:
— David Appell says:
November 3, 2017 at 8:19 PM
And why did we have such a large El Nino?–
And:
— GC says:
November 5, 2017 at 10:59 PM —
Why large El Nino? In simply terms, because
we didn’t have much EL Nino preceding it.
I would say the warming of El Nino [or cooling of
La Nina] causing temperature changes isn’t “global warming”
in similar manner that any added heat from a hurricanes
isn’t “global warming”. Or it’s heat relaesed to the atmosphere which will radiate into space, It takes some time
to radiate into space, but it’s basically out the door.
Of course most imagine that warming atmosphere is global warming. I imagine warming the ocean is global warming.
So it’s a bit of problem for me to explain it.
Svante,
Yes, I would like to see these paper’s that you refer to. I’d be very surprised to read that they were anything but models making projections without physicality, as clouds are poorly understood. Do these paper’s make forecast for stabilisation of low level cloud coverage levels throughout 2000’s?
GC, here’s a list, follow their references for more:
https://tinyurl.com/ydg3bg48
Note that there are multiple pages.
Roy
Why do you worry about your data only when this divergence shows UAH warmer than the surface, but not when it comes out colder?
Because the surface custodians have their thumb on the scales. So, it is expected that actuals would be lower. When they appear to be higher, it raises eyebrows.
Yes – perhaps they have made too many downward adjustments to the surface data.
Bart says:
“Because the surface custodians have their thumb on the scales.”
Bias adjustments REDUCE the long-term warming trend!!
(How would you choose to correct for the known biases?)
Meaningless. Trends are not helpful in identifying causes. The “adjustments” eliminate characteristics which show that temperatures do not correlate with CO2.
The question isn’t whether temperatures have gone up in the last 100 years. The question is why? And, it’s obviously not because of CO2.
Bart says:
“Trends are not helpful in identifying causes.”
Congratulations — that’s your dumbest comment yet. (Among many competitors.)
Yours are equally valueless. Suppose I have less than a quarter cycle of a sinusoid, and fit a trend to it. Of what value is this information for projecting long term behavior?
“And, its obviously not because of CO2.”
In Barts unbiased opinion…
The UAH data comes from NOAA. I’d like to know more about any interference NOAA may have with the data before it is handed over. Or does UAH get the data directly from the satellites?
If NOAA has anything to do with the data before it is handed over, given their recent track record fudging data, it would not surprise me if the UAH data is fudged before passing it on.
This is exactly what I predicted last month that you guys would do.
Like robots GHE denying crackpot’s behavior is fairly predictable.
Unlike other living creatures who are complex systems.
Gordon Robertson, how can you be that stupid ?
how is it possible ?
Is there any way that we can help you ?
thank you for your response.
Gordon Robertson says:
“If NOAA has anything to do with the data before it is handed over, given their recent track record fudging data, it would not surprise me if the UAH data is fudged before passing it on.”
Baseless claims with no evidence at all.
The sign of a man desperate to maintain his delusions.
It is warm the question is does this last in the face of factors now coming into play that promote cooling.
Those being low solar, and associated effects and overall oceanic cooling in addition to La Nina tendency now coming on.
Snow coverage above normal, and with cosmic rays on the increase chances favor more global cloud coverage.
That would translate to a higher albedo.
You can’t fight the data which is very against what I am expecting thus far.
How much cooling would you expect? Because of the developing La Nina, it is very that we will see some cooler months at the beginning of 2018.
One thing is certain – the anomaly can’t stay this high.
However … I seem to recall saying that last month.
The trend value is only +0.28. And I can guarantee that if the anomaly falls to the trend value next month then deniers will be speaking of ‘massive cooling’ instead of a ‘return to normality’.
Even without a full-blown La Nina, the tropical Pacific IS cooling, and we should expect to see sub-average temperatures by early next year. If a non-weak La Nina develops there is the possibility of negative anomalies, and if it is a strong one we would EXPECT negative anomalies, even -0.25. However, all indications at the moment are that any La Nina will be weak.
It’s by no means certain a la Nina will develop.
Just over a year ago people were calling a certain la Nina as the el Nino dropped. Temps didn’t dive very deep after el Nino finished. Wait and see.
Thanks for that, Barry. I was thinking of reposting my cheesy WWB comment.
Wait until we least expect it.
— Salvatore Del Prete says:
November 2, 2017 at 4:29 PM
It is warm the question is does this last in the face of factors now coming into play that promote cooling.
Those being low solar, and associated effects and overall oceanic cooling in addition to La Nina tendency now coming on.
Snow coverage above normal, and with cosmic rays on the increase chances favor more global cloud coverage.
That would translate to a higher albedo.–
Suppose [not say they do, just suppose] these factors mostly affect land surfaces.
Does cooler land surfaces [which effects human land dweller the most] affect global temperatures?
If land surface temperatures were to lower by average of 1 C that would big effect upon the already frigidly cool average land surface temperatures, but if ocean surface stays about the same, that large amount of land surface cooling doesn’t have much effect upon average global temperature.
I wouldn’t guess you think land surfaces are going to lower by as much a 1 C, but if it was 1/2 C cooling of land surface only, it’s 1/2 as much “of not much effect upon global average temperature”. And 1/2 C or less of cooling of land surface could also have bad consequences for land dwellers.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM
“The over all trend for year 2017 is down and Sep. will not be as warm as Aug.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261192
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“It is warm the question is does this last in the face of factors now coming into play that promote cooling.”
“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
I wonder what would happen if no one recycled arguments we’ve seen here a dozen times already.
Deniers would quickly run out of things to say.
The quality of an argument doesn’t depend on how many times it is repeated or withheld.
The quality of a conversation does.
The pattern looks like a wavelet and the post cursor. Sort of like the 2016 el nino sequence was: ocean released energy, then major temp spike, then a smaller spike as a post cursor that we see now. What is interesting is this is the only major el nino without a la nina, and maybe the cool la nina dampens this signal. It is fascinating to watch such a high resolution record.
See SOI at
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=SOI
Global temperatures tend to lag the SOI by about 6/7 months.
This graph shows the SOI within El Nino range for parts of May through July. I would anticipate a rapid cooling from end January on. Maybe extreme cold end March into April
For where we are now re climate trends and forecasts see
The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.
Dr. Norman J. Page
Email: [email protected]
Energy & Environment
0(0) 118
(C )The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488
ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.
Sage Publications. Pretty much says all you need to know.
From Dr. Page in 2010:
“At this time the sun has entered a quiet phase with a dramatic drop in solar magnetic field strength since 2004. This suggests the probability of a cooling phase on earth and it seems possible that Cycle 23 is more or less equivalent to Cycle 4 so that a Dalton type minimum is likely.”
Summary of his professional background: “International oil exploration geology and management in most of the worlds most active plays and basins including Brazil, Peru, Bolivia.Columbia Venezuela.North Sea, Algeria ,Nigeria,Gabon , Ghana Egypt Syria United Staes Gulf Coast and Offshore GOM. etc etc.”
From the same 4 year update.
2. The Past is the Key to the Present and Future . Finding then Forecasting the Natural Quasi-Periodicities Governing Earths Climate – the Geological Approach.
2.1 General Principles.
The core competency in the Geological Sciences is the ability to recognize and correlate the changing patterns of events in time and space. This requires a mindset and set of skills very different from the reductionist approach to nature, but one which is appropriate and necessary for investigating past climates and forecasting future climate trends. Scientists and modelers with backgrounds in physics and maths usually have little experience in correlating multiple, often fragmentary, data sets of multiple variables to build an understanding and narrative of general trends and patterns from the actual individual local and regional time series of particular variables. The value of the geologists’ approach to understanding the past is proven by the trillions of dollars spent by the oil companies to find and produce the millions of barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of gas needed daily to fuel the world economy. It works!
Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths combined with endogenous secular earth processes such as, for example, plate tectonics. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of the relation of the climate of the present time to the current phases of these different interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories.
a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles which are modulated by
b) Solar “activity” cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.
The convolution of the a and b drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earth’s climate and weather.
After establishing where we are relative to the long wave periodicities to help forecast decadal and annual changes, we can then look at where earth is in time relative to the periodicities of the PDO, AMO and NAO and ENSO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts for future decadal periods.
In addition to these quasi-periodic processes we must also be aware of endogenous earth changes in geomagnetic field strength, volcanic activity and at really long time scales the plate tectonic movements and disposition of the land masses.”
The main deficiency of the establishment scientists is their lack of practice in correlating events in time and space. It is the main task of Exploration geologists – but their interpretations are then tested soon after they are made by drilling wells which cost sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars. Academic forecasts are only judged by how closely they follow the “consensus” or the party line.
My forecasts naturally are updated as data comes in.
See eg
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
2014 Updates and Observations..
“3.2.1 Updates
a) NH Forecast- item 4. With regard to timing, closer examination of the Ap Index (Fig13) and Neutron Count (Fig.14) would suggest that the sharpest drop in activity is better placed at 2005/6 with the associated sharp temperature drop now forecast at 2017-18.
b) Global Forecast – item1. Significant temperature drop now forecast for 2017-18.
c) Global Forecast – item 9. Another year of flat Livingston and Penn umbral data suggests that a swift decline into a Maunder Minimum is now very unlikely.”
Dr. Page
“Significant temperature drop now forecast for 2017-18.”
You and Salvatore should get together. He regularly updates his forecasts as well.
And don’t forget – there is absolutely no guarantee of a Maunder-like minimum anyway. Ice-age freaks always talk as though this is a certainty that we have the ability to predict.
Des I can’t guarantee it but here is what the paper says re Maunder minimum
“3.1 Long Term.
The depths of the next LIA will likely occur about 2640 +/-. In the real world no pattern repeats exactly because other things are never equal. Look for example at the short-term annual variability about the 50-year moving average in Fig. 3. The actual future pattern will incorporate other solar periodicities in addition to the 60-year and millennial cycles, and will also reflect extraneous events such as volcanism. However, these two most obvious cycles should capture the principal components of the general trends with an accuracy high enough, and probability likely enough, to guide policy. Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting alone have no necessary connection to reality if turning points picked from empirical data in Figs 4 and 10 are ignored.”
The 4 year update made in 2014/7 says Temperature drop in 17/18
My opening comment above says
“Global temperatures tend to lag the SOI by about 6/7 months.
This graph shows the SOI within El Nino range for parts of May through July. I would anticipate a rapid cooling from end January on. Maybe extreme cold end March into April” {2018}
In 2012 Norman Page predicted global cooling — he was, ey aw — wrong. Very wrong.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/05/dr-norman-page-phd-still-batshit-insane.html
Page’s 2012 prediction: “the earth is entering a cooling phase which is likely to last about 30 years and possibly longer.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/
wrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.
Judging by Norman Page and Donald Easterbrook, a geologist must be at least 80 years old to believe this nonsense. And Salvatore looks like he is at least in his 70s – and that’s from a 5 year old photo. Global cooling is a pastime for old bored retired men who are desperate to make a difference in their remaining time. They desperately NEED to see a sign of cooling to give their life meaning. And they WILL make sure they see it – all they need is a proverbial ink blot and they can see anything they want to.
“Energy & Environment”
E&E, the deniers’ journal of last resort.
Whose editor admitted she was biased.
David No doubt you used your model forecast crystal ball to see that a thirty year forecast made in 2012 was wrongwrong …………
Des.The basis of my forecasts is the commonsense observation the a millennial cycle peaked in the 1st decade of the 21st century. See Figs 3 and 4
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YLvyjyaX2tA/WKMxjcuJlvI/AAAAAAAAAiw/pONkGQYs6IQp6GRzj7lpTXn6lpSuOHjjwCLcB/s1600/Norman%2Bimage-Fig3.jpg
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ouMJV24kyY8/WcRJ4ACUIdI/AAAAAAAAAlk/WqmzMcU6BygYkYhyjNXCZBa19JFnfxrGgCLcBGAs/s1600/trend201708.png
and that this peak correlates with the solar driver peak in 1991 -Fig 10.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UWSO88ieveo/WKM9gBMvnvI/AAAAAAAAAj8/NPOxSOwhpe0A-OgJl6V4ypOB6vNpaMwmwCLcB/s1600/oulu172.gif
This should be blindingly obvious to everyone except those who,for reasons I find incomprehensible, choose to ignore all but the last about 150 years of data.
The positive side of the y-axis on Roys chart already has to be 40% larger than the minus side just to fit the results. You know youre in trouble when youve got to expand the axis because the warming trend no longer fits your chart.
And the fear mongering begins.
What did he say that has anything to do with ‘fear’?
I’m so happy that October had such pleasant weather this year up here in the northeast US.
Had to delay taking ACs out. Not enjoyable. I like Fall weather.
I bet old “pause” t-shirts are going cheap now.
just need to update 1998.
There is no warming since 2016.
Actually where I live there has been no warming since 2:23 pm.
des: +1 (and funny too)
Nay, nay. The last 4 months warmed, so….
Possibly this short-term malarkey will contract to a totally insane day-by-day bunfight.
At night, geomagnetic activity increased. Agung’s seismogram again reacted. This means that any stronger geomagnetic storm may cause an eruption.
https://www.facebook.com/Sunclimate-719393721599910/
Huhh!??
Ignore him. He has his own alternative version of science.
Seismogram G. Agung
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00944/cqplb669vr8w.png
The temperature quickly drops in Canada.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00944/xj493k38x5zi.png
As always, ren offers a single snapshot of Canadian temperatures, which says absolutely nothing about how quickly the temperature is dropping or changing.
At least ren is consistent.
Ice extent is growing rapidly in Baffin Bay.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00944/qo2c9df0jmtj.png
Yes – that tends to happen as winter approaches.
In fact, the troposphere is a very thin layer of atmosphere. Especially over the poles.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
Thin in what respect? It contains about 80% of the atmosphere.
In that respect.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2017.png
What exactly do you think you are showing me where the word “thin” would apply?
I wonder where all that heat went over the last two months. Obviously not into the atmosphere 😉 🙂
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/carssta.png
What is the significance of that tiny area?
85W-65W : 10N-20N
The Caribbean?
Scientifically, there is a lot of significance. For example, it is a pretty clear evidence of how hurricanes extract energy from the oceans/seas. And that demonstrates one of the ways the Earth can cool itself. It also explains the high anomaly for Oct. UAH.
(Please keep this info confidential. We don’t want Warmists learning any science. They believe CO2 can heat the planet, and we love their comedy.)
It also explains the high anomaly for Oct. UAH.
Fascinating stuff.
So there must have been more intense hurricane activity in the Gulf in October compared to September, seeing as how the hurricanes determine the monthly SSTs there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season
Yes, but remember there is a lag before all the heat energy moves to space. So October satellites are “seeing” some of both September and October.
Do SSTs lag by a month?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/carssta.png
No, SST’s respond pretty quickly. It’s the heat energy released by the hurricanes that requires time before being radiated to space.
Don’t know if you checked out the hurricane season timeline, but October was relatively quiet compared to an extremely active September, so I’d have expected to see very low SSTs in Sept, and higher SSTs in Oct if hurricanes were sucking the energy out.
Is it possible other factors cause SSTs, and hurricanes respond to SSTs rather than determine them?
You may be confusing SSTs with the heat energy released to the atmosphere.
The graph you linked to is an average of SSTs, so it will lag. The SST immediately affected by an individual hurricane will not lag. The heat energy in the atmosphere can take weeks to make it to space.
Solar energy causes SSTs to rise. Evaporation (hurricanes and El Ninos) cause SSTs to fall.
The Caribbean SST graph was in the first post in this thread, so after you commented that hurricanes sucked the energy from the ocean, I checked out the 2017 hurricane season to see if the biggest hurricanes (and the month of highest hurricane activity) had indeed sucked energy out that region. I also checked the storm tracks to see which storms had passed through the Gulf and when exactly.
The SST chart is a daily SST chart from August to Nov.
For almost all of the period SSTs do the opposite of what would be expected if hurricanes crossing the Gulf were sucking the energy out of it to such a degree it would impact sea surface temperatures.
September values are mostly above 0.4C. October values are on average cooler than that 0.4, and cooled for most of that month, while there was only one hurricane that crossed through the gulf early in the month.
SSTs rose for the period from Sept 13 to Sept 25. Hurricane Maria crossed the Caribbean during the middle of this period mostly as a Cat 5 storm.
Looking for a correlation with hurricanes depleting heat from the SST I first questioned the significance of, I found instead mostly anti-correlation.
Check for yourself:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/carssta.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season
Not to mention, the Atlantic is not the only zone where super storms occur. There’s the Pacific Ocean, too. The Caribbean is not the only place where storms track in the Atlantic, so it seems a little narrow-viewed to drill down just to there. I think it’s a bit simplistic to reckon that hurricanes hitting the Caribbean is all you need to know to account for the latest high UAH anomaly.
(Sorry, I’ve had to cut my original single post into bits and lose some – wordpress wouldn’t post a section)
barry throws out another red herring: “I think its a bit simplistic to reckon that hurricanes hitting the Caribbean is all you need to know to account for the latest high UAH anomaly.”
Sooooo desperate.
Now barry is “proving” that hurricanes heat the planet (anti-correlation to lowering SSTs)!
I just love the comedy.
How does water vapor radiate energy away to space? I was under the impression that water vapor merely moves the heat to higher altitudes, the heat is exothermically released at altitude where it cools. The energy itself not leaving the system. I was under the impression that water vapor could not radiate heat energy to space unless interacting with particulates in the Tropopause.
I will throw my support in with g*e*r*a*n on this debate. Hurricanes do cool the ocean surface directly (up to 4 C in some places, at least for a period of time, the ocean will rebound).
Here is empirical evidence that directly supports what g*e*r*a*n is saying.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6223
barry throws out another red herring
Just looking at the observations. And thnking of the woods instead of a tree. I have no idea if hurricanes warm or cool global SSTs/TLT, or if their impact is at all significant.
Here is empirical evidence that directly supports what g*e*r*a*n is saying.
That’s just one hurricane track for one period. I got inverse results looking at September/October. I wonder if hurricanes make a significant impact on the global TLT. I don’t think that link provides a definite answer (effect could be negligible). I did see the cool wakes following some of this season’s hurricanes.
A check on this would be to gather the SSTs for the Gulf over busy hurricane seasons and check the timing of temp fluctuations. Then for the same seasons, check the TLT fluctuations (allowing for lag?). Then it would probably be a good idea to see if these fluctuations could be found outside Atlantic hurricane season.
The Pacific should probably also be included to get an idea of global influence of hurricanes on global SSTs/TLT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Pacific_hurricane_season
For a little perspective, here is the global SST anomaly map for Sept 21. Maria (Cat 5) had just hit Puerto Rico the day before.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.9.21.2017.gif
Here’s the anomaly map for Oct 19, when there were no hurricanes in the region.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.10.19.2017.gif
More global SST anomaly maps for your viewing interest.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/
The Carribean is not the only area of ocean that has its surface cooling over the last few months. I have watched Eastern Indian, SW Pacific (all ENSO zones), North Pacific and South Atlantic all cool significantly over the last to months. I say again…where did all the heat go .
Dr Spencer….is you data able to show significant LT warming in these areas as opposed land areas….or is the mixing to fast.
Btw…some of the areas I mentioned above have warmed slightly over the past week…as can be seen in the 7 day anomaly.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_relative_global_1.png
cloudbase,
you can get monthly regional anomalies for UAH here.
http://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
Looking at that I see most regions have warmed over the last few months, so maybe even if tropical seas did cool, the rest of the globe countervailed. The Arctic (NoPol) warmed by 1.3C from July to September, for example, and the extratropical regions warmed, too.
It may be unwise to put all your eggs in the tropical ocean basket.
Not all the areas I pointed out are tropical Barry. My original post was somewhat tongue in cheek…..but with huge areas of the oceans cooling so quickly you have to ask did it move into the atmosphere via evapoation and therefore has the last few months been globally cloudier those temporaily trapping heat within the LT.
If there is a monthy global graphy of cloudiness I’d be interested in a link.
Ren ??
Typo ^ monthly global graph.
Not all the areas I pointed out are tropical Barry.
I know, but hurricanes are generally tropical phenomena.
Gave you the link to regional data in response to your question:
Dr Spencer.is you data able to show significant LT warming in these areas as opposed land areas
Includes anomalies for global, tropical, NH, SH, NH extratropic, SH extratropic, Arctic and Antarctic ocean regions.
http://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
G*: “We dont want Warmists learning any science.”
G*s idea of ‘science’ is a bit unusual. Hand-waving conjectures by a dude on a blog, lacking calculation or even estimates, are not science. Not worried about learning too much.
2005 was a record setting hurricane year with 3 cat 5s, 1 cat 4, some cat 3s. Would expect a significant jump in UAH LT temp in Fall of that year.
Lets check: Nope.
For those who claim that hurricanes can cause GLOBAL warming, here is an analysis of the UAH response to Atlantic hurricane clusters over the past 20 seasons. I have included all clusters of category 3-5 hurricanes that include AT LEAST TWO CATEGORY 4 OR 5s. In square brackets are the CHANGES in UAH anomaly from the previous month. As people are claiming that the October 2017 anomaly is due to a lag from September, I have included the month following the end of the cluster.
1998
Sep 15 Nov 5 ONE category 5, ONE category 4
[Sep -0.08, Oct -0.04, Nov -0.28]
1999
Aug 18 Sep 23 FOUR category 4
[Aug -0.05, Sep +0.12, Oct -0.06]
2000
Sep 21 Oct 6 TWO category 4
[Oct +0.02, Nov -0.03]
2001
Oct 4 Nov 5 TWO category 4
[Oct +0.19, Nov -0.01, Dec -0.02]
2003
Aug 25 Oct 7 ONE category 5, ONE category 4, ONE category 3
[Sep +0.05, Oct +0.14, Nov -0.11]
2004
Jul 31 Sep 24 ONE category 5, THREE category 4, TWO category 3
[Aug +0.13, Sep +0.12, Oct +0.13]
2005
Jul 4 Oct 31 – FOUR category 5, ONE category 4, TWO category 3
[Jul +0.07, Aug -0.12, Sep +0.13, Oct +0.02, Nov -0.07]
2007
Aug 13 – Sep 5 – TWO category 5
[Aug +0.02, Sep -0.08, Oct 0.00]
2008
Aug 25 Nov 10 – FOUR category 4
[Sep +0.18, Oct -0.02, Nov +0.06, Dec -0.04]
2010
Aug 21 – Sep 20 – FOUR category 4, ONE category 3
[Sep +0.03, Oct -0.17]
2011
Aug 21 Oct 3 TWO category 4, ONE category 3
[Aug -0.04, Sep +0.01, Oct -0.22, Nov +0.03]
2016
Sep 28 Oct 18 – ONE category 5, ONE category 4
[Oct -0.03, Nov +0.04]
Average of all CHANGES in UAH anomaly for the months under consideration …. a massive +0.0005 degrees. In other words there is NO effect, and any year that APPEAR to show an effect (eg. 2004) are just random noise.
Now 2017:
Aug 17 – Oct 16 – TWO category 5, TWO category 4, TWO category 3
[Aug +0.12, Sep +0.13, Oct +0.09]
I predict that certain people here will point to 2004 as the “perfect example” of what they are talking about, while completely ignoring the rest.
Time to find another excuse.
That’s a good start, des. But to be meaningful, you would also have to correlate with each hurricane location and duration.
Otherwise, your results could easily be skewed.
I encourage you to continue. Who knows, maybe you can prove hurricanes help cool the planet. . . .
Do you defend the idea that hurricanes can cause GLOBAL warming ?
Is it possible to defend such an stupid idea ?
Do you defend the idea that you can think logically and follow a discussion?
Yes I do.
Any examples?
Yes of course,
go read this long discussion again and again and again and again :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2017-0-21-deg-c/#comment-253883
Or just read my comments here. e.g. my discussions with Spency who do not understand its own dataset.
So many examples.
Your link clearly demonstrates you can NOT think logically and follow a discussion.
So tell me what work YOU have done to “correlate with each hurricane location and duration” that leads you to believe that hurricanes can alter global climate.
Oh – and try to avoid another one of your meaningless throw away lines. Something that ADDS to the discussion would be appreciated,
des, I don’t waste time trying to prove the obvious. My time is much better spent canceling out pseudoscience.
Yet you spend all your time SPREADING pseudoscience. How can it possibly be ‘obvious’ based on what I have shown you?
“Obvious” comes from an understanding of the thermodynamics of evaporation. The subsequent condensation (rain) releases enormous amounts of heat energy into the atmosphere, which later gets radiated to space. The end result is a net cooling of the planet.
The data you assembled was a good start, as I indicated. But, you must correlate the heat content involved with the satellite data, to find exact influence. For example, the eye pressures might be a good way to compare hurricanes. A reasonable assumption might be that lower pressures cause more evaporation.
Then, you would need to include how long the pressures are maintained. A good check would be to also estimate the amount of rainfall, from each hurricane.
The end result of such a massive study would show the obvious, that hurricanes move ocean/sea heat energy to space. But, the exact details and effects on UAH anomalies would be interesting.
The fact that heat gets dumped into the atmosphere is indeed obvious. That they produce the amount of heat required to cause significant GLOBAL warming is NOT. As no serious meteorologist (INCLUDING Dr Spencer) believes that this anomalous warming is caused by hurricanes, it is up to you and your ilk to prove them wrong. Unless you do that, these claims are mere conjecture.
des states: “That they (hurricanes) produce the amount of heat required to cause significant GLOBAL warming is NOT (obvious).”
des, you keep using the wrong terminology. I never said hurricanes cause “global warming”. They result in global cooling.
Maybe this information will help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
One day of rainfall energy release from an average hurricane is 5×10^19 joules according to the chart in the link. Latent heat seems about 400 times more energy than that in the winds of a hurricane.
An average hurricane could move that much energy into the atmosphere via latent heat of condensation.
On this graph:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-total-heat-content-of-the-Earths-atmosphere-partitioned-between-its-various-layers
They show that it would take about 5×10^21 joules to raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 1 C. This would be the whole atmosphere but most the mass is in the troposphere (around 80%).
Hurricanes would have some effect on troposphere temperatures as recorded by UAH but it would not appear to be too great an effect, regional could be large, global would be much smaller.
Norman
How much solar energy would be reflected by a 300 mile wide cloud in the tropics?
I think this would need to be studied and then subtracted from any heat added by the ocean.
Sir Isaac Snapelton
I found that the low thick clouds could reflect up to 90% of the incoming solar flux.
I used your 300 mile cloud. It would be 483,000 meters across. The area of the cloud would be around 7.33×10^11 m^2.
Using this chart you get around 400 w/m^2 flux at equator (night and day cycle)
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6i.html
That would give you a total of 2.64×10^14 watts of energy that is reflected by the cloud. In 24 hours you would lose around 2.28×10^19 joules which is also in the range of the latent heat transfer. It would cause some cooling.
Norman
Interesting!
On a side note, I’m a little jealous of people like you who enjoy/are good at math. That’s not me, and is why I chose not to pursue a career in science, even though I loved it otherwise.
The opening comment of my original post: “For those who claim that hurricanes can cause GLOBAL warming”. Have you not been reading the comments of your fellow deniers? They are blaming the recent high anomalies on hurricanes. It seems we now have to combat deniers with diametrically opposite viewpoints. I am only trying to show that this month’s anomaly cannot be blamed on hurricanes. I am not using ‘global warming’ in the long-term climate change sense.
Des,
I agree. This time around, skeptics can’t blame el nino or an increase in solar activity. The hurricane argument, despite being totally ridiculous, is all they can come up with.
I’m only agreeing that hurricanes cool SST’s. (Read about it at Moyhu).
“Totally ridiculous” is probably overkill. I should just say implausible.
Hi SIS,
Actually thete was a significant spike in solar activity in september which jyst recently trailed back off to 0 SSN..
Whether that had any effect on the Oct UAH anomoly is hard to say …
Norm, calculates the area of a circle: “I used your 300 mile cloud. It would be 483,000 meters across. The area of the cloud would be around 7.3310^11 m^2.”
WRONG.
Norm used the formula for the area of a sphere, so he’s off by a factor of 4.
Then, the 12-year-old chimes in:
“On a side note, Im a little jealous of people like you (Norman) who enjoy/are good at math. Thats not me, and is why I chose not to pursue a career in science, even though I loved it otherwise.”
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
More like I did the diameter instead of the radius. Easy to correct.
Would you accept an energy loss in 24 hours of 6.3×10^18 joules of solar input?
As to the hurricane discussion:
Hurricanes as a spectacular phenomenon of general deep convective activity in atmosphere undoubtedly cool the sea surface and transport heat into the upper troposphere near tropopause.
Estimated (temporary) power of a typical hurricane is about 1 PW (according to Wikipedia)
Estimated (average) power of deep convection (sensible+ latent heat) is about 50 PW (from Trenberth diagram)
And tropical cyclone season in SH is not september-october but january-march.
Now there is no doubt that hurricanes (as deep convection in general) do exist only because there are enough GHGs and a greenhouse effect in earth atmosphere.
So it is particularly funny to see that GHE deniers nevertheless readily invoke them in order to explain away the high UAH october anomaly.
Funny how someone couldn’t detect the OBVIOUS reason for being out by a factor of 4.
des, BOTH using the diameter, instead of the radius, AND using the formula for a sphere would throw the answer off by a factor of 4.
That probably wasn’t obvious to you.
I personnaly think that global warming is due to hailstorms.
It’s kumquats, mostly. Bananas also contribute.
Please stop making fun of these stupid skeptics who denie greenhouse effect please.
You figured out how to get your misspelled “deny” through spellcheck.
No one can say you’re completely inept.
I let you correct. At least, you are able to do one thing (that is maybe) useful.
So still denying greenhouse effect ?
The IPCC/CO2 “greenhouse effect” is a hoax.
(Thanks for asking.)
Greenhouse effect was known well before IPCC.
It was known to be a hoax back then also.
Dear Mickey Mouse,
Even Gavin Schmidt realizes the GHE is an unobservable thought experiment.
SkepticsGoneWild
Are you telling me DWLWIR is invisible? I was worried I needed glasses.
Dear SkepticGoneWild
First, I don’t care about Gavin Schmidt.
Second, only extremely stupid person deny greenhouse effect.
SGW
So perhaps you’d care to explain why satellites can’t
‘see’ the surface of the earth in the band around 15 microns. Then explain why this band has been increasing.
sis asks: Are you telling me DWLWIR is invisible? I was worried I needed glasses.”
DWLWIR is indeed invisible, snake. But, you may need more than glasses. . . .
***
des addresses SGW: ‘So perhaps youd care to explain why satellites cant see the surface of the earth in the band around 15 microns. Then explain why this band has been increasing.”
des do you have a link to the satellite spectra you mention?
***
Dear 3 stooges,
When one believes something that cannot be scientifically observed, it`s called faith-based science, which is not scince at all. Just a religion.
DSGW:
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
I believe, sistuh!
I believe, brother!
Wooooohoooo! The GHE is r e a l!
Lmao!
The alleged 33C is figment of your imagination.
Davie is STILL trying to sell DWIR as a heat source!
Hilarious.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“I believe, sistuh!
I believe, brother!
Wooooohoooo! The GHE is r e a l!
Lmao!”
Keep playing the clown — your inability to offer a scientific argument says it all.
Meanwhile, here’s the (very obvious) evidence of the greenhouse effect:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
A graph is not thr GHE, you idiot.
The difference between the emission curve and the abso….n curve (apparently the full word gets blocked here for some reason) IS due to the greenhouse effect. It is radiation which is not making it from the earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere. Don’t call someone an idiot until you have some idea what you are talking about.
g e*r a n,
Try this experiment. Get large block of ice and magnifying glass. Hold magnifying glass next to ice block, and piece of paper next to magnifying glass. (Ice block-magnifying glass-paper, in that order) The paper will burst into flames From the concentrated IR from the ice!!
I was talking to the other idiot. A graph is not the GHE Einstein. That graph does not define anything, and does not prove anything. The GHE is an unobservable thought experiment.
So you’ve never seen an blackbody emission spectrum OR a top of atmosphere abso…..n spectrum then, let alone know how to interpret them. How’s my simple dynamics question going? You don’t have a clue how to start it do you. The biggest lie here is that you have studied ANY physics.
SkepticGoneStupid
You say :
“The alleged 33C is figment of your imagination.”
In fact a simpe two-line calculation give you that results.
I guess, with some time, everybody should be able to understand the underlying assumptions.
Dear Mickey Mouse,
A calculation is not an observation, Einstein.
But you don’t even need the calculation.
Just compare upward IR radiation at surface and that at TOA.
there are not the same so there is necessary something that trap IR.
Don’t you think ?
That’s say, the calculation we speak about (but you woud not be able to explain what it is) is ok. It’s based on very basic physics.
“A calculation is not an observation”
What observation have YOU made that negates the greenhouse effect?
I’m NOT talking about a CHANGING greenhouse effect here, just the greenhouse effect per se.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“A calculation is not an observation”
But you already rejected the observations.
Let’s see you answer des’s question.
Mickey Mouse stated:
“Its based on very basic physics”
What he really meant to say:
“Its based on very basic alchemy”
There’s some onus on those making the claim that hurricanes heat the lower trop to demonstrate it with observational data – with a nominated lag, it would seem.
barry, check Oct. 2017 UAH global.
You’re not a “denier”, are you?
I believe that increased media coverage of Robert Mueller’s investigations are responsible for this spike in anomalies. Don’t believe me – check Oct. 2017 UAH global.
Maybe he can get the ENSO waters warmed back up while he’s at it.
You mean …. cause the pile of warm water in the east defined by the sloping thermocline to spread back towards the west.
barry, check Oct. 2017 UAH global.
As well as that I’ve checked,
UAH ocean data for globe and tropics
Hurricanes in Pacific and Atlantic basins
Their cycle of intensity per date
Daily SSTs for those regions and global
A proper job would be to compare a range of periods from 1979 to see if these things correlate, and if they do, how often.
Then I could say I have a moderate handle on what impact if any hurricanes have on SSTs regional, global, and TLT response.
Anything less would be uninformative.
Dr. Spencer,
Thanks for what you do and for your contributions to the science. I know that you work hard to ensure the best satellite temperature data set regardless of the politics surrounding the CAGW debate. Keep up the good work and may your skin forever be thick enough to ignore the ignorance, political bias, and petty arguments that have invaded your blog.
The whole climate debate is primarily about deep-seated beliefs, God or a Prime Mover. Fix the issue? None of us will throw ourselves off rocks to cut emissions anytime soon. I too appreciate Dr Spencer’s efforts to find the actual truth of the issue, no matter where it takes us.
(Almost) all scientists are working to find the actual truth of the issue. That’s what scientists do and why they go into science as a career.
Davie surmises: “(Almost) all scientists are working to find the actual truth of the issue.”
But Davie, I thought the “science” was settled.
Wow da! Did you miss Climategate?
What about “Climategate?”
Davie, “Climategate” was the scandal when emails were released form the CRU. The emails clearly indicated the “scientists” were colluding to fabricate “warming” where there was none.
Try to remember.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWQureIC1QM
“Emails” were NOT released. A carefully and slyly crafted montage of sentences were cut and pasted to create an utterly false picture of what the emails were saying. Have you ever actually read the entire email?
Right des. And deniers still don’t know what “hide the decline” meant — and/or have purposely lied about it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Ger* you are being hoodwinked. How bout some chemtrails? Some HARP?
I don’t see a link to the FULL unadulterated email in that link.
And the Telegraph!? Faux outrage?! From 2009? That the best you can find?
Anybody with critical thinking skills should look at a headline with “worst scientific scandal of our generation”, with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Whats happened since? Not much, just a half dozen official investigations, which turned up no wrong doing.
Probably best to ignore those..
David,
Wouldn’t that be nice if it were true. Did you by chance read the “Diversity and Inclusion” principles for the March for Science? So tell me, and do try to be honest, does this sound like scientists trying to find the truth or scientists trying to push a left wing political agenda? Doesn’t this left wing political agenda also demand support for alarmist policy changes in the name of global warming?
Eric,
As he says, scientists are interested in finding truth and facts. Some facts do have a liberal bias. Of well, so sorry.
Examples:
Fact: tax cuts do not lead to more tax revenue. They just dont. See Kansas. See Bush W. See Reagan.
Fact: more guns in a country or state leads to more gun deaths, and more mass shootings, not less. See US vs every other country. See states vs states.
Nate,
Thanks for proving my point. You are obviously left of center.
Facts aren’t politically biased, they are facts. The alarmism over CAGW is speculative and politically biased and this also effects the skeptics as well. Climate science has been and is polluted by the politics.
My point was that some facts are just that, facts, independent of politics.
Most scientists are interested in finding the facts, in my experience.
On the other side you have the backing of profit-driven industries. For them, facts are secondary. I have some personal experience with that.
Tax cut feedback is like climate change, it works on decadal time scales so you’d better balance your budget short term.
How’s that for a right wing fact?
Svante,
Which parts are sarc or not sarc?
Don’t know, sorry to confuse the issue.
I think your views are sound, but facts with liberal bias? Maybe at first glance.
We can have different opinions, but not different facts.
The difference should be in the solutions.
The problem here is that people try to fix the facts. There are plenty of solutions, right left and center.
good points.
Some facts, like climate change science, shoulnt be labelled liberal. But are for some reason. Denying these facts has become a conservative meme. Seems quite ridiculous.
Climate policies could be liberal or conservative, fine.
Denying the science, attacking scientists, is used as a means to achieve policy goals.
This is why there was a march for science.
Canadian winter starts in November.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00944/n5dp2ixoe3on.png
That it doesand has been damn cold here for the last week
Ahhhh …. the classic “it’s cold out” cry.
Lol is it classic for soneone to say its cold out ?
More classic is that Canadians are for the most part such sheeple .. That they can be convinced to pay more for gas to heat their homes , wih the supposed intent to keep it from getting warmer outside … Lol
Let’s see how the stratospheric polar vortex works in the troposphere.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_nh.gif
I haven’t gone back and tried to figure it out, but from casual observation, it seems as if the divergence between northern and southern hemispheres is less than it used to be.
Steve
I don’t find that when I look at the data. In fact, the 5-yr moving average of the monthly (NH LT – SH LT) has been increasing in recent years.
The forecast is very interesting.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00944/pwu1jxgf6vql.png
Another tropical storm attacks the Indochina Peninsula.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=indo×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
How much latent heat will be released to the upper troposphere?
I contend a warmer object can make a colder object even colder.
And here’s a thought on the “do hurricanes heat the atmosphere?” conversation:
If so, every October in the 39 record would show some amount of temperature bump from tropical storms. These would get averaged into the October baseline. Only the departure in hurricane activity would be noticeable.
Correction:
Only hurricanes seasons from 1981-2010 would be part of the October baseline temperature.
In other words, if you were looking for a bump in global temperature following an average hurricane season, you’d be wasting your time.
-Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
November 3, 2017 at 3:10 PM
In other words, if you were looking for a bump in global temperature following an average hurricane season, youd be wasting your time.-
Yes but 2017 after fairly long lull in preceding years, wasn’t average.
Or as wiki says:
The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season is an ongoing event in the annual formation of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin. The season has been hyperactive, featuring both the highest total accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and the highest number of major hurricanes since 2005.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Atlantic_hurricane_season
And every one higher than Cat 3 got into Sept and lot them going near end of Sept and into Oct.
Or in terms of Sept and Oct temps, getting up to possibly being “measurable” on global scale.
gbaikie
2005 was also a monster year for hurricanes, featuring 4 category fives. These included Wilma and Katrina, two of the most powerful ever recorded.
And what did we see from UAH?
Well, according to Des:
[Jul +0.07, Aug -0.12, Sep +0.13, Oct +0.02, Nov -0.07]
–Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
November 3, 2017 at 7:30 PM
gbaikie
2005 was also a monster year for hurricanes, featuring 4 category fives. These included Wilma and Katrina, two of the most powerful ever recorded.
And what did we see from UAH?
Well, according to Des:
[Jul +0.07, Aug -0.12, Sep +0.13, Oct +0.02, Nov -0.07]–
And what conclusion should I draw from this?
So Katrina was before Wilma and don’t it’s track- google it:
Wiki:
August 23 23:00 UTC Tropical Storm Warning Central and northwest Bahamas
03:00 UTC Tropical Storm Watch
Going to
August 30 03:00 UTC Tropical Storm Warning discontinued All
So in week time starts and ends as tropical storm
And: The storm strengthened into Tropical Storm Katrina on the morning of August 24. The tropical storm moved towards Florida, and became a hurricane only two hours before making landfall between Hallandale Beach and Aventura on the morning of August 25. The storm weakened over land, but it regained hurricane status about one hour after entering the Gulf of Mexico, and it continued strengthening over open waters. On August 27, the storm reached Category 3 intensity on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale, becoming the third major hurricane of the season.”
And check out Wilma, wiki:
Hurricane Wilma was the most intense tropical cyclone in the Atlantic basin on record, with an atmospheric pressure of 882 hPa (mbar, 26.05 inHg). Wilma’s destructive journey began in the second week of October 2005. A large area of disturbed weather developed across much of the Caribbean Sea and gradually organized to the southeast of Jamaica. By late on October 15, the system was sufficiently organized for the National Hurricane Center to designate it as Tropical Depression Twenty-Four.”
???
At its peak intensity, the eye of Wilma was about 2.3 miles (3.7 km) in diameter, the smallest known eye in an Atlantic hurricane. After the inner eye dissipated due to an eyewall replacement cycle, Hurricane Wilma weakened to Category 4 status, and on October 21, it made landfall on Cozumel and on the Mexican mainland with winds of about 150 mph (240 km/h).
Wilma weakened over the Yucatn Peninsula, and reached the southern Gulf of Mexico before accelerating northeastward. Despite increasing amounts of vertical wind shear, the hurricane re-strengthened to hit Cape Romano, Florida, as a major hurricane. Wilma weakened as it quickly crossed the state, and entered the Atlantic Ocean near Jupiter, Florida. The hurricane again re-intensified before cold air and wind shear penetrated the inner core of convection. By October 26, it transitioned into an extratropical cyclone, and the next day, the remnants of Wilma were absorbed by another extratropical storm over Atlantic Canada.
So lasted as a named storm until Oct 27. Start mid Oct made two landfall then ended Oct 27 with a notable feature of developing a small and fast eye. [And being hard to predict- apparently- doing *crazy* stuff].
Anyways, Main article: Timeline of the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season:
Aug 18: Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine organizes into Tropical Storm Harvey roughly 250 miles (400 km) east of Barbados.
Ends: Sept 1: Tropical Depression Harvey transitions into a post-tropical cyclone approximately 30 miles (50 km) northwest of Nashville, Tennessee
Harvey was C-4 and Aug 26: 06:00 UTC (1:00 a.m. CDT) at 28.2N 97.0W Hurricane Harvey weakens to a Category 3 hurricane and makes its second landfall on the northeastern short of Copano Bay, Texas, with winds of 125 mph (205 km/h)” And day before [Aug 25] goes from 2 to Cat 4
3 weeks, about.
On Aug 30, “Tropical Storm Irma develops from an area of low pressure approximately 420 miles (675 km) west of Cabo Verde”
Irma becomes a cat 5: “September 5 Hurricane Irma strengthens to a Category 5 hurricane, located roughly 270 miles (440 km) east of Antigua, and about 280 miles (445 km) east-southeast of Barbuda”
and on September 9: “Hurricane Irma restrengthens to a Category 5 hurricane as it makes landfall over the Camagey Archipelago of Cuba.”
September 12 “Tropical Depression Irma transitions to a post-tropical cyclone about 65 miles (110 km) southwest of Atlanta, Georgia, and about 100 miles (165 km) east-southeast of Birmingham, Alabama”
Irma about 2 weeks.
Katia September 6: Tropical Storm Katia intensifies into a Category 1 hurricane approximately 185 miles (300 km) north-northeast of Veracruz, Mexico”
And only a cat 2, and ends:
September 9: Tropical Storm Katia weakens to a tropical depression about 115 miles (185 km) west-northwest of Veracruz, Mexico.
September 5: “Tropical Storm Jose develops from an area of low pressure roughly 1,505 miles (2,420 km) east of the Lesser Antilles.”
Jose becomes a Cat 4
and Sept 12: Hurricane Jose weakens to a Category 2 hurricane approximately 255 miles (410 km) northeast of Grand Turk Island
And ends, September 14: “Hurricane Jose weakens to a tropical storm roughly 520 miles (840 km) south-southwest of Bermuda”
Less than 2 weeks.
Got Lee in here about Cat 3 [I can’t find description
September 16: “Tropical Depression Fifteen intensifies into Tropical Storm Maria about 620 miles (1000 km) east-southeast of the Lesser Antilles.”
September 18 become cat 5
September 20: Hurricane Maria weakens into a Category 2 hurricane about 25 miles (45 km) north-northwest of Aguadilla, Puerto Rico
September 24 Hurricane Maria weakens into a Category 2 hurricane about 290 miles (465 km) north-northeast of Great Abaco Island.” [ends description of it]
Anyhow seems like a lot hurricanes which quite strong within an short time period.
Or seems like 6 named hurricanes within month of Sept.
And Cat 3 Hurricane Ophelia in oct
“Hurricane Ophelia (known as Storm Ophelia in Ireland and the United Kingdom while extratropical) was the easternmost Atlantic major hurricane on record. The tenth consecutive hurricane and the sixth major hurricane of the very active 2017 Atlantic hurricane season”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Ophelia_(2017)
I was going to say a bit more compared, because it’s near out season. But then realize I had no clue of that region’s hurricane season, So looked it up, wiki:
Season lengths and averages
North Atlantic June 1 November 30
Eastern Pacific May 15 November 30
And others:
Western Pacific January 1 December 31
North Indian January 1 December 31
South-West Indian July 1 June 30
South hemisphere:
Australian region November 1 April 30
Southern Pacific November 1 April 30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone
They also note average number per region
Another thing wondered about, does it matter if they
make land fall [other than reducing their strength and
duration].
Or related widespread rainfall on land area in summer months [time of most sunlight]. Generally thinking of Monsoon weather. hmm: https://www.tripsavvy.com/traveling-during-the-monsoon-season-1458706
Anyhow, generaly I think it’s not much affect on global temperature or at most hundredths of C.
Or I think anything to do with land areas, of course with hurricane you have these huge paths going thru ocean areas and going thru warmest part of our world- tropical oceans.
And many don’t reach land, or if few hit US, it tends to many many more don’t hit US.
Or in this case, Vietnam
Also:
Map of all tropical cyclone tracks from 1945 to 2006.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone#/media/File:Tropical_cyclones_1945_2006_wikicolor.png
And what causes all those cyclones somewhat near the Philippines?
And considering there are so many regions with hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons, how certain are you that 2017 has had more than normal? How you looked at the TOTALS?
” des says:
November 3, 2017 at 8:43 PM
And considering there are so many regions with hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons, how certain are you that 2017 has had more than normal? How you looked at the TOTALS?”
You mean totals for Sept and Oct- no.
I don’t think they are available- but internet vast and I didn’t check it.
It should be noted I am talking about two months not yearly average global temperature and yearly average “amount of hurricane’s energy”.
And saying could have measurable amount- hundredth of a degrees difference in a month’s average temperature.
And it’s normal to have tenths of degree differences
in monthly average global temperatures.
So possibly measurable but not saying easily measurable.
But in terms of a year, probably not measurable- or similar to rising CO2 level which so far hasn’t been measurable [despite CO2 having a yearly fluctuation- or perhaps if CO2 had more fluctuation within year maybe someone could actually measure it’s effects]
So again, this suggestion that the recent high anomalies are caused by hurricanes is no more than that – a suggestion.
Here’s an suggestion:
“It turns out that the vast majority of the heat released in the condensation process is used to cause rising motions in the thunderstorms and only a small portion drives the storm’s horizontal winds.
Method 1) – Total energy released through cloud/rain formation:
An average hurricane produces 1.5 cm/day (0.6 inches/day) of rain inside a circle of radius 665 km (360 n.mi) (Gray 1981). (More rain falls in the inner portion of hurricane around the eyewall, less in the outer rainbands.) Converting this to a volume of rain gives 2.1 x 1016 cm3/day. A cubic cm of rain weighs 1 gm. Using the latent heat of condensation, this amount of rain produced gives
5.2 x 1019 Joules/day or
6.0 x 1014 Watts.
This is equivalent to 200 times the world-wide electrical generating capacity – an incredible amount of energy produced!
Method 2) – Total kinetic energy (wind energy) generated… “[boring]
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html
That is 0.3% of the total solar power that strikes the earth’s surface. And when it’s all done, you have a cold patch of ocean that takes about a fortnight to warm up, absorbing heat back out of the atmosphere in the process.
Did you also notice the part of that article where he describes “giving off a cold exhaust in the upper levels of the troposphere”?
-des says:
November 4, 2017 at 1:40 AM
That is 0.3% of the total solar power that strikes the earths surface. And when its all done, you have a cold patch of ocean that takes about a fortnight to warm up, absorbing heat back out of the atmosphere in the process.-
Do remember the “record breaking” amount rainfall the occurred in southern part of Texas? Was it more than 3 inches over large region. And reason for it was hurricane didn’t pass quickly thru the region?
And you think that more 10 meter of water depth warms by the sunlight by a few degree within a fortnight of time.
Or take typical swimming pool and and make it 3 to 4 times deeper and having sunlight warmed entire pool by few degrees within 2 weeks.
-Did you also notice the part of that article where he describes giving off a cold exhaust in the upper levels of the troposphere?-
Upper levels of troposphere is what temperature and how much colder than this was the moist “cold exhaust”.
And what does colder air do if in the upper levels of troposphere, do think it could fall down?
You seem to have suddenly gone NESB.
RSS4 TLT for October just came out. After a 3 month rise, the anomaly dropped from 0.843 in September to 0.802 in October. It is the warmest October on record for RSS4. If the present 10 month average is maintained, 2017 would come in second place.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-270871
Roy Spencer: “you obviously think the satellite adjustments are bigger than the surface data adjustments. Wrong. We worry about adjustments of hundredths of a degree, the surface thermometer people deal with adjustments 10 times as large.”
Given that UAH and RSS use precisely the same satellites and any discrepancies between the two must come down to their “adjustments”, makes you wonder how one data set can rise by 0.09 while the other falls by 0.04 given his statement.
They’re models. They make different assumptions, resulting in different calculations. No reason why they should perfectly agree.
My point was ONLY to counter Dr Spencer’s statement. Surely you agree his statement is nonsense.
Yes, you’re right. Sorry I misunderstood you.
The RSS TTT anomaly increased further since Sept. UAH6 TLT and RSS4 TTT have similar altitude weighting profiles, while RSS4 TLT has more weight on the lowest levels of the lower troposphere.
If had two solid copper cubes which are 100 meter cubes.
Which are in space and far enough away from the Sun that it’s not significantly warming them [such orbit distance of Saturn]
And 1 cube is 100 C and other is 0 C
And always facing other on only one of there 6 sides
and they 10 meter apart [and in orbit with each other so don’t get closer to each other due to their small gravity]
Does the 100 C cube warm the 0 C cube [and if so how much]
Does the O C cube warm the 100 C [and if so how much]
These cubes are not being heated by power source.
And due to their thermal mass, I figured that a 0 C
100 meter cube would not cool below -100 C within 1 year- and
a 100 C cube by itself should likewise not cool to 0 C within
one year.
All surfaces of cooper cubes are coated to be like a blackbody surface and this surface thermally conducts the same amount as copper does [it conducts heat pretty good- though not as good as diamond].
“And due to their thermal mass, I figured that a 0 C
100 meter cube would not cool below -100 C within 1 year- and
a 100 C cube by itself should likewise not cool to 0 C within
one year.”
Why?
They’re in a 3 K near-vacuum.
100 meter cube have a lot of thermal mass.
100 x 100 x 100 = million cubic meters of solid copper
Gross mass 8960 million kg.
Cooper has high thermal conductivity.
Allowing cooper to radiate far more energy than a rock, and it’s denser and has more thermal mass for it’s volume than a common rock.
So a rock surface would cool fairly quickly, but despite have less thermal mass [of same size] it’s interior would remain warmer for a longer period than compared to the copper cube.
Or copper cube will uniformly cool and a common rock won’t.
Copper per kg has 385 kilojoules per K or C degree
Steel is 490 kilojoules per K or C degree
Steel’s density is 8,050 kg per cubic meter
8,050 times 490 is 3,944,550 KJ
Copper per cubic meter is:
8960 times 385 is 3,448,600 KJ
Or copper has less thermal mass per volume, but copper
conducts heat a lot better than steel.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/thrcn.html
Though generally all metals conduct heat better than non metals- except for diamond [and other stuff].
Corrections:
O C cube takes about 1 year to cool to -100 C
100 C cube takes about 40 days to cool to 0 C
And:
“Copper per kg has 385 kilojoules per K or C degree”
should be:
Copper per kg has 385 joules per K or C degree
And the KJ are wrong and should be joules.
gbaikie
I did try your challenge. First on the most simple solution of a single cube of copper with dimensions and mass you describe at 100 C (373.15 K). The total solution is fairly complex. I looked at the view factors for what you describe and according to the plot on this link, the view factor between the two faces would be around 0.8.
http://tinyurl.com/y8thsgcp
With the 100 meter cube of copper that has a painted surface so it emits like a blackbody rate, I wrote a simple qbasic program to figure it out. I came up with 117 days to cool to 0 C (273.15 K). You had 40 days.
I would have to write a program to figure out the total solution to your problem.
gbaikie
I think I have a flaw in my program that I have to work out. I will see if I can get it right and try to come up with an answer.
gbaikie
I might actually have my program correct.
Here is how I broke it down.
I used grams and joules in my program.
copper has a density of 8.96 grams/cm^3
1 meter = 100 cm. 100 m = 10,000 cm.
You get 10^12 cm^3 in a cube 100m x 100m x 100m.
8.96×10^12 grams/10^12 cm^3
8.96×10^12 grams x 0.385 joules/gram-K. The temperature change is 100 K so the total amount of joules that need to be lost from the copper is 8.96×10^12 x 0.385 joules/gram-K * 100K = 3.4496 x 10^14 joules.
You have 6 surfaces that radiate. Each surface is 100 meters x 100 meters or 10000 m^2. Your total radiant surface is 60,000 m^2.
At 100 C or 373.15 K and set up as a blackbody the total loss at peak temperature is 6.5958 x 10^7 Watts (Joules/second).
To make it easier multiply this by an hour (3600 seconds/hr)
to get 2.37 x 10^11 joules/hour.
At this rate it would take 3.4496 x 10^14 joules/2.37 x 10^11 joules/hour = 1455 hours or 60.6 days. But as it cools it radiates less (which is what my program was calculating for, I was doing it in hourly chunks of time…doing it in seconds takes too long and does not change the answer by any large degree). It will take longer than 40 days for sure and much longer than 60 days since it won’t continue to radiate at that rate as the surfaces cool.
If you check the radiant amount at 0 C (272.15 K) it would take
3.4496 x 10^14 joules/6.8 x 10^10 joules/hour = 211 days. The answer is somewhere between 60 and 211 days. I think my 117 days may be the correct answer for the cooling of a 100 meter cube of copper with blackbody surface emission properties.
I am not sure I will work on your more complex problem at this time. It is interesting though but time consuming.
gbaikie
I modified my program for the cube at 0 C to reach -100 C. In my program the process to 562 days.
Download qbasic (free) and try the program to see what you get and you can examine my work for flaws.
Temp=273.15
MassCopper=8.96*10000*10000*10000
HeatContent=MassCopper*0.385*Temp
For Day=1 to 600
For Hour=1 to 24
HeatLoss=HeatContent-(Temp^4 * 0.0000000567 * 60000 *3600)
HeatContent=HeatLoss
Temp=HeatContent/(0.385 * MassCopper)
Print Day; Temp
Next Hour
If Temp <=173.15 Then end
Next Day
Norman thanks for looking at it.
And in general to replies:
My number of 40 day for hot to get to 0 C
And 0 C cube to -100 C in year.
Was a rough guess and I thought had to take more time
than 40 days and more than year.
Or allowed for it be to perfectly radiating
It seems to me your numbers are probably more accurate.
And I was taking about the cube(s) by itself.
The question is the radiant interaction between
the two cubes, one being 100 C and other starting at O C.
So now got a baseline how how separately they cool, so as to
compare and quantify the effect of when the two are near each other.
And the cooling separately [or together] is complicate due to the fact that bodies are cubes and will end up radiating as spheres- with corners in them [cooler corners which act as insulating effect]
But in the first week or so this complicating factor should not significant factor.
So you can eliminate such complication by just looking the first week or so [before it gets more complicated].
Or in a week time period how much warming effect is there
on the hot cube from cool cube.
And wanted cubes, because I thought it would be easier then using spheres.
And using the big cubes to provide more time and “better resolution”.
gbaikie: you try to overwhelm and impress and distract with numbers, while keeping your argument anything but clear.
Instead of showing us how smart (you think) you are, let’s see you answer a simple question:
Take you copper cube of whatever volume and temperature it is, put it in a 3K near-vacuum, and calculate its average temperature after one year.
Your answer should be one number, in units of Kelvin.
“Take you copper cube of whatever volume and temperature it is, put it in a 3K near-vacuum, and calculate its average temperature after one year.”
If it’s 1 meter cube, it will cool fairly rapidly [regardless of starting temperature, say 1000 C]. But getting it’s temperature close to cosmic background temperature should take longer than a year.
The reason is copper is not conductive enough- though very cold copper might conduct a lot better as compared to room temperature copper. I don’t know.
But you could use material which conduct heat better and get it to being very close to background temperature in a year.
Though just having 1 cm cube could do in much less time.
It seems others aren’t finding the question be very interesting.
So I am going to add a greenhouse, because it seems people find greenhouses interesting.
So have two large very large cubes orbiting each other at distance of 10 meter.
And 10 meter gives me more than enough space to put greenhouse
between on either the hot cube or cold cube.
And obviously those living in cold world, probably prefer the cold cube to have the greenhouse.
So it’s going to an 8 feet [2.4384 meters] high greenhouse, which 100 meter by 100 meter [a couple of football fields].
Made from from 2 by 4, 2 by 8, 1/4″ plate glass, assorted hardware, and put dirt on the copper floor. Oh might as well use plywood for exterior perimeter walls. Though not going to add any plants, but some air.
Now if added enough air so the pressure was 1 atm, it would be 10 tons of force upward upon 1 square meter of glass- probably breaking it or it would need small windows and lots of 2 by 4 and 2 by 8 lumber attached to very strong copper floor. The total area is 10,000 square meter = 100,000 tons of force. So it’s only going to be for 1/20th of 1 atm pressure. Which about 5 times more pressure of Mars and the 100,000 tons become 5,000 tons. Though there is not much weight due to lack of gravity, I guess the building materials etc would have mass of + 1000 tons.
So have greenhouse and about 7 1/2 meters above the glass roof is the 100 C cube shining it’s 1000 watts per square IR into the greenhouse.
One could have many question, what air temperature, what’s temperature of the dirt, etc.
You need a pressure suit to be in the greenhouse. Put on spacesuit [and spacesuit are designed to keep you cool enough in space and should work without any modification in greenhouse- though the “A/C” would need to be turned up a bit.
So go into greenhouse and kick away say the 6″ of dirt, and copper floor is 5 C.
The top of dirt should quite hot and there will be heat gradient of the dirt hot surface to 5 C copper cube surface.
Since dirt is hot, the air will be hot and glass ceiling will be hot [though none of it can be hotter than 100 C].
Let’s change things, lets have 100 C cube and 0 C cube and bring them together so there no space between them.
But first, we will keep the greenhouse and bring the the 100 C cube 5 meter closer to greenhouse roof. That should increase the temperature of dirt, air, and glass roof.
One debate how much, but it will increase the temperature by some amount.
Or delete whole greenhouse thing, and move the hot and cold cube so they touching each other.
What happens.
Does bringing the two cube so they in contact increase the average temperature of both cube?
Now said that in roughly 40 days the hot cube [100 C] by itself will approach somewhere 0 C.
So if bring 100 C cube and 0 C together, in 40 days will the hot cube be warmer.
Or can cold warm hot?
Still nothing.
Going back to greenhouse and roof being about 7 1/2 meter from 100 C cube face.
Don’t add dirt.
Then copper floor will be about 5 C, and air [due to low gravity] will be about 1/2 the temperature of copper floor and whatever glass roof temperature is- which should be warmer than the copper floor. So average air temperature might be + 6 C.
Your “problems” are incomprehensible. And usually meaningless.
” David Appell says:
November 4, 2017 at 10:10 PM
Your problems are incomprehensible. And usually meaningless.”
This “problem” relates to issue of does a cold object “warm”
a hot object in terms of radiant transfer.
A significant factor is how close the objects are.
A hot 100 meter cube at distance 1 km from cold meter cube will have a small effect.
And if have the two object close together, how much is the effect.
The amount transferred is the amount cold warms hot.
Via conduction heat transfer one can have a lot energy transferred in short period of time.
If you imagine using material with extremely high heat conductivity, then a hot and cold object instantaneously
average their temperature.
With copper 100 meter cubes which are 100 C and 0 C, since copper has fairly high heat conductivity, if cube are touching, this heat transfer can take a few days, giving one object which roughly has average temperature of 50 C.
The hot object is warmed in sense that it will stay warm longer. Or if less than 0 C is cold, and more than 0 C is warm, then it’s warmer.
Though not warmer in sense that 100 C cube “somehow” becomes 101 C.
So if separated the cubes so can’t transfer heat as quickly as conduction can, it’s less of “warming effect” but question is how much is the “warming effect”?
Of course if used two small cube, copper is quite adequate in transferring heat via conduction in minutes rather than days.
And also small copper cube would cool quicker via radiation.
Of course universe is not full of copper, rather it’s full of rocks. But seems to me that two rocks would radiate less and have less “warming effect”.
gbaikie
I wrote a program for both cubes as you describe. I used 0.8 for the view factor as that seemed close looking at the graph of view factors for parallel plates.
Both the cubes will cool. The rate of cooling for the hot cube is reduced after the same 117 days. Without the cooler cube in the vicinity the hot cube reached 273 K in that time frame. With the cold cube present, the Hotter cube was at 278 K after the 117 days. In the semantic debate you might make the claim the colder cube warmed the hotter one since its temperature is higher after 117 days than without the cold cube present.
Both cubes cooled. Because of the other sides the colder cube still cooled even though receiving heat from the hotter cube, it was not enough to offset the loss from the other 5 sides not facing the hotter cube.
Does this answer your question? I can post the program if you want to see it. It does not copy and paste so I have to manually type it in.
–Does this answer your question? I can post the program if you want to see it. It does not copy and paste so I have to manually type it in.–
Yes answers my question.
But does anyone dispute it.
And basically that is “the warming” I mean when I say CO2 has some warming effect.
Though for fun, put 100 meter cube at sun distance and have one face of cube always face the sun.
LA Nina will solve the up spike it will be called soon, the + will soon become the -, why do people jump all over a data set that shows a small temp spike Jesus ever heard of cyclic temperature variations? Cone back in 13 months and then say ooh ooh what happened why are we STILL confused!
In 13 months the long-term trend — the one that includes ALL of the data — will be little different from the current +0.13 C/decade.
And if that happens, when we get back to ENSO neutral conditions we will again be above average.
>LA Nina will solve the up spike
Arguably the current temperatures are still UNDER influence of the brief La Nina in late 2016 and neutral prevailing conditions since. If we consider that the UAH temperatures correlate best with Nino 3.4 surface temperatures with a 4 month lag, the 10 months of UAH data in 2017 so far would be most strongly influenced by the Nino 3.4 average Sept 2016-June 2017, which is -0.24C…. i.e. we have already been in ENSO neutral/ mild La Nina conditions during the relevant period. And we are already well above average…..
The effect of ENSO doesn’t last that long.
Of the various institutes monitoring ENSO, only one (NOAA) called a la Nina for the latter months of 2016. It was the weakest on that record since 1950.
It’s impact, if any, on global temps through 2017 would have lasted no longer than to mid-year, and would have been negligible.
This is borne out by comparing 2016/2017 monthly global temp evolution with other la Nina/post la Nina periods.
LA Nina will solve the up spike it will be called soon
That’s exactly what people were saying last year about what would happen at the end of 2016.
It was wishful thinking then. It remains so. Wiser option is to assume less and discover more.
Also, la Nina conditions have to persist for 5-6 months before a full la Nina is called. Only one monitoring system has exceeded this threshold for the last 2 months, so we’ll be waiting until at least February for the announcement of a la Nina, as long as the threshold is not crossed back in the next 3 months.
Latest forecasts:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
What does “solve” mean, anyway? Is there some kind of problem?
DB,
The simple answer to your questions: It`s what fear mongers do. The constant crying of “wolf!”, or “the sky is falling!”.
Crying wolf? You mean like Salvatore?
Thought it would be neutral conditions that would “solve” the up spike.
If anomalies were around 0C from next month to 2020, the pause since 1998 could return. I’m guessing that’s the ultimate meaning of “solve.”
IOW, anomalies have to be at or lower than they were in the 3-year period 1994-96 from now to 2020. You can eyeball the graph at the top to guesstimate the probability of that happening.
Did a bit of work:
For the UAH trend to go flat by 2020, the average monthly anomaly from next month to Dec 2019 would have to be no higher than
-0.06 C
So imagining temperatures plummet over the next 2 months, the last time we had a 24-month av anomaly of -0.06 or lower was…
May 1993 – Apr 1994.
You can see what that looks like here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg
Talking about the trend from Jan 1998.
Tsk.
May 1995 – Apr 1995 av anomaly was -0.07. That’s the average monthly anomaly we’d need from about now to Dec 2019 to see a ‘return’ of the flat trend since 1998.
If the .13C is constant then there is no man made global warming. It has to increase. Co2 is increasing and not decreasing anytime soon. So if it is constant the it isn’t man made. Also We all know .13 Trend isn’t constant. The climate changes Naturally. We know it fluctuates, and isn’t 0. So what is high and what is low. Is .05 degrees per decade normal? So what is a Normal rate of change per decade. Can anyone Tell me what the rate of change of temperature per decade was 1 million years ago, with any sort of accuracy. NO! what about 1000 years ago. No! What about 200 years ago No! not within tenths of a degree and not for decade trend. Maybe after 1850 we could do that and certainly after 1950. Wait… Thats when the anomaly is happening. The anomaly of .13 degrees per decade. How do we know that’s an anomaly? and not within the normal natural cycle. Now tell me what is normal. what is the range. And dont look at temperature charts of millions of years ago. They probably have a slow rate of change and obviously can’t determine the change per decade.
Please explain WHY a constant trend implies no AGW.
If the .13C is constant then there is no man made global warming. It has to increase. Co2 is increasing and not decreasing anytime soon. So if it is constant the it isnt man made.
The latest version of UAH has changed from 0.11/decade in early 2015 to 0.13 now.
I don’t think that’s especially meaningful, but if you’d made the same comment 2 and a bit years ago, what would you be saying now?
UAH trend on its own is not interesting.
Because satellittes calculations are not reliable.
Just compare the different trend of RSS, UAH or different version.
Also they are not observations of surface temperature and are much more sensitive to variability.
At a point, people need to try to stop being stupid.
Good luck with that.
Did you mean to make that reply to Barry?
In fact, it is destinated to the guys who spend their time showing UAH only (or RSS, when warming was less in RSS).
mickey…”UAH trend on its own is not interesting.
Because satellittes calculations are not reliable”.
And you’re opinion is reliable…because???
The UAH trend has little or nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.
Because everybody can check that RSS, UAH calculations and their different versions differ from one to each other, whereas they use same data.
So you challenge what you believe to a mere opinion by stating your own mere opinion.
Gordon,
It is much ado about almost nothing. What is measured is 100ths of degrees.
So it is going to fluctuate. More clouds, less clouds, cyclones, volcanoes. Hopefully it will continue to stay or get warmer.
Do I believe that is a result of mankind’s actions. No. But neither do I care.
Warmer is better. So, being on the side of safety, burn more coal and oil.
lewis…”It is much ado about almost nothing. What is measured is 100ths of degrees”.
I agree with you, I just don’t like politically-driven scientific institutions like NOAA fudging data. They will ultimately look might stupid when we have another winter like 2008 and they are showing a record warming year.
des…”Because everybody can check that RSS, UAH calculations and their different versions differ from one to each other, whereas they use same data”.
If the data is fudged before UAH or RSS receive it, what good is that? I am asking if NOAA get their hands on the data before handing it over to UAH/RSS.
Gordon, RSS October anomaly is lower than September. Your concern about NOAA fudging the data nehind a warm Oct anomaly is completely misplaced. The reason for the high UAH Oct anomaly is because of UAH processing.
lewis says:
“Warmer is better.”
Lewis is narcissistic, unable to separate his concerns from the other 7.3 billion people in the world and the next several hundred generations.
A lack of empathy and morals.
Duncanbelem says:
“If the .13C is constant then there is no man made global warming.”
Another hayseed pulls in here, just off the turnip truck.
What about my other point. How do we know .13C is not normal?
If it were possible to sustain this rate, in another million years we’d be 13000 degrees higher. Does that sound “normal”?
There is no “normal” here, merely “beneficial, detrimental, neutral”.
— Duncanbelem says:
November 3, 2017 at 10:56 PM
If the .13C is constant then there is no man made global warming. It has to increase.–
A common expression was accelerated warming rate. That what’s you referring to.
And basically the 20 year pause, made using the term less popular.
It still a bit popular to talk about an accelerating rate in sea level rise. But Nature isn’t really cooperating.
One could say Nature is Mrs Clinton trying to be president, and messing up the message.
“Co2 is increasing and not decreasing anytime soon. So if it is constant the it isnt man made. Also We all know .13 Trend isnt constant.”
Not too long ago [decades] the trend was much higher.
I would advise not having heart attack if CO2 levels do drop, but not going to happen if .13 trend continues, but it doesn’t mean it *has to* have a negative trend. Or having a pause in “accelerating rate of CO2 increase” would be the first indication, and could see that, soon.
Note that CO2 levels are wavy up and down and EL Nino add more, and not having el nino [the present time] will reduce the rate of increase- I mean more than this factor, in terms of pause. Or I mean, getting to extant of having news headline saying “unexpected”.
“The climate changes Naturally. We know it fluctuates, and isnt 0. So what is high and what is low. Is .05 degrees per decade normal?”
I don’t think in time we had temperature records it’s ever been that high- though you don’t pick the lowest and highest
in 10 years, call it decade trend. Or some like to use 17 year average if talking about decade trend, But longer is better or more meaningful.
No alarmist has answered my question. Is NOAA getting the sat data before UAH and adjusting it as they do the surface data before passing it on to the likes of NASA GISS, who adjust it further?
There is no apparent reason why October 2017 should have been this warm. It’s time to look for fudging from NOAA.
I am not alarmist, but what you say is so stupid…
I guess they invented the hiatus as well, just for the fun to watch the stupid deniers reaction when it warms again…
Seriously, I find it very difficult to believe that some people can be as stupid as you.
How can we help ?
Why don’t you ask Mr Spencer? But has a habit of not correcting nonsense from deniers – any denier nonsense is good nonsense.
There is no apparent reason why October 2017 should have been this warm. Its time to look for fudging from NOAA.
If indeed the UAH Oct anomaly is a problem, are you so biased you can’t consider that there is an issue with the processing at UAH? That seems to be an open inquiry for Roy.
FYI, RSS is out just now, and the October anomaly is lower than the Sept anomaly.
Sep: 0.8434
Oct: 0.8020
NOAA’s fudge?
barry…”If indeed the UAH Oct anomaly is a problem, are you so biased you cant consider that there is an issue with the processing at UAH? That seems to be an open inquiry for Roy”.
Roy and John have had the integrity to fly in the face of the alarmist scientists based on their data. NOAA has been steered by a dishonest president who ran around trying to root out ‘climate deniers’.
NOAA is corrupt and now I fear they have gotten to the sat data.
Have you emailed Mr Spencer yet to ask his opinion? Until you do, please don’t bother us with this BS.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Roy and John have had the integrity to fly in the face of the alarmist scientists based on their data.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made
Gordon,
There is no apparent reason why October 2017 should have been this warm. Its time to look for fudging from NOAA.
RSS
Sep: 0.8434
Oct: 0.8020
The RSS Oct anomaly was lower than September – the opposite of the UAH result.
It seems NOAA have not ‘fudged’ the data to get a warm result. The difference here is purely due to the processing at UAH and RSS.
Your bias is astonishing.
Sorry Gordon.
Time for you to give up and go to your nursing home.
dr no…”Time for you to give up and go to your nursing home.”
You seem awfully keen, doc, to have me join you in the home.
Doc is always keen to take on more patients.
RSS October anomaly is released.
Sep: 0.8434
Oct: 0.8020
RSS month to month anomalies are not always a change in the same direction, so no need to over-analyse it.
The surface monthly anomalies take a few weeks to roll in.
Realized Werner beat me to it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-271133
One cannot exclude the possiblity that Spency and Christer spent some much time tuning their UAH model to get the lowest warming as possible, that strange things will happen in the future UAH data due to the use of an unphysical set of parameters.
That’s akin to skeptics saying other records are fudged because they’re higher. Purely speculative, based on tribal politics. It’s a go-nowhere conversation.
Demonstrating problems with the actual process would be something. The rest is gossip.
I agree but it has to be said at least one time.
Because it can be the true.
And the true has to be said.
If that’s so then it’s just as “true” that NOAA could be fudging surface data and GISS ramp up their trends. The ‘logic’ works both ways.
It’s tribal schtick. Guttersnipery.
Yes, I still do agree,
but you cannot do that kind of misleading comparison :
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/
and then ask people to take your work seriously :).
Also, don’t you think there is much more room for tuning for RSS / UAH calculations than for surface observation ?
mickey…”Also, dont you think there is much more room for tuning for RSS / UAH calculations than for surface observation ?”
You mean the surface ‘observations’ by which NOAA slashes 75%+ of their data set then reconstructs it using a climate model using less than 25% of the data? Gives a new meaning to observation, as in virtual observation and reconstruction.
You mean the surface observations by which NOAA slashes 75%+ of their data
You are a liar, Gordon.
Whatever gave you that idea?
All the data sets will continue to be revised in the future. I don’t belong to any tribe.
Well because there is more hypothesis behind UAH and RSS calculations view that you need to convert the remote measurement of a very few drifting Sun-synchronous orbit satellites in a temperature field.
I belong to the science tribe. I also think that website like SkS, realclimate are very bad for climate science.
Surface and satellite temp estimations have different and multiple challenges. The largest revisions (by trend) have occurred in the satellite records, but that’s also partly because the record is short. Too difficult to say which is less problematic. And this is another conversation that gets nowhere. They’re measuring different things in different ways. No one here but the blog owner is across the specifics of the challenges facing the sat record. Everyone else is gossiping. The best gossip is based on reading the technical papers and updates, but even then it’s only scratching the surface.
Skepticism starts at home.
Yes, theyre measuring different things. The blog owner don’t get that simple fact view that he put these different things on the same plot.
mickey…”I belong to the science tribe”.
Could have fooled me when you write off state of the art satellite telemetry as out of control bots drifting in a temperature field.
I presume you feel the same about GPS sats. They are just as prone to orbital drift and they have to be synced to land stations running on a different time system. Therefore, according to you, GPS is unreliable.
Go tell that to someone using a GPS receiver. Meantime, you might try educating yourself on the accuracy of AMSU units and their 95% surface coverage, as opposed to the 30% coverage of surface stations.
I should add that NOAA discards over 75% of the data from surface stations and uses less than 25% of the data in a climate model to manufacture the rest. That’s why I think NOAA is interfering in the sata data. It’s their sats UAH gets their data from.
barry…”Theyre measuring different things in different ways”.
Yes, the sat coverage is 95% as opposed to 30% for surface stations. Better amend that. Since NOAA discards 75% of the surface data the ‘real’ surface coverage is more like 10% coverage.
Furthermore, the AMSU scanners scan bazillions of O2 molecules in one stationary position of their scanners. Overall, the sat telemetry is infinitely more accurate than the surface system with far greater coverage.
It helps to know something about communications systems and telemetry before trying to digest the hard theory on AMSU units.
With regard to the length of the record, the sat record is approaching 40 years. That’s twice the accepted length required for significant change.
Strange that with this incredible accuracy there have been numerous large changes with various revisions to both RSS and UAH.
Your blinders are incredibly opaque.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Yes, the sat coverage is 95% as opposed to 30% for surface stations. Better amend that. Since NOAA discards 75% of the surface data the real surface coverage is more like 10% coverage.”
More f-ing lies.
Gordon can’t type a word anymore but that it’s a lie.
Gordon Robertson
you are a stupid person.
First just look at difference between the two last UAH version. No doubt that diurnal drift correction is a problem for these calculations.
Second, from what you tell me, all satellite measurements should be correct view that GPS work.
But I guess you would tell me that sea level is not rising as shown by satellite observations.
You are so stupid.
What should we do with stupid people like you ?
How can we help you ?
Thank you for your response.
barry…”Thats akin to skeptics saying other records are fudged because theyre higher. Purely speculative, based on tribal politics. Its a go-nowhere conversation.”
Come on, barry. Since when is it acceptable to eliminate over 75% of a database and use less than 25% of the data in a climate model to reconstruct the missing data?
Since when is it acceptable to eliminate over 75% of a database
Liar.
Liar.
Stupid
Gordon,
When they take a poll, or figure out the unemployment rate, do they have to ask 100% of the people? 95? What % gives a decent measure? Hmmmmm.
It’s irrelevant to the point, though Nate.
Gordon is accusing NOAA of throwing out data.
Data that they never had in the first place. He knows what happened. He keeps lying about it.
Ok, Agreed.
I also think Gordon also thinks less coverage, “the sat coverage is 95% as opposed to 30% for surface stations” is a major problem for surface data. Stats say it isnt, as you have pointed out as well.
Guy Callendar was GHE believer too. Published a paper in 1938 saying temps were going to rise with increasing CO2. What happened? Global temps cooled for over 40 years, while CO2 levels rose. Ouch! As Agent 86 would say, “missed it by that much”.
It’s warmer now than in Callendar’s time. Ultimately his prediction came true.
That`s like saying a broken clock is right twice a day. He was eventually right??! Everyone is eventually right with climate predictions given enough time.
So Callendar gets a break for beig totally wrong for over 40 years, but Salvatore de Prete gets scorned for being wrong for what…7 years is it?
It`s fitting that one of the fathers of the GHE was such a scientific loser.
Do you feel heroic writing this stuff?
Truth is not always kind.
Persons who are not able to do anything else than to discredit other persons by definition never tell the truth.
You’d be getting nearer the truth if you actually read Callendar’s work and saw exactly what he predicted. And then wrote accurately about what he predicted.
Save that adage for when it applies.
barry…”Ultimately his [Callandar] prediction came true”.
If he’d have been a bit smarter and studied the Little Ice Age cooling, he could have come to the right conclusion. Instead, he looks somewhat stupid blaming the warming on a trace gas.
Gordon Robertson says:
“If hed have been a bit smarter and studied the Little Ice Age cooling, he could have come to the right conclusion. Instead, he looks somewhat stupid blaming the warming on a trace gas.”
Gordon, Guy Callendar is a giant. You’re a pipsqueak at best.
Have some respect.
And there is no warming since 2016, while CO2 rise.
And Callendar was wrong for another 15 years during the pause.
That`s almost 60 years of being totally wrong. Lmao.
SGW 5:59am: “Callendar was wrong for over 40 years..for another 15 years during the pause. That’s almost 60 years of being totally wrong.”
It is SGW that is easily proven totally wrong.
G. Callendar 1938 made no ~60 year or 40 year or 15 year predictions. Table VI shows century length predictions for 20th, 21st, 22nd centuries. With the data for known CO2 emissions, properly baselined, Callendar’s anomaly predictions turned out remarkably accurate, and counting.
Callendar specifically stated at the conclusion of his paper:
“The course of world temperatures during the next twenty years should afford valuable evidence as to the accuracy of the calculated effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide”
After 1938, world temperature COOLED. They cooled for over 40 years.
Skeptic: if a scientist 80 y ago didnt understand everything about the earth that we know today, then he must have been an idiot. His work was pointless.
SGW gets it wrong yet again by not doing the proper comparison work.
SGW’s Callendar clip is not any sort of 20yr. anomaly prediction, see Table VI for the proper century predictions.
Using appropriate Callendar 1938 comparison based anomaly baselines, world temperatures WARMED. They warmed for over 40 years with actual CO2 emissions & right in line with his overall 20th century predictions properly baselined & with subsequent known CO2 emission data.
Strike3 can’t seem to understand the plain English written by Callendar. As Callendar stated in the sentence immediately preceding the quote I gave, he was referring to Earth temperature curves shown in Figure 4. Callendar was very specific in what he stated, and you are ignoring it.
The “course of world temperatures” DECLINED after 1938.
Why do you lie so much?
Earth to SGW: You are so confused; Callendar’s Fig. 4 is historical world temperature anomaly (“departures from the mean”) records not predictions.
And you are wrong about the decline in temperatures after 1938, you have to properly compute anomaly using baseline years Callendar used for an accurate plot of future anomaly vs. actuals to evaluate his published work predictive skill.
This work is obviously above your level of accomplishment.
SGW is correct that Calendar mentioned that the next 20 years (from 1938) should provide evidence of the calculated effect of CO2 increase.
He also provided centennial predictions of temperature, though his CO2 predictions for those were way too low. We passed the mark for what he expected in the 22nd century in 1995.
Callendar figured global temps at 360ppm would be 0.57C above the 19th century.
According to Had.CRU, the change was about 0.5C.
As no one has linked it yet…
https://www.eas.ualberta.ca/jdwilson/EAS372_15/exams/Callendar_QJRMS1938.pdf
“..SGW is correct that Calendar mentioned that the next 20 years (from 1938) should provide evidence..”
SGW did not write 5:10am about “evidence” so could not possibly be correct, SGW wrote about Callendar’s predictions “temps were going to rise with increasing CO2”. SGW got the time periods (60,40,15) wrong for these predictions then obfuscated to show another paragraph discussing future “evidence” and Fig. 4 historical anomaly records.
And barry needs to adjust the baselines presently used to those used by Callendar to compare his future anomaly predictions to actuals. When that is done properly with actual CO2, Callendar’s Table VI predictions are remarkably accurate. They are NOT wrong as SGW wrote about Callendar “bei(n)g totally wrong for over 40 years”.
B4 states:
“Callendars Fig. 4 is historical world temperature anomaly (departures from the mean) records not predictions.”
WRONG! B4 does not pay attention to details. The World temperature graph in Fig. 4 has a dashed line which is the “calculated” CO2 effect. The calculated effect and the actual temperature anomalies match pretty well, HOWEVER, after 1938 global temperature cooled:
http://tinyurl.com/y8g33fce
So the calculated effect and global anomalies would start to diverge after 1938…..for a long time, making Calendar’s prediction, by his
criteria, erroneous.
SGW: “HOWEVER, after 1938 global temperature cooled:”
SGW, as I already informed you, Callendar made no prediction for YOUR selected 1938 to 1978 period. In fact, according to your chart, if you had cherry picked start dates 1942 or 1945 global temperatures cooled even more through 1978.
That might be interesting, but has no effect on Callendar’s predictions being proven wrong as you incorrectly attempt.
Draw your WFT graph 1900 to the end of the 20th century for which G. Callendar did make a prediction. Then adjust for HIS T baselines for correct anomaly calculations and add in actual CO2 emissions (to the historical dotted line noted in your comment) and find his future 20th century prediction came out remarkably accurate.
The course of world temperatures during the next twenty years should afford valuable evidence as to the accuracy of the calculated effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide
You can spin all you want, but you are simply making yourself look real stupid.
The “course of world temperatures” cooled after 1938, not just for twenty years, but forty years. Callendar’s “calculated effect” showed warming temperatures, Einstein.
Callendar SPECIFICALLY tells you to look at the course of world temperatures for the twenty year period following 1938, but Ball4 puts his hands over his ears and shouts la la la la. Quite comical.
Callendar specifically states this 20 year period (1938-1958) will give valuable evidence as to the accuracy of his predictions of the calculated effect of increasing CO2.
Table 6 DOES cover the period from 1938 to 1958 Einstein. I suggest laying off the booze and drugs.
And yet Callendar’s 20th century predictions remain remarkably accurate SGW.
And barry needs to adjust the baselines presently used to those used by Callendar to compare his future anomaly predictions to actuals.
I derived the results by working with trend (from 1850), which is independent of baseline. Then it was a simple matter of figuring out when CO2 levels were at 360ppm (1995), and comparing observed rise against the temp response given by Callendar (relative to 19th century) for that level of CO2.
Callendar’s figure may have been different had he got the timing of CO2 right, owing to thermal lag in the Earth’s system (oceanic lag). Hard to know for sure, because such calculations are not in the paper, and no way of knowing if he included this factor (he was aware of CO2 millennial overturning in the oceans, but did he apply the same thinking to thermal overturn?).
And yet Callendars 20th century predictions remain remarkably accurate
Only in that it would be warmer in the 20th century. He figured CO2 20th century levels would average 292 ppm. Atmospheric content reached that level around 1900.
Solving for his lowball estimates of CO2 concentrations, his figures are fairly accurate.
Table 6 DOES cover the period from 1938 to 1958
No it doesn’t. The intervals are relative to 19th century, and they are:
1910-1930
20th century (average)
21st century (average)
22nd century (average)
Table 6 does not cover the specific period 1938-58, nor indeed the period 1930-2000. His only reference to the 38-58 period comes in the comment near the end of the paper.
B4,
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
You are truly delusional, which explains your affinity for pseudo-science.
Barry,
1938 to 1958 is in the 20th century last time I checked.
SGW, callendar in 1930s got some things right and some wrong. So what?
Same could be said for Newton, Einstein, Darwin.
Does not invalidate their accomplishments. Callendars main ideas proved prescient.
Nate,
Callendar thought twenty years would be sufficient to give an answer as far as the accuracy of the calculated effect of CO2. Twenty years did give an answer. He was wrong. 40 years even gave a better answer; he was doubly wrong. And you call his ideas prescient?
’40 years even gave a better answer; he was doubly wrong.’
So what happened after that 30 (not 40) years of flat temp? Best to ignore those 40 + years.
Do you honestly think that ALL temp variation should be explained by CO2? That is a strawman.
Or should we consider other mechanisms for change, and try to fully account for the temp history? This is what has been done in the 80 y since Callendar.
The reality was that CO2 levels began to rise more sharply in last decades of 20th century. Aerosols were dominant in mid century, and ocean cycles played a more significant role. He was not aware of all these processes (eg El Nino!) going on in the climate, that we have since learned (not so surprising).
If you would be interested in reading and learning from his paper, you would see that his ideas are remarkably close to what we find and believe today, even though he had no computer and his model was more rudimentary. Yes, extremely prescient.
Where are your measurements for aerosols in the mid 20th century?
You give excuses for when he was wrong for 40 years, and then praise him when perhaps only dumb luck was involved in rising global temperatures.
Again, whats your point picking on a low-information guy from 80 y ago? Waste of time.
20th century aerosols shown here in figures:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/antrhopogenic-global-cooling/
Nate,
Those are not real measured amounts. They are fictitious assumed amounts.
Callendar without fail is always referred to with pride as one of the fathers of the GHE. This is why it’s important to carefully examine his work, and to see his erroneous predictions.
SkepticGoneWild
‘Ficticious assumed amounts”
Not at all. Show me where it says so.
It is calculated from global emissions.
SGW,
“Callendar without fail is always referred to with pride as one of the fathers of the GHE”
Yes, indeed, he was an important pioneer of this idea. BTW, there was no political agenda when he did the work. No computer models. No measurements from space.
“important to carefully examine his work, and to see his erroneous predictions”
It might make you feel better, to attack someone who did not have all of today’s knowledge, but nobody else cares.
More important to judge work of people who have the benefit of decades more data and theory at their fingertips.
For example, Joe Postma. He has textbook physics available to him, yet his statements contradict it, repeatedly.
His erroneous ideas cannot explain this well known technology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
SkepticGoneWild “Ficticious assumed amounts”.
You need to read the article again and find the GISP2 measurement. It looks like a hockey stick:
https://tinyurl.com/ybpngy5m
And please explain the multi layer insulation above. It follows the same principle as the GHE, complete with “cold warming hot”.
I always find it amusing that deniers continually talk of climate variability, yet demand all variability should disappear in the presence of an increasing greenhouse effect.
So when it warms, it`s the GHE, when it cools it`s natural variability. Hilarious. Can yoy say dumb@$$?
You primitive, impolite person just gave yourself the perfect name: dumb ass. That is what so perfectly fits to you.
When it varies over the short to mid-term in EITHER DIRECTION from the baseline it is natural variation, which is really just a catch-all term for all the NON long-term climate factors. It is the BASELINE which is increasing slowly but surely over the long term. Which is precisely why we should NOT be comparing temperatures at the height of El Nino or La Nina, and we should NOT be using this month to claim this is where the climate now sits.
Please point me to any comment I have made where I said anything like “when it warms, it`s the GHE, when it cools it`s natural variability”. Does it even enter your tiny Trump-sized brain that you are making straw man arguments.
des…”yet demand all variability should disappear in the presence of an increasing greenhouse effect”.
You mean the fictitious greenhouse effect which alarmists admit is a metaphor and behaves nothing like a real greenhouse? Then you have greenhouse gases acting as a roof on the fictitious greenhouse.
Show me how the subtle trend over the past 30 years has in any way been affected by greenhouse gases.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You mean the fictitious greenhouse effect which alarmists admit is a metaphor and behaves nothing like a real greenhouse?”
The GHE is real, and obvious:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
And it does behave somewhat like a real greenhouse — it blocks some heat from escaping the planet.
What is this “admit”?? Who cares about the term itself? When I was young I didn’t care that “puppy love” had nothing to do with making love to a puppy. Perhaps your over-literal mind got you into trouble with the RSPCA.
{te he}
So when it warms, it`s the GHE, when it cools it`s natural variability.
Meaningless without specifying time-scale. Everyone agrees that el Ninos cause temporary warming of surface and TLT temps, for example. You’re hacking at the conversation with a blunt instrument.
skeptic…”What happened? Global temps cooled for over 40 years…”
The IPCC loves the kinds of sci-fi stories represented by the likes of Callandar.
“Represented by”??? Surely you meant PRESENTED. Your vocabulary choices are always rather odd, to say the least.
Until/if global temperatures start to at lest fall below +.30c then at 30 year means by summer there is not much for me to say.
This is the test. Not going very well for my point of view thus far.
How is going your model ?
Salvatore,
The problem is you’re trying to make predictions as to which way the climate will go. No one knows, as there are just too many variables and potential influences (natural and anthropogenic). Moreover, we’re dealing with such spectacularly small changes in temperature here. It’s silly to make predictions regarding tenths of degrees of change, especially when the margin of error of the data is at least a couple tenths of degree.
The climate may warm this century or it may not. No one knows.
In fact, it will warm. No doubt about that.
Ooops?! How do you know that?
It might very well warm until the thermohaline circulation in the northwest Atlantic experiences a beakdown due to lack of salinity at ocean surface, and then… switch to a harsh cooling within one or two decades which lasts for a few centuries at least.
Oh that’s an easy one.
It’s because GHG won’t decrease, and even will keep increasing, so it’s gonna keep warming for sure.
Any other question ?
Most climate scientists now agree that there will not be a global cooling from such an event, merely a moderation of warming in western Europe.
Some idiots “know” everything about anything.
They even “know” that there won’t be any supervolvano eruption in the forthcoming centuries.
Well few volcanoes in the future won’t prevent future warming.
You will need more…
In particular, a volcano has very small effect few years after the eruption. Just a temporary cooling. It’s like putting something 2 min in the freezer, and looking at its temperature 5 minutes after putting it back to ambiant temperature : no effect. Don’t you think ?
Mickey Prumt on November 4, 2017 at 10:37 AM
Maybe you did not perfectly understand what gammacrux wrote.
The effect of a supervolcano with a Volcano Explosivity Index of 7 or even higher is all but ‘like putting something 2 min in the freezer’.
The explosion of Mt Rinjani on Indonesia’s Lombok island near Bali in 1257 was simply tremendous.
gammacrux
Nobody claims to know that. But it is very unlikely. They occur on average once every 100000 years. We have been unlucky enough to have had two in the past 100000 years.
Guys,
you would not counteract a long term 2 degrees climate change with a volcano.
Whatever the volcano.
GHG have longer lifetime than stratospheric aerosols.
Nobody knows what the temperature and climate will be in a century from now.
It’s certainly not because we know that CO2 has a warming effect on climate that anybody with serious scientific background would dare to tell.
Climate is a complex system and as such there are many emergent phenomena (life is one of them) that are definitively unpredictable.
In more popular terms of climate science, besides all poorly known or unknown feedbacks what about the following “feedback” of biological origin; A “nice” nuclear winter as a result of a global conflict due to economic collapse, resources scarcity ( energy and metals), growth of poverty etc… triggered by a forced march towards a mythical “carbon free” civilization of 7+ billion people…
Mickey Prumpt
I’m afraid I have to challenge that one. Toba 75000 years ago dropped global temperatures by at least 10 degrees for about a decade. And when the aerosols went away the ice sheets had already grown by enough to set the ice feedback effect into motion. I believe it took about 1000 years to recover.
And the volcano in the Siberian Traps that set off our greatest ever extinction 250 million years ago was on a different scale altogether. The VEI scale does not begin to describe it. Of course the chance of one of those in the coming centuries is almost zero, but if it came then human global warming would be off the agenda forever.
Ok interesting.
I read it led to a drop of global temperature of 3–5 °C (or more or less) for few decades and may have accelerated the transition to last glacial cycle (it coincided with the onset). It is not thought to have trigger the transition.
Ok for a potential global impact few 100 yr after the volcano, but I strongly doubt it would be enough to cancel most of the GHG induced warming (except of course during the few decades following the volcano).
(read drop of 3 to 5 degrees).
Callendar thought it would warm too. Mother Nature made a fool of him.
Callendar was right — the surface has warmed +0.8 C since his 1938 paper, ice has melted, the seas have risen and the ocean has gained massive amounts of heat.
Callendar specifically stated at the conclusion of his paper:
The course of world temperatures during the next twenty years should afford valuable evidence as to the accuracy of the calculated effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide
After 1938, world temperature COOLED. They cooled for over 40 years, not just 20.
Which demonstrates only that Callendar did not conceive that near-term factors could overwhelm the CO2 effect. His longer-term predictions per CO2 concentration proved fairly accurate. His global temp predictions for CO2 concentrations @ 330ppm and 360ppm is within 0.1C of observed, for example.
I see your point
RW says:
“The climate may warm this century or it may not. No one knows.”
Everyone knows — it will warm, baring some extremely improbable event like a massive volcanic eruption or asteroid/comet strike.
Or perhaps a slightly less improbable event – Trump starting a nuclear war.
True. That’s probably the most probable of all.
Salvatore,
I’ve been reading your predictions here for years. Personally if the difference between my stated predictions of dramatic cooling being just about to happen and the empirical evidence that the temperature is gradually and persistently creeping upwards had been as large as they have been with your own, I would have cut my losses long ago. But I’m heartened that you are at least entertaining the idea that you may well be wrong. Others commenting on this site could also do well to just look at the actual observations. It actually matters very little which dataset you place faith in – they generally correlate strongly with one another except for the strength of their response to ENSO events (which seem to have a stronger influence on the satellite data) and the differences in slope of the upward trend. But even then, the absolute range in empirical observations from the last 40 years is not huge – from ~1.3 to 1.8 degrees per decade.
0.13 to 0.18 degrees per decade sorry
Salvatore,
The monthly anomaly can jump as much as 0.4-0.5C in either direction. Jumps of 0.2-0.3 from month to month are fairly common. By next month, it could be back down to 0.2C and temps could continue to fall from there. Or not.
I suggest you stop making predictions! No one knows what’s going to happen. Any trend, warming or cooling, will only be known in hindsight. By dumb luck alone, someone’s prediction will be right.
I liken this to be analogous to an old saying about the stock market, which is all investors can be put into 2 categories: Those who know they don’t know where the market is going, and those who don’t know they don’t know where the market is going.
Good points. And, if there are 2^10 investors/analysts on Wall Street, on average one of them will call the right market direction 10 times in a row, just from dumb luck. The industry will elevate her to a genius.
CFSv2 SST forecast anomalies with 1982-2010 climatology
Nov 2017 to Jul 2018 (Updated: Sat Nov 4 11:36:17 UTC 2017)
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/images3/nino34Monadj.gif
You have to compare with the forecast.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/images3/nino12Monadj.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Exactly what we see here:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html
Weather summary
for British Columbia
issued by Environment Canada
at 9:31 p.m. PDT Friday 3 November 2017.
Many new record low maximum temperatures were set on November 3rd in
southern BC..
http://weather.gc.ca/warnings/weathersummaries_e.html
https://i1.wp.com/files.tinypic.pl/i/00944/iivxhy1bfjbk.png
ren…”Many new record low maximum temperatures were set on November 3rd in…”
That’s why I think NOAA has been monkeying with the sat record. It has cooled significantly here in Canada during October, as it normally does, and I am sure that applies to the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. Where is this fictitious warming coming from?
I do not know why Americans are worried about CO2 when they will face harsh winter? Is not anyone interested in the location of the polar whirl and where does the air come from?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_10_nh_f00.png
Sorry.
I do not know why Americans are worried about CO2 when them will face harsh winter?
Some Americans may have a larger vision than the next few months, and their own backyard.
Gordon Robertson says:
“It has cooled significantly here in Canada during October, as it normally does, and I am sure that applies to the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.”
Why?
It’s a huge hemisphere, and BC is tiny compared to it.
In my town, October was +0.7 F above the 1981-2010 baseline.
Gordon
According to GFS, western Canada is experiencing a cold snap. Fictitious cooling?
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#GFS-025deg.ARC-LEA.T2_anom
Spencer,
Global TLT, 01/2000 – 10/2017, RSSv4.0 vs. UAHv6.0:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/rssv4-vs-uahv6.png
The RSS team adjusted their data up by ~0.15 K between 1999 and 2003. The light green vertical line marks the approximate end of that period.
I believe there was quite a big adjustment for UAH satellite between v5.6 and v6, especially from 2000. Have you checked that out?
barry,
it seems that one more time commenter Okulaer aka ‘I know everything better than any specialist’
– feels the need to teach Roy Spencer about what Mr Spencer certainly will be aware of since many years,
but
– without explaining wrt what the claimed adjustement took place.
And yes: the differences between UAH6.0 and UAH5.6 were here and there quite impressive, even higher than the anomalies themselves.
I remember also a stupid polemic at WUWT last year about ‘huge adjustements’ made on RSS3.3 TLT which in fact looked infinitesimal when compared with the differences between the UAH revisions.
I’m not at home and don’t have the data at hand, otherwise I would publish the corresponding graphs.
barry says, November 4, 2017 at 10:15 AM:
Yes, I have:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/uah-need-to-adjust-their-tlt-product/
Thanks, Kristian. I wonder what the next revisions will bring.
About this absurd, malicious polemic against Callendar:
In 1938, Callendar compiled measurements of temperatures from the 19th century on, and correlated these measurements with old measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
He concluded that over the previous fifty years the global land temperatures had increased, and proposed that this increase could be explained as an effect of the increase in carbon dioxide.
These estimates have now been shown to be remarkably accurate, especially as they were performed without the aid of a computer.
Source: Wikipedia
Callendar’s work
Callendar, G. S. (1938) “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature”, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
unluckily is behind paywall.
binny…”About this absurd, malicious polemic against Callendar:”
Why don’t you publish the findings of Kreutz, another fine German scientist. He took over 25,000 readings of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over Germany that showed CO2 concentrations in excess of 400 ppmv back in the 1930s.
Callandar was a lightweight in comparison.
ALLAN MACRAE November 4, 2017 at 3:41 am
Sorted atmospheric cooling will resume soon. See the plot below of the UAH LT TROPICAL Anomaly vs the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly and the situation becomes more clear.
This is a typical pattern after major El Ninos, in which atmospheric (LT) temperature diverges above the level predicted by the long term relationship with the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly. The pattern will converge again soon, and atmospheric cooling will resume. WHY this happens after major El Ninos is still to be explained.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?https://scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s552x414/23172720_1483830358361188_7035410597183781895_n.jpg?oh=4319b2b8341bda2cce4a1e8d7a6a60c7&oe=5AADE579
Sorry.
https://scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23172720_1483830358361188_7035410597183781895_n.jpg?oh=32db9d0b62066344ccf4673e882a9119&oe=5A9FEA0D
As usual, the dumb and naive troll produces nonsense coming from Harry G. Olson, an extremist in climate denialism.
Bin thinks its OK to insult people by calling them dumb, naive, and troll, but as long as you don’t say “dumbass”. it’s OK. What a freakin’ hypocrite.
I only insult back, GoneDumb: people calling me an idiot, like did the Robertson troll, or calling other people dumb asses, like you did.
He took over 25,000 readings of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over Germany that showed CO2 concentrations in excess of 400 ppmv back in the 1930s.
Local measurements in an era of industrial expansion. Kreutz was not the first or last to take measurements in CO2 dense areas. It would be another 25 years before researchers located a pristine site to get the background measurements of CO2. Meanwhile, the ice records have been checked for background levels.
What should give anyone a clue about CO2 concentrations pre 1958, is that since good measurements have been made there have been no wild annual swings, but a very stable increase. Otherwise one would have to be at peace with an incredible coincidence that, just as CO2 background measurements were taken from the Antarctic and Mauna Loa, the atmospheric content miraculously stabilized, and stayed that way ever since.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Why dont you publish the findings of Kreutz, another fine German scientist. He took over 25,000 readings of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over Germany that showed CO2 concentrations in excess of 400 ppmv back in the 1930s.”
The data were contaminated by urban and industrial machines.
Bin,
You should not rely on the Wikipedia.
Callendar gave specific criteria to evaluate his claims. At the conclusion of his 1938 paper he stated:
“The course of world temperatures during the next twenty years should afford valuable evidence as to the accuracy of the calculated effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide
After 1938, world temperature COOLED. Not only for 20 years, but for over 40. By his own criteria, he was wrong.
Do your homework. The paper is not behind a paywall at other sites.
As usual, dumb stuff.
1. All skeptics aka ‘the true believers and followers’ pretty good rely on Wikipedia whereever it fits to their narrative.
2. People like you and other trolls, basing their ‘knowledge’ on Goddard, Notrickzone etc etc, never will understand yet accept that
2.1 there is no direct correlation between CO2 and temperatures, at best over a whole century, due to the ocean storage capacity of both CO2 and temperatures
2.2 everybody knows that the period before, during and following WW II led to a tremendous in crease of aerosols.
Do your homework.
That you should do first, GoneDumb!
The paper is not behind a paywall at other sites.
I have that paper since years somewhere, but being 3,000 km away from home, I feel no interest in looking for it again.
The usual bs from Bin. You did not do your homework and were left looking stupid. If you have a computer, you can perform a bing search. It’s not that hard, Einstein. I easily found a copy of the original study. I’m not doing the work for you.
Callendar SPECIFICALLY said the next 20 years would give evidence of the accuracy of his calculations. The following 20 years proved him wrong, and 20 years beyond that as well.
Please show me the data for measured aerosols.
Just wondering … do you follow the preachings of Donald Easterbrook?
La Nina will strengthen in a short time.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
Yeah, people were saying the same last year. Based on similar data. Guess what?
Not quite the same time. I think by this time we already knew it would be weak.
It is not weak. Index Nino 1 + 2 is -2,243 degrees.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Do you understand the concept of the PAST TENSE?
Index Nino 3 is -0.870 and falls.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
I guess not. Perhaps you understand the concept of “LAST YEAR”?
Let me try to break down this simple English for you:
“At this time last year” means I am talking about the year Twenty-SIXTEEN.
Point is, they were calling a definite la Nina (and many presumed a strong one) as early as February, then in May, June, July, August, September, October. ONI values crossed the la Nina threshold in August, which made people even more convinced (if that was possible). The timing of premature celebrations now relative to ENSO thresholds is similar enough.
Amusingly, the only institute that actually called a 2016 la Nina based on their metric is the one that skeptics despise the most.
And whenever a la Nina comes, as it will inevitably, we will see the inevitable fist-pumping because global temps went down for a few months.
Perhaps then we will be allowed to run trends through the 2016 el Nino year, but I suspect the skeptics will come up with a new fudge to try and wipe it out of analysis.
National Snow Analyses
https://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/snow_model/images/full/National/nsm_depth/201711/nsm_depth_2017110405_National.jpg
How does this graph tell you what ENSO “WILL” do?
Oops – replies to wrong comment.
With September and now October, the top 10 hottest monthly temperature anomalies are:
2016 02
2016 03
1997 04
2016 04
1997 02
1997 05
2017 10
1997 06
2016 01
2017 09
Every ‘skeptic’ (I prefer to call them the real believers) would tell you: it’s all El Nino thus 100% natural.
09/2017 and 10/2017 aren’t during an El Nino.
Yeah, and we have Dr. Spencer talking up La Nia – when it should be cooler.
Can’t blame Sep/Oct 2017 on ‘natural variation.’
Oh, so it removes proper tilde over n in the comments… no wonder everyone is just using Nino / Nina.
“Every ‘skeptic’ (I prefer to call them the real believers) would tell you: it’s all El Nino thus 100% natural.”
Well, just look at El Nino years and you will see there is still an upward trend.
How is it possible to be that stupid ?
Those 1997s should be 1998s.
Ah, whoops, you’re right. Month is right, year is not.
For those making predictions about la Nina, here are the latest forecasts.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
So the thermocline has no anomalous slope at present.
Most indicators point to a burgeoning la Nina, but la Ninas forming at this point in the cycle are rare. Chances are 50-65%* of la Nina conditions sustaining long enough to become a full-blown la Nina.
* This means chances are smaller of neutral or el Nino conditions prevailing over the coming months.
I assume by ‘this point in the cycle’ you actually meant ‘this time of the year’.
Of course it is possible that the start of a La Nina could be backdated to September.
Yes, this point in the year. Late-forming la Ninas are uncommon, though they do occur.
Yes, if a full la Nina formed soon, it would be backdated to September by the ONI method (NOAA).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
Using that metric, I looked at how many la Ninas formed after August against total.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
4 out of 16 la Ninas since 1950 = 25%.
Note: 1 or 2 of those followed from la Ninas where the NINO3.4 index hovered near the threshold between them (eg, 1974). So could almost be taken as a long la Nina.
Of course, different metrics for ENSO events will have slightly different results.
A question I posted earlier for Roy which he chose not to answer. Here it is again:
“Which of the surface adjustments do you believe is not statistically valid?” (And Why?)
If anyone else chooses to answer this question, please answer with MATHEMATICS, not rhetoric/bluster.
In what specific way are you asking about statistical validity? Could you give an example? Might help people better focus on what you’re querying. Do you mean spatial weighting, statistical analyses and eradication of spurious break points in weather station data, comparative trend results, or…?
This is not an attempt to seek information – I already understand how the adjustments work. It it an attempt to find out whether Roy and other people who claim there is a problem with the surface adjustments have the ability to properly explain what they see as the issues with each adjustment, or whether they are simply reciting mantra. Not sure about Roy, but for most of the others here I am pretty confident it is the latter.
des…”It it an attempt to find out whether Roy and other people who claim there is a problem with the surface adjustments have the ability to properly explain what they see as the issues with each adjustment…”
I have already explained the NOAA scientific misconduct. They receive data from 6000 surface stations globally, discard 75% of it and plug less than 25% of the data into a climate model where it is interpolated and homogenized to synthesize the data they discarded.
Eureka!! We have a warming trend where the IPCC and UAH found none.
Interesting. Now answer my question.
They receive data from 6000 surface stations globally, discard 75% of it
Again and again, you lie about this.
Each time, calmly, you will be reminded what a liar you are.
I see your comprehension issues are still troubling you.
My question was about the ADJUSTMENTS. The two main adjustments are TOB and PHA. Please explain why either of those two adjustments are statistically invalid.
des,
“The two main adjustments are TOB and PHA. Please explain why either of those two adjustments are statistically invalid.”
TOB is significant only for USHCN and not for global indices, BEST does not even care at all.
Still not understood that one could not hope to derive valid long-term trends by abutment of homogenous segments and ignoring the evolution of actually measured temperatures?
Still not understood that one could not hope to derive valid long-term trends by abutment of homogenous segments and ignoring the evolution of actually measured temperatures?
Raw temps are also used. The result is a higher centennial trend.
Skeptics Jeff Condon and Roman M did their own global analysis using raw data and got higher trends than Had.CRU. BEST did too.
There are analyses using non-GHCN data (eg, GSOD): similar results.
The raw data has been available for years for anyone to do the same. Do you know of alternative results using all the data (rather than cherry-picked stations?).
I actively seek pout this kind of analysis, especially from skeptics. For some strange reason, no skeptic (apart from Jeff and Roman) has rolled up their sleeves and done it.
barry,
If you want to make a correct analysis of the effect of the adjustments, you must use only long series (short series or homogeneous segments have the same effect).
You will find compatible analyzes for example here:
http://www.homogenisation.org/files/private/WG1/Bibliography/Applications/Applications%20(A-B)/begert_etal.pdf
or there :
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.689/pdf
And as a reminder for USHCN :
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Figure5.png
I do not know of a counterexample.
Phi,
You responded as if I’d asked a completely different question.
These are not global analyses, for example. In what way can I ask for a global record that would help you to understand I mean global?
USHCN – TOB adjustment in the largest, and even Anthony Watts thought that was necessary in his paper (Fall et al 2011).
As an aside, Fall et al corroborated biases in mean/max temps at poorly sited weather stations, and came up with a mean trend very similar to NOAA for the US.
I’ll repeat my question, so there can be no mistake.
With raw data being available for many years, where are the GLOBAL surface temp records made by skeptics? The ones that, apples to apples, demonstrate problems with adjustments to GLOBAL surface records?
I’ve shown you one, with trends higher than Had.CRU. I’ll take it as read you won’t accept BEST under the skeptic rubric of Mueller being a sell-out etc. So I linked to the one done by Jeff Condon and Roman M, whose skeptic credentials are not in doubt.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
Do you have anything to say about this? I hope you are not one who ignores information inconvenient to their view.
Do skeptics just have no interest in doing this work after years of carping about adjustments and demanding the raw data?
It should be straightforward to show that adjustments for the GLOBAL surface temp records are spurious. Take the raw data and do the analysis the way one thinks best. I’ve been waiting some years for more of the critics to do this. What is stopping them?
barry,
Projection crisis ? The question concerns the validity of adjustments. This question is decided only at the stations level, at the local level and possibly at the regional level but not at all at the global level.
Of course it counts at the global level – this is a prevailing metric regarding global change.
It is well known that there is less certainty at regional or local level than global. Some regions, for example,have poorer coverage than others. Perhaps this is why you are emphasising regional/local?
Should I take your disinterest in global analyses that you agree adjustments have an insignificant impact at the global level?
Adjustments correct events that appear individually in the stations. It is therefore primarily at this level that you can judge the relevance of adjustments and not at all at the global level.
“Should I take your disinterest in global analyses that you agree adjustments have an insignificant impact at the global level?”
Not at all. The global level should also be considered but based on what is learned from the individual data.
One of the lessons is that short series on average or homogenized series have the same characters. It is therefore not surprising that global calculations using short series on average are consistent with local calculations using adjusted long series.
I understand. I’ve asked much the same in the past.
(or… all of the above and more?)
des…”Which of the surface adjustments do you believe is not statistically valid? (And Why?)”
First you might explain why someone like Roy would fancy responding to someone like you. Why would a scientist who expresses skepticism about catastrophic global warming/climate change, based on nearly 40 years of satellite data, want to engage with someone trying to bait him with pseudo-scientific nonsense?
A US Senate committee is currently investigating NOAA for fudging the historical record.
Bait? Asking for details about an assertion is ‘baiting’ is it? Thanks for admitting that these assertions are only BELIEF.
Two days later and no one has a substantive, maths-based reply to des’ question.
I’ve asked the question many times. This is always the result. Nada.
Geomagnetic activity is very low. Clearly meridional jet stream.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00944/4cmw5l272rak.png
Clearly …… yes dear …… whatever you say dear …..
des,
“Roy and other people who claim there is a problem with the surface adjustments have the ability to properly explain what they see as the issues with each adjustment”
It’s pretty simple to understand. Surface temperature adjustment methods rely entirely on short-term trends while absolute values are ignored.
Such a technique is obviously not reliable for long-term trends. We are talking about a difference between methods of about 0.1 C per decade.
You’ll have to explain precisely WHICH adjustments you are talking about. For starters, explain what you are talking about with reference to the following description of pairwise homogenisation.
Oops – forget to include the link:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008JCLI2263.1
Its pretty simple to understand. Surface temperature adjustment methods rely entirely on short-term trends while absolute values are ignored.
Wow. What a quick shot.
The difference between ‘simple’ and ‘simple-minded’ seems here so tiny that a deeper, more consistent explanation would be welcome.
Btw: did you ever have a look at the UAH5.6-6.0 adjustments when compared with those for GISS?
I guess you didn’t.
All techniques used for building global or regional indices operate on the same basic principle:
1. Search for singular discontinuities in individual series.
2. Assembling segments based on slopes without taking into account absolute values.
As a result, long-term trends are meaningless.
Why do you keep starting a new thread. Go back to the old one and tidy up your room before you go outside to play.
As I told you in earlier RS threads: your personal meaning is here of no interest. You claim and pretend things without any proof.
Typical skeptic / warmist attitude (both clans have inverse meanings but behave quite similar).
Please show references and/or examples.
Indeed, when urged to substantiate his beliefs, phignoramus invariably adopts the same laughable trick ( =amusante ficelle, grosse comme une maison)
– either he (rarely) first makes an attempt and dares to go into some technical detail and when (systematically and invariably) shown to be plain wrong and fail miserably he readily switches back and just spouts an other part of his general babble, beliefs and ridiculous unsubstantiated indictment against GHE, AGW and scientists.
-or he (mostly) does not even make an attempt, cowardly stays away from fight and just switches to a different part of his general unsubstantiated drivel.
As I told you in earlier RS threads: your personal meaning is here of no interest. You claim and pretend things without any proof.
Typical skeptic / warmista attitude (both clans have inverse meanings but behave similarly superficial).
It does not matter. What I write is for those who have the means to understand. And I have nothing to add here. Goodbye.
It seems that you by far overestimate both the difficulty to understand you and the will to trust in what you so pretty smugly pretend.
Indeed: goodbye!
phi
You are certainly running true to gammacrux’s description of you above. By ‘means to understand’ I assume you are referring to some kind of mental condition.
So stuff like some year having 38% chance of being warmest
ever!
The sun is resting.
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/satellite-env.gif?time=1509876664000
Indeed. See you tomorrow Sol.
What is happening are the oceans are cooling now +.260c for global temperature deviation.
This is what I will be watching- the source ocean tid bits.
Salvatore
Here is a good tool for you:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/ocean/sst-ano-global_tcc.html
Keep it in your browser’s favourite list…
How can you tell whether “the oceans are cooling” when all you look at is sea SURFACE data.
+1
You see another wave of arctic air that reaches the Great Lakes.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
What will be winter in North America?
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_nh/500gz_anomalies_nh.gif
The polar vortex forecast shows how the air will circulate.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f72.png
I came across a good website for people who like to track ENSO events:
http://www.stormsurf.com/page2/links/ensocurr.html
It’s amazing what satellites can measure. For example, sea surface heights:
“Subsurface warm water is evidenced by increases in surface water height as compared to normal. Cold water at depth is evidenced by decreases in the surface water height. This data can be used to validate the presence of Kelvin Waves in the equatorial Pacific. Data obtained from the Jason-2 satellite.”
Pay attention to the pressure and the wind.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-154.58,0.94,452
The Green Plate Effect, the movie by Izen
https://youtu.be/DFC3DOEyoz0
Pseudoscience.
… and yet no evidence is offered. No counter argument is provided.
What specifically do you disagree with? What violates any basic law of physics? Or perhaps all of physics is also pseudoscience in your view.
The blue plate reaches its S/B equilibrium temperature. No problem.
Then the green plate is added. The green plate warms. But, the “back-radiation” from the colder green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.
The green plate warms until it is the same temperature as the blue plate. Both plates then radiate 200 Watts out of the system.
Claiming the “back-radiation” from a cooler surface can raise the temperature of the blue plate just means “someone” doesn’t understand physics.
“The green plate warms. But, the back-radiation from the colder green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.”
You keep stating things like this as if they are laws of physics. As if this was the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The calculations (supported by a century of real-world testing) show that the green MUST raise the temperature of the blue.
“The green plate warms until it is the same temperature as the blue plate. Both plates then radiate 200 Watts out of the system.”
It is pretty obvious from SB equation that the “standard textbook answer” (supported by a century of real-world testing) would be
P = sigma A (T(blue)^4 – T(green)^4)
= sigma A (244^4 – 244^4)
= 0 W/m^2
If both plates are at 244K, then there is no heat from the blue to the green plate.
Kindly show the equation and the calculations for how one plate at 244K can radiate 200 W/m^2 to another plate also at 244K.
The most formidable fake physics I’ve ever seen.
It readily violates even the first law of thermodynamics..;
If both green and blue plate end up at the same temperature there cannot be any heat flow between them. And if there is not heat flow from blue to green plate and the latter at constant temperature nevertheless manages to “radiate 200 W out of the system” it means that perpetual motion exists at last and that in green plate 200 W are created out of thin air.
But course the GHE denying crackpots might prefer to violate rather the second of thermodynamics and claim that 200 W flow spontaneously from blue to green plate at same temperature.
Hilarious !
Tim, I love your comedy.
Tim offers: “The calculations (supported by a century of real-world testing) show that the green MUST raise the temperature of the blue.”
Tim, if you don’t know how to apply an equation, and your result violates the laws of thermodynamics, you may need to review your “learning”. A colder surface can NOT radiatively raise the temperature of a warmer surface. That is why you can NOT heat your home in winter with a bowl of fruit.
Tim muses: “If both plates are at 244K, then there is no heat from the blue to the green plate.”
The ONLY heat transfer is from blue to green.
Tim, in his confusion, requests: “Kindly show the equation and the calculations for how one plate at 244K can radiate 200 W/m^2 to another plate also at 244K.”
Tim, once again, you confuse “radiate” with “heat transfer”. At equilibrium, both plates are radiating 200 Watts, in both directions, but the blue plate is constantly receiving 400 Watts. Consequently, it MUST radiate 200 Watts from both surfaces.
If you are so enamored with “back-radiation”, are you willing to heat your apartment with a bowl of fruit this winter? (Remember, it’s “supported by a century of real-world testing”!
Hilarious.
gamma brings in more comedy: “If both green and blue plate end up at the same temperature there cannot be any heat flow between them. And if there is not heat flow from blue to green plate and the latter at constant temperature nevertheless manages to radiate 200 W out of the system it means that perpetual motion exists at last and that in green plate 200 W are created out of thin air.”
Indeed, it is hilarious.
“both plates are radiating 200 Watts, in both directions”
Yes, so the net transfer from blue to green is zero. Blue radiates 200 W to the right to green, while green simultaneously radiates 200 W to the left to blue. There is no net transfer from blue to green. Glad you agree.
When Tim loses the argument, he tries to “re-describe” my words. It’s a “badge” of pseudoscience.
Me: “The ONLY heat transfer is from blue to green.”
Tim: “Yes, so the net transfer from blue to green is zero.”
It’s called “desperation”.
(So Tim, did you agree to heat your apartment with a bowl of fruit this winter?)
Sigh … OK G, which line do you disagree with?
1) both plates are radiating 200 Watts, in both directions
2) therefore, Blue radiates 200 W toward the right
2a) therefore Green radiates 200 W toward the left
3) Blue absorbs the 200 W mentioned in line (2a)
3a) Green absorbs the 200 W mentioned in line (2)
4) Combining 2&3, the right side of blue both absorbs and emits 200 W
4a) Combining 2a&3a, the left side of green both absorbs and emits 200 W.
5) The net radiation out of the right side of Blue is 200W-200W = 0W.
5a) The net radiation into the left side of Green is 200W-200W = 0W.
6) Since there is no net radiation entering blue from green or entering green from blue, the overall net transfer from blue to green is zero.
“1) both plates are radiating 200 Watts, in both directions”
At equilibrium, yes.
“2) therefore, Blue radiates 200 W toward the right”
At equilibrium, yes.
“2a) therefore Green radiates 200 W toward the left”
At equilibrium, yes.
“3) Blue absorbs the 200 W mentioned in line (2a)”
NOPE!
“3a) Green absorbs the 200 W mentioned in line (2)”
At equilibrium, yes.
“4) Combining 2&3, the right side of blue both absorbs and emits 200 W”
NOPE!
“4a) Combining 2a&3a, the left side of green both absorbs and emits 200 W.”
Yes, but the net gain is 200 W. The 200 W emitted is returned. Net is 200 W gain.
“5) The net radiation out of the right side of Blue is 200W-200W = 0W.”
NOPE! Net is 200 W. Remember, 400 W incoming.
“5a) The net radiation into the left side of Green is 200W-200W = 0W.”
NOPE! Net is 200W (incoming).
“6) Since there is no net radiation entering blue from green or entering green from blue, the overall net transfer from blue to green is zero.”
NOPE! 200W is being transferred from blue to green.
(What was the “sigh” about? Are you not happy having to push pseudoscience?)
2a) therefore Green radiates 200 W toward the left
At equilibrium, yes.
3) Blue absorbs the 200 W mentioned in line (2a)
NOPE!
So you agree that 200 J of radiation leave the left side of the green plate every second heading toward the left — ie heading toward the left side of the blue plate. Where do you think those joules of energy go? They don’t leak out the sides. They don’t disappear into thin air.
“The 200 W emitted is returned. Net is 200 W gain.”
Ah! it seems you are postulating that the 200W leaves green, gets reflected perfectly by blue, and then bounces back to green where it gets absorbed. Is that really your position?
TIm queries: “Where do you think those joules of energy go?”
Tim, all the energy is accounted for. 400 Watts into the system, 400 Watts leaving the system. You’re grasping at straws.
Tim, more grasping at straws: “Ah! it seems you are postulating that the 200W leaves green, gets reflected perfectly by blue, and then bounces back to green where it gets absorbed. Is that really your position?”
Nope. Your postulating is a FAIL.
Now, it’s time for you to answer my questions. Can you warm your apartment with a bowl of fruit this winter? If so, how many windows must you leave open so that your furniture does not catch fire?
“Tim, all the energy is accounted for. 400 Watts into the system, 400 Watts leaving the system. Youre grasping at straws.”
You are avoiding the space between the plates!
It is not enough to have 400W in and 400W out. The 400W has to work its way through the system is a way that is consistent with the laws of physics. You have 400W enter the blue but only 200W leave the blue (to the left). You have 0W enter the green but 200W leave the green (to the right).
“Now, its time for you to answer my questions. Can you warm your apartment with a bowl of fruit this winter?”
No. But that has nothing to do with the problem at hand. The green plate works because it is interposed between the warm blue plate (with an independent external power source) and the cold surroundings.
*Your fruit is not powered, so it is not like the blue plate.
*Your fruit is not interposed between a heated object and the cold surroundings, so it is not like the green plate.
“Your fruit is not interposed between a heated object and the cold surroundings, so it is not like the green plate.”
Actually, IF anger were smart enough to actually use his bowl of fruit interposed between the furnace and the cold surroundings as several inches of added insulation (R value 1) THEN, yes, his house would warm at same thermostat setting. Just like the blue plate does by experiment when the green plate with a bowl of fruit painted on is added to the experiment.
But obviously anger is not that smart in experimental or applied theoretical physics.
Tim grasps again: ” You have 0W enter the green but 200W leave the green (to the right).”
Tim, your reading comprehension is as bad as your physics:
In answer to your 5a) “Net is 200W (incoming).”
In answer to your 6) “200W is being transferred from blue to green.”
And you tried to avoid dealing with the bowl of fruit question, because you know it DOES have something to do with the problem at hand. The green plate receives energy. A bowl of fruit receives energy, from your body. You claim the green plate can heat the blue plate, but you run from the fact that your bowl of fruit can NOT heat you.
You’ve trapped yourself again, and it’s fun to watch.
Does anyone else smell cabbages burning?
“you tried to avoid dealing with the bowl of fruit question”
So I dealt with it, and, yes, anger if you were smart enough to use your bowl of fruit appropriately as added R value insulation, you can warm your apt. this winter at the same cost of fuel for your furnace.
However anger demonstrates little aptitude in these matters so I expect no advance in understanding or application of basic thermodynamics. I do expect anger will live up to all my expectations.
Tim Folkerts
I spent many posts on another thread with g*e*r*a*n over the same issue. I am starting to see more clearly the mentality of both g*e*r*a*n and SkepticGoneWild. They are disciples of the Cult leader Joe Postma.
When you posted a simple point on his blog he attacked you with a fury unfounded. I would think Postma was a lunatic for his unwarranted outburst but that would not be the case. He attacks people who bring real physics to the table. You threaten his power and control of his loyal disciples. He is in it for power and is a skilled manipulator. His material seems plausible until you think it through. He puts up a bunch of smoke and mirror to deceive his gullible followers. They love him too much to see how phony he is and just uses them for this manipulative power.
Here is his response you your intelligent and reasonable post on his blog.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/19/the-steel-greenhouse-in-an-ambient-temperature-environment/#comment-31737
This is your rational comment and he attacks it with fury it makes him seem insane. Not so, he is attacking you to show his followers his power and control over those who dare show his phony nature.
g*e*r*a*n is Joe Postma’s bulldog. His goal and purpose is to look at climate blogs, find rational physics presented, and then attack it with his various programmed mentality. The goal is to discredit those showing actual physics. First his uses Joe’s word “pseudoscience” often (not that he actually know what it means or how to use it properly). Then he makes fun of things with his patented “hilarious” (I think Postma also uses this against those who might show his blind followers the truth…Postma is in it for power and control and has little interest in truth or science).
g*e*r*a*n also is super tuned to any spelling error or a math error. He will jump on these to try and discredit the poster. It is all manipulation.
Neither g*e*r*a*n nor SkepticGoneWild are the least bit interested in the truth or science or physics. They have one goal and that is to find disciples on various climate blogs to grow Joe’s Cult. That is why you will never get anywhere with these two. They have a completely different motive.
By interacting with them you speak to the choir. We already know the real physics. They work to discredit you to find disciples.
Not much you can do about it. Keep posting real physics. The people that follow Postma don’t know physics anyway.
Both the recruiters have to be nicer on this blog as they might get banned if they go full “Postma” type attacks. It is there but subdued.
So our beloved hilarious buffoon finally made a decision: He violates the second rather than the first law of thermodynamics.
So sounds the latest news from clown fissics: heat flows between two bodies at same temperature. How does the heat know which direction it has to flow ? Simple it has to ask our
clown fissicist. Depends on his mood.
Clausius is flabbergasted in his grave.
I’m jealous. Our hilarious buffoon sounds so hollow and does a so much better job in this respect.
Hey the con-man showed up.
Norm, if I’m a “bulldog”, that makes you an emasculated three-legged yelping chihuahua.
I laughed at the 500-word ramble, but as I’ve indicated before, always throw in some pseudoscience.
That’s when you’re really hilarious.
@Gamma, I did like your errors regarding the laws of thermo–classic pseudoscience.
g*e*r*a*n
The really sad thing is that you believe yourself to be knowledgeable of physics but make up your own ideas and push them as fact and call real science pseudoscience to manipulate the uninformed.
I asked you on another thread (you won’t answer except for you foolish taunts and the use of the word pseudoscience and hilarious). You said the radiant heat transfer equation does not apply to powered systems. What? Where do you dredge up your phony misleading ideas from.
HERE YOU STATE: The common mistake here is trying to use equation 1, in this situation. Equation 1, often called the radiative heat transfer equation, fails in this case where a constant power source is involved. Thats why the solution ends up with the temperature of the sphere being a factor of the fourth root of 2 (1.189) higher than the temperature of the shell.
That violates both 1LoT and 2LoT!”
Very stupid but might convince some scientific illiterates. You are a phony person and that is what I wrote to Tim Folkerts about. If I see you posting your false and misleading cult physics, I will correct all your flaws and intentionally distortions. You are the Con-Man
It seems you “skeptics” all need to make up your own physics and peddle it on the few sights that allow your material to be presented. A good skeptic would use real and correct physics (they would also know it, which you do not and are not able to learn the truth)
I like how you are an Orwellian double writer. You twist the truth so you label Real Science as pseudoscience (Freedom is Slavery) and you the biggest of all Con-Man call me a con-man when I am most open with the science I post and link to the sources I get it from (which is something you do not do because you are a complete fraud and phony). Hopefully the more you post the more people will see how much a Real con-man you are and how much of a fraud you are.
Another rambling rant from the trembling chihuahua!
Hilarious.
Norman,
I just had the Postma experience myself. Wow! And he even changed my comment to agree with him!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272683
Tim,
Thought experiments are not science. Hello! McFly!
SGW, This is simply a “homework problem”. Apply standard textbook physics to a simple situation and get an answer.
What answer do you get? Show your work!
Tim
This guy has already shown a willingness to boast about his supposed understanding of science, but an unwillingness (read that as INABILITY) to demonstrate this ‘knowledge’ by answering questions with simple calculations that he can’t simply copy/paste from some denier website. Instead he comes up with pithy throw away lines like “hello McFly” to disguise his shortcomings.
gammacrux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z8ZQ3kTSK0
Here is a video representation of g*e*r*a*n. Maybe not the one and same person but when I watch this I think I am seeing g*e*r*a*n with his attitude of being so damn funny, so funny he can’t even tell us about it because he would die from laughing. Similar to his knowledge of physics, if he told us about it he would zap his brain from his brilliance (not!).
I guess he provides amusement on what could be a useful science blog and exchange of rational ideas and concepts.
Finished washing the dishes early today, huh Norm?
g*e*r*a*n
Have you been able to come up with new material? You have used that line already numerous times. Maybe you should take some time to study real physics and see why your arguments are not valid.
An object at 100 C radiates based only upon its own temperature. If you have two plates in a vacuum at 100 C you can’t magically have one radiating heat while the other does not. There is no mystic communication between the two surfaces that informs them that one plate has an energy input and the other does not. Magic physics that you just make up. Nothing in real physics even comes close to your absurd notions of reality. Just like Gordon, you make up your own physics. You both are delusional as you think your made up physics is real and the actual physics is false. Awesome delusional abilities. You can sustain such a state for very long periods of time and even after many people have clearly explained why your thought processes are flawed.
Yup, Norm finished early. He’s a speedy dishwasher.
g*e*r*a*n
And you still won’t explain how you came up with this thought.
YOU: “The common mistake here is trying to use equation 1, in this situation. Equation 1, often called the radiative heat transfer equation, fails in this case where a constant power source is involved.”
Where do you get this nonsense from? You just made it up and call it good.
Why do you feel compelled to make up physics and pretend you know what you are talking about. You may be 65 years old but your mental age is considerably lower.
Con-man, it is not my job to teach you physics. But if you ever get to actually study physics someday, you will learn that if some equation gives a result that violates the laws of thermodynamics, then you have made a mistake somewhere. It is your job to find your mistake. It’s a learning experience.
In this blue/green plate scenario, the ONLY incoming energy is the 400 Watts to the blue plate. That’s it. There ain’t no more.
And the MAXIMUM temperature the 400 Watts can raise the blue plate to is 244K. That’s it.
So, trying to claim that the “back-radiaton” from the colder green plate can somehow raise the blue plate higher than the S/B value is PSEUDOSCIENCE.
You’re WRONG. I’m RIGHT. Nothing new.
Now, more rambling, ranting, yelping insults, please.
g*e*r*a*n
You do not know physics as much as you think you do. You are a pretender and will always be such until you study real physics.
YOUR STATEMENT: “And the MAXIMUM temperature the 400 Watts can raise the blue plate to is 244K. Thats it.”
Complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics. You just can’t comprehend them. You are good at pointing out typos and math errors (surface things) but you are unable to comprehend concepts.
Your statement is completely flawed and not based upon any understanding of the physics of heat transfer. When you rely on your own made up science it will eventually not work for you.
So if you put thick insulation on the opposite side of the blue plate in your understanding of thermodynamics it would not matter, the surface of the blue plate would still only reach 244 K. You have no clue of just how ignorant you and Postma’s cult are.
If only a trickle of energy left the back side because of insulation the front surface would approach 289 K depending upon how good your insulation was. You cannot understand the surface temperature is not some fixed item in a dynamic system (one with continuous input energy). The temperature can rise to many different temperatures.
The only thing your post proves is you really are ignorant about science. You are not right about much on your posts. Sometimes you get lucky and will say a correct comment but it is rare and I would think accidental on your part.
g*e*r*a*n
This would be a good theme song for Postma Cult
Voice of the Cult by Chastain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc88DU8dzQg
Norm, you proved me right again!
And, enjoyed the “rambling, ranting, yelping insults”.
Hilarious.
Some people will deny that a blanket keeps you warm at night.
But you can be sure they all use them.
Davie, who denies that blankets help keep you warm?
You’re not just making things up, are you?
g*e*r*a*n
Can you clarify your statement: “Norm, you proved me right again!”
I would think I proved you are clueless about how heat transfer works and you make up stuff about it that is not rational or based upon logical thought process.
So what are you right about. I have not seen anything yet except for you yapping. Did Joe Postma give you a doggie treat?
g*e*r*a*n
I am reading some more of your Master’s crap physics. You are wrong, he uses pseudoscience quite often. Even in his testimony about himself.
Your Boss: “Q between the Earths surface and Earths atmosphere is positive, meaning that heat is flowing from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere. Their other argument attempting to explain the mechanism of back-radiation is that making Q less positive will increase the temperature of the warmer surface. This is a complete fabrication and pseudoscience of thermodynamics, and here is where their argument reduces to Zenos Paradox. Q is supposed to become less positive, in fact it is supposed to go to zero, but if in doing so this increased the temperature of the warmer object, then this would also increase the temperature of the cooler object, and then you effectively have Zenos Paradox or a variation on it (you never reach the end because the finish line of Q = 0 is itself running away from you).”
Note the pseudoscience. He is lame. He is unable to understand that the atmosphere is radiating in two directions. Toward the surface and out to space. It won’t continue to warm indefinitely, the surface will warm to a point that the energy it is receiving equals the amount that is leaving.
g*e*r*a*n
Here is how your Master twists physics into a tangled loop of nonsense.
JOSEPH: “As for the shells interior emission, it cannot act as heat and thus warm the sphere since the sphere is always producing more power or at most (at equilibrium) an equal amount of power that the shell emits. To raise the spheres temperature from emission from the shell would require positive heat flow from the shell to the sphere, but this is never possible because at most the shell emits the same power as the sphere, and never more than the sphere. To raise an objects temperature requires either work performed on it or heat transferred into it, and the shell doesnt perform work on the sphere and it can never send a net difference positive balance of power as heat to the sphere.”
If the outer shell prevents heat flow from the surface of the sphere (which it would) because of back radiation it does not have to heat the sphere to warm it. The sphere has a heat source. He absolutely demonstrates his inability to understand the GHE. He just can’t do it, neither can his faithful dog (you).
So the shell is not adding heat to the sphere. We all get this, no one disputes it. But the backradiation prevents heat from leaving the sphere (it radiates the same but now is absorbing more energy from the shell…not heat just energy…Heat is NET energy). The energy supply to the sphere is what raises its temperature when the amount of energy that is leaving the sphere is reduced.
You can understand it with insulation but your mind goes blank when radiation achieves the same effect as insulation would do. Lower the amount of energy that is leaving the sphere surface.
Norman,
You can lead a
donkeyhorse to water but you can’t make it drink.And don’t bother, when our hilarious buffoon talks about dishwashing, be sure that for once he knows what he talks about. His mother in law wouldn’t tolerate the buffoon not doing tamely the donkey work.
Wow Con-man, you must have worked all evening composing your three vapid comments!
All that pounding on the keyboard, and nothing to show for it. Reminds me of “The Shining”. The worms in your head are definitely taking over.
And, you still can’t seem to figure out why “you’re WRONG, and I’m RIGHT”!
Hilarious.
gummycrud, that’s still somewhat lame. You need to study Norm’s technique more to get to the hilarious level. Keep trying.
Norman says, November 6, 2017 at 10:06 PM:
You STILL don’t get it, Norman!
It doesn’t prevent heat flow “because of back radiation”. That is tantamount to saying that the addition of “back radiation” directly raises its U and T, exactly equivalent to what the addition of heat from its heat source does.
THIS is what g*e*r*a*n objects to. And rightfully so. You cannot DESCRIBE the thermal (thermodynamic) process of insulation as one of ADDING energy. That’s a DIFFERENT thermal (thermodynamic) process, called HEATING.
Kristian
Yes that is exactly what I am saying it does. Same thing all textbooks say. Backradiation is an energy source to a surface.
The process of absorbing radiant energy and emitting it are two different events. They do not have to occur at the exact same time, only overall will there be a macroscopic flow both ways.
Molecules at higher vibrational energy will be the ones emitting the IR away from the surface. Molecules at lower energy levels will absorb IR hitting the surface and translate it into kinetic energy of the objects molecules to be distributed throughout.
You have made up your own physics based upon your own understanding and you never support it with any outside material. I have asked you to support it numerous times and to date you have not.
Here is another example to show how flawed your ideas are (not that you can accept this as proof).
At night I was looking at a tree illuminated by a streetlight. The light was behind me. The energy of the light struck the tree and was reflected backwards toward me against the gradient of the light. There is no coupling of photons into a gas or cloud. There are two macroscopic detectable flows, the flow from the light that hits the tree and the flow of photons that bounce off the tree moving against the original flow and reaching my eyes to be detected. Same with IR. Take an FLIR instrument and have a heated object in the room (powered) that is warming all the other objects. You can stand between the heater and the other objects and point the FLIR at the objects and the energy they are emitting will be detected by the FLIR. There is no merging of photons into a one way cloud that flows only from hot to cold. Each object is emitting its own radiant energy away from it, each object produces its own macroscopic energy flow away from it that is most easily detected by multiple methods. If you were a snake you could see the objects directly.
g*e*r*a*n
A challenge for you. I do not think you are able to accept it.
YOU STATE: “And, you still cant seem to figure out why youre WRONG, and Im RIGHT!
So inform me since I can’t figure it out. I know you won’t be able to because you are dealing in Postma’s made up physics and it is not supported by any real physics.
Good luck convincing me I am wrong. I doubt you will be able to since I base my ideas on real and valid physics.
Norman says, November 7, 2017 at 11:32 AM:
You have been informed, Norman. Again and again and again and again. But like you say, you just can’t figure it out, no matter how many times it’s explained, no matter how many times it’s spelled out for you. Your obvious full-blown mental block on this particular subject simply prevents you from ever getting there …
Norman says, November 7, 2017 at 11:32 AM:
No, you don’t. That’s precisely what you DON’t do. You THINK you understand the physics. But you don’t. You simply lack the basic understanding needed to enable you to connect the dots, Norman. I’m sorry, but you’re one of the more persistently and stubbornly confused human beings I’ve ever come across.
“The energy of the light struck the tree and was reflected backwards toward me against the gradient of the light.”
Instruments can detect the spectrum of the reflected light emitted at high T and the spectrum of the light emitted at the T of the tree going into your eye.
Those instruments then detect the amount of emitted and reflected light reaching your eye. For natural objects measured this way order of 95% will be found emitted (emissivity) by the tree and order of 5% reflected (reflectivity) from the tree.
For more reading on the terms: William L. Wolfe, 1982: A proclivity for emissivity. Applied Optics, Vol. 21, p. 1. Wolfe’s parting shot is “On reflection, I like reflectivity and emissivity”.
For the usual contrarians around here, yes, there is a contrary view: see Joseph C. Richmond’s follow-up to Wolfe’s letter. If the term emittance is to be used at all it is best reserved as an abbreviation for emitted irradiance (or radiance).
Note that radiometric and photometric dimensional quantities(radiance, irradiance, luminance, etc.) all end in ance, and hence in the same spirit emittance ought to be emissivity times the Planck function.
Kristian
You have not given any supporting evidence for your view. You have stated your opinion many times. You have never linked to an established science source that makes the claims you do. The established science says exactly opposite of what you say.
Established science: Every object with a temperature emits radiant IR. The rate of emission is based only upon its temperature and emissivity and area of surface, nothing else. It does not matter what else is around it, only its own internal temperature determines its rate of energy flow. You have created this merging photon cloud and believe it to be true. It is your own invention. If your idea had even the slightest reality you would not be able to see any objects at all as the photons from any object would not have a unique macroscopic flow that is visible.
Support your claims with established science. Your opinion is pointless and is not believed. I want actual proof of your claims. You have NOT done this at all. You link to your own blog. You have no experimental evidence to support your claims. My ability to see individual objects in a room rejects your claims completely.
G* and SGW might find this helpful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY
“High temperatures in the 20s and 30s F across the Dakotas and Minnesota will fall into the single digits and teens at night.
Anyone spending time outside, especially in the evening or early morning hours, will need to bundle up to avoid the risk of cold-related illnesses. Pets should not be left outside for long periods of time.”
Hello des
Partly due to the fact that RSS was really late last month, that article is much later than I expected it to be. But if all goes as planned, it will appear on WUWT on Tue Nov 7th at 8:00 AM Mountain Time.
Now that October is in, were you by any chance planning to do a Top 10 first-10-months-of-the year?
I hadn’t planned to, but see below.
Warmest 10 UAH Octobers on record:
1. 2017 (+0.63)
2. 2015 (+0.43) … EL NINO
3. 2016 (+0.42) … EL NINO affected
4. 1998 (+0.40) … EL NINO affected
5. 2003 (+0.28)
6. 2005 (+0.27)
7. 2014 (+0.25)
8. 2012 (+0.23)
9. 2006 (+0.22) … El NINO
10. 2010 (+0.20)
October 2017 was 0.35 second warmest non-El-Nino-affected October
Warmest 10 first-10-months-of-the-year:
1. 1998 (+0.542) … EL NINO
2. 2016 (+0.541) … EL NINO
3. 2010 (+0.375) … EL NINO
4. 2017 (+0.371)
5. 2015 (+0.238) … EL NINO
6. 2002 (+0.224) … EL NINO
7. 2005 (+0.211) … EL NINO
8. 2007 (+0.191) … EL NINO
9. 2003 (+0.169) … EL NINO
10. 2014 (+0.168)
Jan-Oct 2017 was 0.203 warmer than second warmest non-El-Nino-affected first-10-months-of-the-year
Average for last 5 years (Nov 2012 Oct 2017): … +0.285
Average for last 5 years at same point after 97-98 El Nino (Nov 1994 Oct 1999): … +0.109
NO PAUSE
North Pole temperature in 2016 and 2017.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2016.png
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
In case you couldn’t understand my English, I wasn’t talking about the North Pole. I was talking about the GLOBE.
Thank you! Please post this as a comment when you see the article.
I was surprised to see it up already!
I saw the article. It seems that the comment section is even more lacking in factual science than here.
I will assume that you do not wish to add your excellent addition. I will therefore do it and of course give you the credit for it.
I will give it another go.
I think that oceans covering 70% of the Earth surface, warm the rest of the world. And I think the land surface cool the rest of the world.
Ocean surface have higher average temperature, about 17 C, as compared to land surfaces, about 10 C.
The tropical ocean which gets more sunlight, does most of the ocean warming of the rest of the world.
Other than ocean are warmer and must warm what is cooler, and cooler doesn’t warm warmer, just as starting point. Another thing is the warmer oceans since they are averaged with land temperature cause number of what is the earth average temperature to be 15 C.
Or ocean dwellers are living in a “world” of average temperature of about 17 C, and land dwellers are living in a “world” of average temperature of about 10 C.
Or dweller of the tropical zone, are living in world of average temperature of about 27 C. And rest of world is living close to an average temperature pretty close to freezing- and would well below freezing if not warmed by the oceans, especially the tropical ocean.
So what I am saying so far isn’t why oceans are warmer or why land is colder.
So tropics have higher average temperature than rest of the world, tropics is 40% of earth surface, that warmer region increases the entire class’s average score- or increase the average temperature.
And of course simply because tropics is warmer, it will warm cooler regions, and cooler region aren’t going to warm the tropics- or if “doing anything” to tropics they are cooling it. But generally tropics isn’t cooled much by colder regions- just like a furnace isn’t cooled by the cold rooms it’s heating.
Now, it is rather amusing that Europeans could imagine their “life style choices” could be warming the tropics.
I am laughing too much, I will stop here.
Yes your comment was funny wasn’t it.
Yes.
The ocean is warm because the ocean absorbs about 90% of all sunlight coming to earth.
Were ocean not absorbing more energy than land or absorbed
an equal amount, simply due to ocean being 70%, the ocean would absorb about 70% of all sunlight coming to earth- assuming land and ocean was equally distributed.
And ocean and land are not equally distributed. The ocean cover about 80% of the tropics, and tropics receive more sunlight than the rest of the world.
The oceans also dominate the southern Hemisphere, and southern
hemisphere due to the axis tilt when Earth is closest to the sun [Jan 4] gets more sunlight. At top of atmosphere the difference is 1,413 watts vs 1,321 watts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
It should be noted that very significant feature of the southern hemisphere is the continent of Antarctica which has average temperature of about -50 C.
The cooling effect of Antarctica is well known and this continent’s location is major factor of why our current climate is called an icebox climate.
To be dramatic, it’s a giant vortex sucking heat from the rest of the world [nearest being the rest of the southern hemisphere]. How it does this is topic of quite a few scientific papers. But quantity of papers should make you assume that the mechanism is well understood. Or you should assume the opposite- it’s a bit of mystery- needing further study, etc. There is general agreement that if Antarctica is cold, the rest of world is warm. Or the opposite, if Antarctica is warming, the rest of world is cooling.
Or the continent itself has no way to warm it’s itself, it must take heat to warm. Or one look at in sense that because it’s so cold, it doesn’t radiate much heat into space so it’s coldest is a global “warming mechanism”.
But really the antarctic is not an oddity, all land surface do this, it’s just Antarctic does it best among all other land masses.
gbaikie…”The ocean is warm because the ocean absorbs about 90% of all sunlight coming to earth”.
That inconvenient truth is omitted from the thought experiment perpetuated by climate alarmists when they espouse their metaphorical theory of the GHE. It’s obvious that the oceans are supplying the heat credited falsely to the GHE.
Without the oceans, even the alarmists admit the world should be 33C cooler. Unfortunately they have gotten hung up on gases that average out to 0.3% of the atmosphere while ignoring fluids that account for over 70% of the surface area.
If the data is solid that October 2017 was as warm as declared, it was the oceans causing the warming, nothing else.
And what is causing the oceans to warm? What is their heat source?
https://is.gd/H9wXag
Davie, “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
–g*e*r*a*n says:
November 6, 2017 at 7:53 PM
Davie, Its the Sun, stupid.–
That is the most obvious.
I think in the past there could have been, a significant
geothermal component and I wouldn’t at the present time, rule out some degree of minor effect from geothermal heat.
But in term of the big picture, it has been and is the Sun.
What other source energy could it be?
In regards to possible minor effect from geothermal heat. I say in terms average ocean of about 4 C, it’s likely less than 1/10th of degree, and in terms average surface temperature of 17 C, less than 1/2 degree.
Or similar to CO2, probably not enough be measurable, in terms of global temperature, but unlike CO2, the geothermal warming of a large chunk of the ocean could be measured. If large fluctuation of the increase or decrease geothermal heat output.
[I had to look, and something like the Juan de Fuca Ridge seems to have such fluctuation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Fuca_Ridge
http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/expedition8/
And btw, Vents around the world:
http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/vents/vent-world.html
Also thinking that Juan de Fuca Ridge could be site to harvest geothermal energy. It’s fairly to population which use the energy harvested.
David Appell says, November 6, 2017 at 7:13 PM:
g*e*r*a*n says, November 6, 2017 at 7:53 PM:
Yes, this is getting stupid. It is SOOOOO obvious what’s behind the warming of the oceans. Look at the DATA, people!
Heat INPUT (ASR) to the Earth since 2000:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/asr.png
Heat OUTPUT (OLR) to the Earth since 2000:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/olr.png
Earth’s net flux (ASR minus OLR) since 2000:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/net.png
Heat IN has gone steadily up. Heat OUT has not simultaneously gone steadily down, but up as well. The net has increased. Gee, I wonder what might be the cause …?
No, it’s not the sun. For the Nth time, the total energy the sun delivers to the Earth has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s. Look at the data, people:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
DA,
You are mistaken that solar activity decreased after 1960
In fact the latterhalf the 20thcentury had extremely high solar activity as measured by SSN..
It is now referred to as a grand solar maximum … Unsurprisingly global temps rose as a result ..
We have just recently (last 15 years or so) returned to SS levels not seen since the early 20th century ..
Kristians graph had the ASR, not the TSI.
Are we looking at feedbacks?
Sir Isaac had a good explanation here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267830
“shortwave radiation takes over the heavy lifting in global warming”
Svante says, November 7, 2017 at 5:03 PM:
No, we’re not looking at feedbacks. We’re looking at the driver of global warming.
No, he did not have a good explanation. My responses back then:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267927
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-267934
“The finding was a curiosity, conflicting with the basic understanding of global warming”
“I think the default assumption would be to see the outgoing longwave radiation decrease as greenhouse gases rise, but that’s probably not going to happen”
“We would actually see the a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n of shortwave radiation increase. Will we actually ever see the longwave trapping effects of CO2 in future observations? I think the answer is probably no.”
Svante says, November 8, 2017 at 1:29 AM:
Yes, far into the future. Read the paper. Up until today, the positive radiative imbalance at the ToA is claimed to derive ENTIRELY from reduced OLR (-0.8 W/m^2) while ASR is rather assumed to have contributed negatively (-0.2 W/m^2).
You need to actually read ALL of what is written, Svante, before jumping to conclusions.
And again, the “hypothesis” says that we shouldn’t actually observe a positive imbalance at the ToA from an “enhancement of the GHE”. This would only occur in the event of an abrupt immense increase in the atmospheric content of IR-active gases, like from some huge pulse being injected overnight, the classic scenario being a doubling of CO2. This, however, isn’t what is happening in the real world …
Kristian,
You were right, I hadn’t read the paper. Now I have and you are right again.
OLR recovery could have taken one or a few decades if it hadn’t been for aerosols.
Still:
“global energy accumulation dominated by enhanced ASR could occur with only 0.5 K global warming above present” (that was 2014 – look at the graph at the top of the page).
Is it possible that both ASR and OLR are going up now in pursuit of this future state, i.e more imbalance before, less now?
Like year 20 or 58 in figure 1D.
A negative OLR anomaly, OLR is rising, and so is ASR.
The paper is found here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16700.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
Things which I think are interesting [or not properly measured as far as I am aware]:
The amount of indirect sunlight.
Wiki says at noon clear skies when sun is near zenith there is about 1050 watts of sunlight and if include indirect sunlight
about 1120 watts of sunlight.
By itself 70 watts per square meter of indirect sunlight isn’t going to warm a blackbody by much.
Or lets increase the amount of indirect sunlight to 700 watts per square meter- this also isn’t going to warm a blackbody surface by much. Or without doubt 700 watts of direct sunlight will warm a blackbody. In vacuum – 333.3 K [60 C].
So 700 watts of indirect sunlight in vacuum will not warm a blackbody to 60 C, nor 50 C.
Nor can the diffused or indirect sunlight be magnify like direct sunlight can be.
But I would argue that 700 watts of indirect sunlight would warm water as much as direct sunlight does.
And apparently solar panel can absorb energy from indirect sunlight and make electrical power or solar panel do work a bit if day is cloudy. Plus when cloudy where solar panel are pointing towards doesn’t matter as much as it does as compared with direct sunlight.
In tropics on clear day and the sun is near zenith for 6 hours and would roughly would get about 1000 watts of direct sunlight and roughly 70 watts of indirect sunlight.
And when sun is further than 45 degree away from zenith- before 9 am and after 3 pm, one starts getting significant less direct sunlight- because sun is going thru more atmosphere and diffusing more sunlight, so one gets a higher percent of indirect sunlight compared direct sunlight.
And this also applies when it’s cloudy in the tropics- less direct more indirect sunlight as compared to direct sunlight.
Found a nice page of recent hurricane ACE values.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?loc=northatlantic
Atlantic hurricane ACE values for Sept and Oct.
Sep: 178.1
Oct: 20
You can do a global account, too, by totting up NH and SH ACE for Sept and Oct:
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/
What you’ll find is that Sept had a much higher ACE than Oct.
The energy transferred from the ocean to the lower trop occurs in real time. It seems that hurricanes can’t explain the high October anomaly. September should have been much higher if hurricane ACE has a noticeable impact on globall temps.
barry states: “The energy transferred from the ocean to the lower trop occurs in real time.”
Yes, but that energy can take weeks/months to move to space. Hence October sat temps would reflect the higher values. It was predictable.
Predictable?
g*e*r*a*n: My “best guess” range is 0.35 to 0.45 C. I chose the upper end of the range (+0.44 C) knowing that all the hurricanes would have a slight effect.
Last month it was a “slight effect”, and you predicted a lower October anomaly than September (0.54). Your prediction went the wrong way (so did mine).
Where did the heat hide from TLT in September?
You may note from the above article that tropical temps went down from Sept to Oct. Soon we will have the regional temps for October and we’ll see which parts of the globe were hot.
barry, the fact that the hurricane season would boost troposphere temps was predictable. I under-estimated that effect. But, the fact the the effect was so large is evidence of that effect.
You are desperately trying to close your eyes to that fact.
But hurricane season is … every year.
And your favorite dataset tell us there is a record high this month.
So hurricane activity was a record high too ?
Please, show us how smart you are.
Mickey implores: “Please, show us how smart you are.”
Often it’s more fun to let you show how incompetent you are.
The end of the hurricane season in the Atlantic.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=natl×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Trade winds are at odds with la nina
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Scroll down to “zonal, low level wind anomalies”
Operational SST Anomaly
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomp.11.6.2017.gif
It’s funny how Roy the meteorologist is perplexed over the latest anomalies but hacks with no background in the subject matter claim it was predictable. He has already stated that it is extremely unlikely that hurricanes have this kind of effect.
Remember, this is coming from someone who believes cosmic dust is responsible for sea level rise.
(Talking about g*e*r*a*n)
–Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
November 6, 2017 at 1:55 PM
Remember, this is coming from someone who believes cosmic dust is responsible for sea level rise.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
November 6, 2017 at 2:04 PM
(Talking about g*e*r*a*n)–
That tells me that G is secret believer that CO2 causes some
warming. Or if billions of tonnes of “cosmic dust” can raise sea level, then billion of tons of CO2 can warm Earth.
That’s not an accurate statement, snake. But then, who would expect accuracy from a 12-year-old?
Your need to insult everyone shows insecurity and a lack of confidence.
But, the fact the the effect was so large is evidence of that effect.
Circular reasoning in one sentence.
barry, it’s okay with me if you want to disregard the heat energy released by the hurricanes.
It’s just funny how much you must disregard, to keep your belief system alive.
grangran
Does Roy Spencer ‘disregard’ this?
its okay with me if you want to disregard the heat energy released by the hurricanes
Warm air in a hurricane rises up through the troposphere, causing cold air to be sucked inwards at the bottom, which creates winds and the gyre. Hurricanes release their heat to the troposphere up to the stratosphere continuously after they’ve formed. The heat transfer from ocean to the lower and upper trop occurs near-instantaneously.
What I’m disputing is that:
1) there is a lagged response in tropospheric temps.
2) the effect is a significant addition to the global tropospheric average.
I’ve done some preliminary investigation on your claim. My provisional conclusion is that it doesn’t stack up.
In reply, your defense of your position amounts to, “it’s obvious.” Do you have more to corroborate what you’re claiming than assertion?
Have you figured out how much energy would be required to heat the atmosphere by, say, 0.1C, and then checked the global ACE figures for September against that?
That would be something.
Can you explain with some physical mechanics why there would be a lag, and how long it should be?
You may be interested in temperature readings by altitude in the core of a hurricane.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.395.2491&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Hurricanes are warmest at an altitude of about 5.5 km. That’s ear the middle of the altitude range captured by UAH lower trop. (Image created by Dr Spencer)
How can there be a lag if a hurricane is putting the heat directly into the lower trop while it’s active?
Do you have anything concrete – studies, reports, expert opinion – to back up what you’re saying?
How will you turn your speculation into fact?
barry, what a well thought-out comment. It’s my pleasure to respond.
You’re interested in:
1) Is there a lagged response in tropospheric temps?
2) Is the effect a significant addition to the global tropospheric average?
The vast majority of heat energy, that a hurricane “pulls” from the water, is latent heat. The latent heat is not released into the atmosphere until condensation occurs. So, yes, there is a lagged response, just to when condensation happens. At that time, the heat energy is still in the atmosphere. It must then get to space. The current “consensus” appears to be that heat energy, in the Northern Hemisphere is transported toward the pole by the Ferrel cell. This process is largely convection, but conduction and radiation are also occurring simultaneously. The end result is that the bulk of heat energy that was removed from the tropical waters gets radiated to space at a much higher latitude. (Of course, the same action (only geographically reversed) happens in the Southern Hemisphere, for the cyclones that occur there.)
I have seen some evidence that this total transfer time can take up to 3 months, depending on where the hurricane moved, and all of the subsequent winds. So, if you have several hurricanes, close in time, their total heat capacities could definitely affect temperature averages.
Again, you don’t have to believe any of this. I just wanted to take the time to respond to someone that is not behaving like a 12-year-old. That’s rare.
Thanks for taking on point 1).
The vast majority of heat energy, that a hurricane pulls from the water, is latent heat. The latent heat is not released into the atmosphere until condensation occurs. So, yes, there is a lagged response, just to when condensation happens.
Condensation is continuous from the time the storm forms, until the storm dissipates over land, cut off from its source of energy. The major hurricanes of September dissipated by the end of the month (Maria dissipated by Oct 3), and that heat was already in the lower troposphere.
At that time, the heat energy is still in the atmosphere. It must then get to space.
The heat energy is in the lower and upper troposphere by this time (some in the stratosphere). By the time the storms dissipate, that energy has already been transferred to the atmospheric zone measured for temps by MSUs. I can’t see a month-log (or 3-month long) lag here WRT to TLT.
The end result is that the bulk of heat energy that was removed from the tropical waters gets radiated to space at a much higher latitude.
UAH TLT is not measuring temps at the point of escape of radiation to space. It is an attempt to measure temps at the lowest possible zone of tropospherc atmosphere, centred around 4km altitude.
You can see this zone and its weighting by altitude in the graphic provided by Dr Spencer (dotted line).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/MSU2-vs-LT23-vs-LT.gif
You briefly touch on point 2…
So, if you have several hurricanes, close in time, their total heat capacities could definitely affect temperature averages.
From what I’ve gathered reading around, the total energy fueling a hurricane, even 10 hurricanes, is several orders of magnitude smaller than what it would require to raise the temperature of the lower troposphere by 0.1C.
Have you read anything – with some actual values pertaining to this matter – to lead you to believe that the energy transferred by hurricanes from the ocean to the atmosphere is a significant fraction of what it would take to raise global TLT?
This would be a first order requirement to corroborate your view.
barry, let me correct some of your misconceptions:
“Condensation is continuous from the time the storm forms, until the storm dissipates over land, cut off from its source of energy.”
Nope. The condensation continues until it stops. Check rainfall totals over Houston area after Harvey. Then follow those totals all the way to Tennessee. The latent heat is being released all during that time.
“By the time the storms dissipate, that energy has already been transferred to the atmospheric zone measured for temps by MSUs. I cant see a month-long (or 3-month long) lag here WRT to TLT.”
Nope. The heat energy will be measured by the MSUs, again and again, until it moves out. As heat energy leaves the surface, it warms the atmosphere. It continues to warm the atmosphere until it moves to space. The sats just measure the temps they “see”.
“UAH TLT is not measuring temps at the point of escape of radiation to space.”
Nope. I never indicated as such. I hope you are not trying to be tricky.
“From what Ive gathered reading around, the total energy fueling a hurricane, even 10 hurricanes, is several orders of magnitude smaller than what it would require to raise the temperature of the lower troposphere by 0.1C.”
One kg of water releases about 2,200,000 Joules, upon condensation. Estimate all the rainfall, and convert to energy released. Then realize that that heat energy must then be transferred to space. That transfer is not instantaneous. Before the energy can move on, more heat energy, from subsequent hurricanes, adds.
“Have you read anything with some actual values pertaining to this matter to lead you to believe that the energy transferred by hurricanes from the ocean to the atmosphere is a significant fraction of what it would take to raise global TLT?”
What do you consider “significant”? From the October UAH global value, it is easy to believe the hurricanes had close to a 0.2C effect. (Remember there was not just Atlantic/Caribbean activity.) Consequently, I have no problem with the UAH results. We just don’t have enough data to accurately predict the exact effect of hurricanes.
“This would be a first order requirement to corroborate your view.”
I’m not trying to “corroborate” my view . I’m trying to help you if you are sincerely trying to understand. At the very start of this post, there were people that seemingly denied hurricanes have ANY effect on UAH results. I know too well about trying to talk someone out of their belief system. How do you help someone that fervently believes CO2 can “heat the planet”?
The condensation continues until it stops. Check rainfall totals over Houston area after Harvey. Then follow those totals all the way to Tennessee. The latent heat is being released all during that time.
Heat is released by condensation (visible as clouds), not by rainfall. Maria, the last big storm of September, dissipated by the first few days of October. The vast majority of of the heat transferred to the lower trop occurred before the end of October, with very little afterwards.
Harvey’s rainfall finished early September. Maria’s rainfall finished in the first few days of October, so even if we measured heat by the timing of rainfall, this activity was done by Oct 3.
The heat energy will be measured by the MSUs, again and again, until it moves out. As heat energy leaves the surface, it warms the atmosphere. It continues to warm the atmosphere until it moves to space. The sats just measure the temps they “see”.
Hurricanes achieve heights of 15 km altitude. While they are running, they are constantly releasing heat into the altitudinal swathe of the atmosphere measured by MSUs as the TLT layer, centred on 4km.
You asked if I was being ‘tricky’ saying that the TLT layer is not measuring energy moving out to space. I’m saying it because you have said a few times that the energy stays in the atmosphere until it leaves to space, implying (as far as I can tell), that the supposed lag is associated with the time at which energy leaves the atmosphere to space.
To repeat, the TLT is measuring the heat of the lower troposphere. It doesn’t matter when the energy leaves to space, because the TLT measurements are measuring heat of the lower atmosphere in real time, and hurricanes are releasing their heat at that level constantly in real time. The point at which this energy is released to space is somewhat irrelevant to the question.
One kg of water releases about 2,200,000 Joules, upon condensation. Estimate all the rainfall, and convert to energy released.
The conversion seems reasonable, but the timing isn’t right. Heat is released at point of condensation, not precipitation.
What do you consider “significant”? From the October UAH global value, it is easy to believe the hurricanes had close to a 0.2C effect.
When you criticise people for having ‘beliefs’ about scientific notions, I’m with you. But it seems that on the question of exactly how much energy from hurricanes translates to a change in the lower tropospheric temperature globally is lacking numerical facts.
Specifically, what total energy was transferred from oceans to atmosphere by hurricanes in September, and how does that stack up against the heat capacity of the total atmosphere, and what effect September hurricane energy would have on the atmosphere.
Remember there was not just Atlantic/Caribbean activity.
I noted the Pacific season was relatively quiet upthread. Also, the Atlantic region, on average, contributes less than a quarter of global hurricane activity. So there’s more math to consider regarding what this means for the global TLT monthly anomaly (with or without lag).
Consequently, I have no problem with the UAH results. We just dont have enough data to accurately predict the exact effect of hurricanes.
We have:
* Hurricane ACE values – regional and global
* Rainfall values, if you want to go by that metric
* Heat capacity of the global atmosphere, and of the swathe measured for TLT temps
* Monthly TLT anomaly values
* Methods to convert energy (joules) to temperature for a given volume
If this is not enough and we “don’t have enough data to accurately predict [post-dict] the exact effect of hurricanes,” on what do you base your confidence that hurricanes have a significant effect?
IOW, if I said that hurricanes have a tiny effect, barely noticeable, what mathematical analysis would you counter with? Are you saying it is not possible to do this because of lack of data (and therefore neither of us can demonstrate our views with empirical analysis), or is it indeed possible to get a reasonable estimation? If yes, to the latter, can you show anything to help?
there were people that seemingly denied hurricanes have ANY effect on UAH results.
The comments I saw did not deny that hurricanes transferred heat into the atmosphere. I saw a few that remarked the effect would be insignificant, including an attempt upthread that dwelt on comparative values in joules.
Such calculations on the effect of hurricanes on the global tropospheric energy balance are otherwise notably absent. Which means the idea that September hurricanes raised the TLT by 0.1C (supposing there is a lag) remains speculative, rather than a reasonably identified fact, backed by actual, numerical values.
I’ll hold you to your criticism of ‘beliefs’ and ask again if you have the requisite data to corroborate the notion that September hurricane energy had a significant effect on global TLT.
To answer your question on “significant,” I would accept as a significant effect from hurricanes on global TLT a value of 0.02C or more. That would be nearly one fifth of the total change from Sept to Oct.
From what I can gather, you are saying that hurricanes are responsible for at least half that increase (0.05C), and possibly all of the increase, seeing as you predicted a drop in temperature, even allowing for hurricane activity. But it’s difficult to tell, as you have not put any values forward.
barry, I thought you were sincerely wanting to learn. Now I know.
Which takes me back to my original comment:
“barry, its okay with me if you want to disregard the heat energy released by the hurricanes.
Its just funny how much you must disregard, to keep your belief system alive.”
As I’ve made it clear several times that hurricanes move energy from the ocean to the atmosphere, and am instead querying lag/amount, I think it is you who have become tricksy by avoiding a comprehensive answer to these specific points and reverting to rhetoric.
I am going to take it, seeing as you haven’t given figures for hurricane energy and global tropospheric energy, that you don’t have any information on these values. I see no reason to ‘believe’ that September’s hurricane season added more than a tiny amount of heat to the global TLT. I’m comfortable allowing for the possibility that hurricanes had a significant impact (such as would account for a 0.1C rise in TLT one month to another), but nothing you’ve offered makes that speculation any more solid than when we started this conversation.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“One kg of water releases about 2,200,000 Joules, upon condensation. Estimate all the rainfall, and convert to energy released.”
Can’t do math?
27 T gal of water rained on Texas and Louisiana:
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/28/16217626/harvey-houston-flood-water-visualized
That comes to 1e11 kg.
energy released via condensation = 2e17 J
Assume it’s released over one week.
so energy per time released ~ 4e11 W
Given the surface area of the Earth, that comes to 0.001 W/m2.
Trivial and inconsequential.
Davie! So, you’re no longer ignoring me, huh? Just couldn’t keep yourself away, I guess.
Anyway, it’s nice to see the return of your comedy. And, no less with your hilarious attempt at math.
You’re off by a factor of 1000, just by the time you got to the “kg” figure. I was laughing too hard to finish checking everything!
But, if that’s the only mistake you made, the final number comes to 1 Watt/m^2. And that’s probably in the ballpark for just one hurricane. Of course, Harvey produced much more rain than just over TX and LA. And other hurricanes add to the heating effect, within a reasonable time period.
(Don’t let barry see this. His belief system tells him hurricanes don’t warm the atmosphere. So he’s not open to any facts, or logic, to the contrary.)
Yes, I made a mistake of 1000. And thanks for reminding me why I ignore you — you’re invariably an a-hole to everyone.
I don’t think hurricanes have much, if any, impact on atmospheric temperatures, because most of resulting heat will quickly be reabsorbed by the ocean. There’s no support in UAH’s LT data; here are the average monthly anomalies, 1979-present, Jan-Dec:
0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01
But the standard deviations are large:
0.27 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.18 0.21
so any differences in monthly averages are not going to be statistically significant.
Now, back in the graveyard for you.
Davie makes another mistake and gets mad at mewhat a clown.
But, he was only off by a factor of 1000. That’s better than the “800,000 K” which is off by 10,000!
Now he tries again with “statistics”.
What is the statistical probability that he will ever get anything right?
You’re lying about the 800 kK:
Calculation of Pierrehumberts 800,000 K:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2017-0-21-deg-c/#comment-253922
—
You had no idea how to do any of the physics.
Davie, the Sun has the effective radiating temperature of about 5800K. It can NOT heat the Earth to anything close to 800,000K.
You are lost in your pseudoscience, and it’s hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Davie, the Sun has the effective radiating temperature of about 5800K. It can NOT heat the Earth to anything close to 800,000K.”
Dummy doesn’t even understand the word “if.”
“In a single second, Earth absorbs 1.22e17 joules of energy from the Sun. Distributed uniformly over the mass of the planet, the absorbed energy would raise Earth’s temperature to nearly 800000 K after a billion years, if Earth had no way of getting rid of it.”
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature, Physics Today 64, 33-38.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
I understand the word “if”, Davie.
For example: “If” you had anything going for you, then you would be able to get a job.
“If” you knew anything about radiative physics, then you would know the Sun can NOT heat the Earth beyond it’s effective radiating temperature, even “if” the Earth lost no energy.
You have been lying here about this word “if” for months.
And you know it, because your only response here is a weak and meaningless personal insult. No science.
In four days the arctic air will reach the northeastern United States.
https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23244490_734970120042270_5155957084029233916_n.png?oh=2a300bc2ee05d7fe6243f521819ef7f8&oe=5AAE701B
ren…”In four days the arctic air will reach the northeastern United States”.
We’ve already got it in Vancouver, BC. It was snowing the other day.
Winter in Bismarck, North Dakota.
http://www.kfyrtv.com/content/ipcams/372218242.html
ren…re Bismarck. It’s only -4C there right now. By the end of the month it could be -40C. Bismarck is a cold, cold place in the prairies.
Wait until morning.
A little cold night on the prairies.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00945/k6en8aok4wr1.png
Of what relevance is this to climate change?
Why are you begging for attention? Get a dog.
tim…”The green plate warms. But, the back-radiation from the colder green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.
You keep stating things like this as if they are laws of physics. As if this was the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The calculations (supported by a century of real-world testing) show that the green MUST raise the temperature of the blue”.
**************
No, they don’t. Stephan of Stephan-Boltzman acknowledged that their equation could not be supported by experiment. The S-B equation has never demonstrated two way heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures.
Could we put this stupid thought experiment to bed and stop feeding the troll Eli Rabbett? He was proved wrong by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheushner, who replied to his rebuttal of their paper in detail. It’s painfully obvious that Rabbett does not understand the difference between thermal energy and electromagnetic radiation.
Sadly, it seems you don’t either, otherwise you would not be trying to pass off the S-B equation as being related to heat transfer and the 2nd law. The equation is about radiation density and it was written at a time before it became clear that electrons radiate EM while converting thermal energy to EM.
S-B did not know that but they had the sense to admit their equation could not be verified experimentally. There is no inference in S-B of two way heat transfer between two bodies of different temperature radiating to space.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Stephan of Stephan-Boltzman acknowledged that their equation could not be supported by experiment.”
It’s “Stefan,” not “Stephan.” And “Boltzman” has two n’s.
I suspect your claim is another of your lies. (You make so many.) Wikipedia says “the law was deduced by Josef Stefan (18351893) in 1879 on the basis of experimental measurements made by John Tyndall and was derived from theoretical considerations, using thermodynamics, by Ludwig Boltzmann (18441906) in 1884.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Thus it seems unlikely Stefan would say that, since he used experimental numbers to derive the law in the first place. As usual, you didn’t provide any evidence to support your claim.
Are you aware this is the same physics that guide heat-seeking missiles? Do you see them crashing all over the place, because the S-B equation is wrong?
No, me either.
DA:
https://tinyurl.com/y9k4qlrs
I don’t see anything there that said Stefan rejected the SB Law.
Exactly. As I stated in the first sentence.
And the opposite of what Gordon claimed.
Yup.
But take careful note of what he DOES say:
Kristian says:
“The absolute amount of energy radiated by a body can not be determined by experiment. Experiments can only give the excess of the bodys emitted radiation over that simultaneously absorbed by it”
Simple – Stefan was wrong about this, if that’s really what he claimed.
Just measure the outgoing radiation — which is exactly what the Planck law describes.
Nice translation Kristian.
Gordon Robertson
You need to quit being so biased. Here read this
https://www.scribd.com/doc/98425246/determination-of-stefan-boltzman-law-by-experiment
There are experiments on YouTube verifying Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Maybe you should spend some time looking into it before you post you made up physics. You peddle false science a lot. It would be nice if you actually tried to learn something. You won’t, but it would be nice. You are still so wrong about your understanding of the generation of IR radiant energy. It is not from electrons changing orbitals. That is UV, visible, and near infrared. Mid-Infrared (the energy from Earth’s surface) is not created by electrons moving up and down orbitals or changing energy levels. YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS! The whole atom, within the molecule, is moving in an electric field. The electrons are all moving with the atom in their same energy levels. They are not moving up and down energy levels when mid-IR is generated. Your false and misleading physics is tiresome.
I have led you to the actual physics multiple times. Yet you are unable to learn. Why is it? What can we do to help you learn? Why do you reject learning true information. Why do you cling to your made up science?
Norman
Why do you answer to this troll’s eternally repeated nonsense? It is so useless.
Bindidon
There is always hope he might change and learn. I know it is a lot to hope for. I just want him to get the most basic one right, Mid-IR is not created by electrons changing energy levels. This is the one I hope for. If maybe one item can be corrected, the sky is the limit then.
“No, they dont. Stephan of Stephan-Boltzman acknowledged that their equation could not be supported by experiment. The S-B equation has never demonstrated two way heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures.”
First off, “appeal to authority” is always a weak argument. Simply being smart or being the first to propose a new idea does not guarantee that the person is right. Science generally progresses (despite claims by many that science moves backwards), and thermodynamics is understood MUCH better toady than is was 150 years ago.
I suspect that they acknowledged something like ‘state-of-the-art experiments available at the time could distinguish between net energy flow and two one way energy flows’. It would be interesting to see exactly what they said.
How would you go about physically distinguishing between a net energy flow and two macroscopic one-way “energy flows” hypothetically making up the one that you actually observe?
And, no, I’m not talking about detecting photons, Tim. I’m talking about detecting two oppositely moving macroscopic fluxes (W/m^2) inside ONE and the same radiative heat transfer.
Kristian
Point a thermal imaging device at a an object, even one that’s very cold. The device will detect a steady flux of LWIR recieved specifically from the target (this is a one-way flow of energy, as opposed to a net flow).
Depending on the device, this information can be used to produce an image or calculate the object’s temperature.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography
Sir Isaac Snapelton,
“The device will detect a steady flux of LWIR recieved specifically from the target (this is a one-way flow of energy, as opposed to a net flow).”
No, for the nth time, only the net flux is directly measurable. The irradiance is then calculated taking into account the temperature of the sensor.
By the way, has someone already started to regulate his heating using the notions of backconduction and conductive forcing?
Phi
The murcury in thermometers responds to net flux (heat) It emits and receives energy, and the net result causes it to either warm or cool (expand or contract).
Thermal imaging devices have sensors that are sensitive to certain wavelengths of IR. This is light, not heat.
Kristian can also look at the classic test equipment used in Tyndall’s experiments and the experimental equipment used in the tests Planck references in his 1912 Treatise p. 199 (1). All easily found on the internet.
This equipment was physically detecting two macroscopic one-way “energy flows”. The equipment calculated the net of the two opposing separate “energy flows” in two different ways.
“I’m not talking about detecting photons…I’m talking about…radiative heat transfer.”
Not sure how one is NOT talking about detecting photons and IS talking about detecting radiative heat transfer.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 7, 2017 at 11:16 AM:
No.
As always, people sorely need to read up on how such instruments actually work. You obviously don’t have a clue, Snape.
“No, for the nth time, only the net flux is directly measurable.”
No, for the nth+1 time, the net flux was directly calculated by the classic equipment from the flux of the two opposing macro energy flows (which were the sum of the micro flows). If phi would take the time to look into the classic measuring equipment then maybe, just maybe, phi would not go to the nth+2 time. But I doubt this will happen.
Ball4 says, November 7, 2017 at 12:33 PM:
Go away, troll.
As always, Kristian and phi sorely need to read up on how such classic instruments actually work.
Kristian says:
>> Point a thermal imaging device at a an object, even one thats very cold. The device will detect a steady flux of LWIR recieved specifically from the target (this is a one-way flow of energy, as opposed to a net flow).<<
"No."
Kristian, it's time for you to do this experiment, instead of spouting misunderstood theory.
Give us your results.
I looked at infrared photos of Pluto taken from a ground-based telescope the other day.
How is it ‘seeing’ infrared Pluto if the radiation comes from a body far cooler than the instrument?
If such instruments can only see the NET flow of energy, wouldn’t that make infrared Pluto invisible to ground equipment?
— barry says:
November 7, 2017 at 8:47 PM
I looked at infrared photos of Pluto taken from a ground-based telescope the other day–
Are sure they are from ground based telescopes.
And they aren’t a few pixels rather than photos.
There lots of New Horizon photos.
Are sure they are from ground based telescopes
Fig 3, for example.
https://www2.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/kkiss/index_print.html
That was from an observation system in Chile. The following is from a telescope in Hawaii.
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Participate/learn/What-We-Know.php?link=Pluto-and-System-Family-Album
Point is, how can ground-based observing systems ‘see’ infrared Pluto when Pluto is far cooler than the temperature of the instrument?
The mirrors at the Keck observatory (second link) are kept at around 273 K (freezing point of water). The av temperature of Pluto is 44 K.
If infrared observing instruments can only see the NET radiation between them and another object, how do these instruments see Pluto? It should be invisible to them.
“The mirrors at the Keck observatory (second link) are kept at around 273 K (freezing point of water). The av temperature of Pluto is 44 K.”
The mirrors are reflectors, what important is to keep them a constant temperature so don’t deform due to temperature differences.
The detector for IR are cooled:
“The spectrograph is housed in a vacuum vessel, with its optics cooled to ~65K and the detectors to ~25K. The main characteristics of CRIRES are summarized in Table 1.”
https://www.eso.org/sci/facilities/paranal/instruments/crires/overview.html
https://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/paranal-observatory/vlt/vlt-instr/crires/
But I believe they are cooled to improve detection, they are not collecting many photons, and may use quite long exposure time to also improve the resolution.
Years ago Hubble image of Pluto was 35 pixel also- the diameter of pluto was 35 pixels. It was pretty impressive for that time.
Observations of infrared Pluto have been made with cryogenic boxes at temps higher than Pluto (eg 70K and up).
http://irtfweb.ifa.hawaii.edu/~cshell/manual_v2.pdf
As you’ve noted, this is not to read low-temperature radiation, but to improve detection. The low temps allow for sharper resolution radiation spectroscopy against the background noise of space and prevent local thermal noise interfering with the instrument. In any case, the ground-based instruments are generally at a higher temp than Pluto (10-100 K higher), so if they can only read NET radiation, infrared Pluto should be invisible to them.
Kristian, I can never quite figure out why you are so hung up on this minor point. Mathematically, EVERYTHING comes out the same whether you model thermal radiation as a single flux from hot to cold @ P = sigma A (Th^4 – Tc^4), or model thermal radiation as 2 opposing fluxes @ P = sigma A (Th^4) in one direction and P = sigma A (Tc^4) in the opposite direction. The final answer in EVERY CASE is identical.
As for measurement, get a cold IR sensor, point it at a hot object, and measure the spectrum. When it matches the Planck curve for temperature Th, then I have measured the power (as a function of wavelength no less!) of the one way flow of energy. And when I turn the instrument around, I measure the spectrum corresponding to the Planck curve for Tc. That seems sufficient to me.
Tim Folkerts,
“The final answer in EVERY CASE is identical.”
No difference in a system at equilibrium for the calculation of the energy balance.
Everything changes out of equilibrium because backradiations depend on the temperature profile which is likely to evolve. Backradiations are therefore not at all comparable to solar flux except to assume the hypothesis of a fixed gradient.
Tim Folkerts says, November 7, 2017 at 1:57 PM:
Because it’s not a minor point. It’s THE point. Not the two-way vs. one-way thing itself, but how people tend to TREAT the two mathematically defined hemifluxes in the two-way model – like real, separate thermodynamic entities with real, separate thermodynamic effects. You know this, Tim. So why the feigned puzzlement?
Kristian
The rate of heat transfer between two objects is determined by their difference in temperature. But how is this possible? Neither object “knows” it’s own temperature nor the temperature of the other.
The answer is obvious. Every object radiates energy (not heat) according to its temperature. Heat transfer, then, is just a natural result of two opposing, differing, fluxes of energy.
If a person stands next to a 300 F wall, he would feel heat (difference between the energy emitted by his body and that of the wall).
Replace the person’s body with a 600 F. object, the object would “feel” a cold chill (net loss of energy) rather than heat.
Sir Isaac Snapelton
Yes what you describe is exactly what the textbooks on heat transfer state. They never state or imply anything like Kristian is saying.
As you stated look at a thermal image in an FLIR camera. I have done so many times and posted links to such. It is all IR, the lens will not even allow visible light in. You can see distinct and separate objects clearly indicating that each object is an independent radiator with its own macroscopic flux of energy that hits the array and form an image unique to the object emitting that IR. You can see multiple objects clearly indicating each object has its own flux moving away from the object and toward the camera.
Kristin ignores this reality. I even suggested to him to go in a cold room and then turn on a heater. Face opposite of the heater and monitor the objects as the heater warms them. They will start to have a backradiant flux back toward the heater that you can see in your FLIR. They will go from the cold blue color to the warmer red and orange and indicate higher temperatures. Kristian is wrong and you are right. Evidence supports your view, nothing to date but his blog cartoons support his notions. No textbook I have read to date supports his opinions. He calls me stubborn, I don’t think so. I will change if he provides explanation of individual objects seen in FLIR instruments. If he can link me to textbook material from established science that confirms his view I can accept it. I am not changing because he makes his claims strongly and calls me stubborn nor will I change from links to his own blog.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
“If a person stands next to a 300 F wall, he would feel heat (difference between the energy emitted by his body and that of the wall). Replace the persons body with a 600 F. object, the object would feel a cold chill (net loss of energy) rather than heat.”
Yes, but not as much as it would be if the 300 F wall wasn’t there.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 7, 2017 at 3:52 PM:
Yeah, that sounds obvious, doesn’t it? Indubitable.
So the only conclusion to draw, the only way to explain Earth’s elevated T_s, then, beyond pure solar equilibrium, is through the addition to the solar heat flux of a separate macroscopic flux of energy (W/m^2) down from the cooler atmosphere to the already warmer surface …!
The warmer surface absorbs this separate macroscopic flux from the cooler atmosphere and, as a direct consequence, its average steady-state temperature rises all the way to ~289K. IOW, you add a macroscopic flux of energy to a thermodynamic system and thereby increases its U and T. Not relative to some other value, but in absolute terms.
How is this NOT “extra heating by back radiation”!??
You simply don’t get this, Snape.
Kristian
In theory, backradiation is not energy added to earth’s surface, it is energy conserved (remember the sphere/shell)?
Therefore, the solar flux, rather than just replacing energy lost to space, overlaps (joins) energy that has been conserved.
Kristian,
“… how people tend to TREAT the two mathematically defined hemifluxes… “
1) The fact that some novices make mistakes is not sufficient reason to choose one approach over the other. A better criterion is if experts actually get the right answer with the method.
“… like real, separate thermodynamic entities with real, separate thermodynamic effects. “
I would say that (within thermodynamics) every flow of energy has a REAL effect, and no energy flow has a separate effect. Only when ALL ‘real’ effects (all real energy flows) are consider, then the effect can be determined. There is a real effect of the energy from the sun to the ground, but this is not separate from the effect of energy from the ground to space. There is a real effect of the thermal IR from the sky to the ground, but this is not separate from the effect of the thermal IR from the ground to the atmosphere. Each energy input adds to the ground’s internal energy, and, once absorbed, the effect of 1 J of sunlight is identical to the effect of 1 J of incoming thermal IR.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
“In theory, backradiation is not energy added to earths surface, it is energy conserved”
Of course it is — all radiation carries energy. It *is* energy.
Backradiation’s energy can be, and has been, measured:
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
You and I agree on the science, and that’s what matters. My comment was only about semantics. I think it’s odd to say the atmosphere “adds” energy to the earth.
If I hand you two nickels, and you simultaneously hand one of them back, are you adding a nickel or taking a nickel?
Or about this. A juggler continuously tosses balls into the air. Does the air “add” balls to his hand when they come down?
My main point, though, is from a big picture point of view. Backradiation is energy that has not left the earth system, rather than energy added.
The solar flux joins in.
Q: “How is this NOT “extra heating by back radiation”!??”
A: Simple, this is extra energy by back radiation
…causing T to be increased in surface water over surface water not exposed to the extra energy from night atm. radiation. As demonstrated by Dr. Spencer’s night time experiment.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
“I think its odd to say the atmosphere adds energy to the earth.”
The atmosphere in effect redirects energy downward that would otherwise leave the Earth.
What’s odd about that?
Like all objects, the atmosphere absorbs energy and it emits energy. Why wouldn’t some of these emissions go downward toward the surface?
David
I’m not arguing the physics, just the words we use. (Of course the atmosphere radiates energy to the earth)
Answer this question: if every minute I give you three nickels, and every minute you hand one back to me, are you adding to my net worth or am I adding to yours?
Tim Folkerts says (November 7, 2017 at 5:24 PM) :
“Each energy input adds to the grounds internal energy, and, once absorbed, the effect of 1 J of sunlight is identical to the effect of 1 J of incoming thermal IR.”
At the macroscopic level, the Joule of backradiations is a coooling reduction and not an heating increase.
Once again, the distinction makes sense out of equilibrium because backradiations depend totally on the thermal profile. The equilibrium is recovered by modifying this thermal profile and, therefore, backradiations are modified throughout the process which leads to balance. Backradiations are therefore not assimilable to energy entering the system.
Sorry if I misunderstood you, Kristian. I thought you had said that IR detectors (the telescopes I’m referring to are IR detectors) cannot see discrete radiation from an cooler object, because IR detectors can only see the NET exchange of radiation.
That’s why I brought up Pluto. The Earth emits more radiation to Pluto than it emits to Earth. So we can “see” the discrete radiation of Pluto.
If you’re saying something other than what I think you’ve said, my mistake.
Do you agree then, that IR measuring devices can “see” the distinct radiation of objects cooler than them?
Tsk, meant for the inline thread below this one.
Tim Folkerts says, November 7, 2017 at 5:24 PM:
If you want to call the IPCC and NASA “novices” of climate science, go ahead.
You should set THEM straight, not ME. Because THEY’RE the ones using this confusing language, not me.
“Back radiation” (the atm DWLWIR) is an apparent radiative EFFECT of the actual physical mechanism forcing the surface of the Earth to be warmer with an atmosphere than without, just like the sfc UWLWIR is an apparent radiative effect of the actual physical mechanism forcing the surface of the Earth to be warmer with an atmosphere than without.
None of them IS the warming mechanism …
It’s a simple case of confusing cause and effect.
Tim Folkerts says, November 7, 2017 at 5:24 PM:
But “back radiation” ISN’T a macroscopic/thermodynamic “flow of energy”, Tim. Only the radiative flux is.
I don’t suppose it helps if we acknowledge that back-radiation would drop to zero real quick if it was on its own.
Kristian says:
“But back radiation ISNT a macroscopic/thermodynamic flow of energy, Tim. Only the radiative flux is.”
The backradiation *IS* the radiative flux.
Jeez.
Kristian says:
“How would you go about physically distinguishing between a net energy flow and two macroscopic one-way energy flows hypothetically making up the one that you actually observe?”
Simple – You set up one detector pointed in one direction, and the other pointing in the opposite direction.
Then you measure TWO SEPARATE HEAT TRANSFERS, Appell. How thick are you?
Kristian
OMG, it’s you who are thick. Thermal imaging devices respond to light, not heat transfer!
There ARE two separate energy transfers, one in each direction.
Kristian 5:18pm, that experiment really does measure two separate fluxes of energy, as Tim writes & as did Tyndall’s apparatus. Look it up.
From which the net (heat transfer and direction) is calculated as Norman, DA & Tim et. al. are trying to inform you (without success). Heat can not be directly measured as heat does not exist in nature except in your et. al. heads as a definition.
The earth surface receives two fluxes of energy DW, one LW shining from the atm. in a hemisphere of directions* all the time and one SW shining from the sun only across the sun face during daylight.
*This flux increasing T of surface water was demonstrated in Dr. Spencer’s night time experiment.
Here’s what Kristian is claiming:
If he were in a spaceship between the Earth and the Sun, he thinks he could look toward the Sun and see it, but if he turned around and looked to the Earth it would be invisible to him, since the “net” energy flux is from the Sun to the Earth.
David
I think you have it right. His argument is not just about semantics, it’s fundamental flawed.
Fundamentally
Kristian may argue that you see solar radiation reflected rather than terrestrial energy emitted (but he can correct me here).
I’m more interested in how we are able to see the infrared coming from Pluto with ground-based telescopes when the instrument and its surrounding atmosphere is much warmer than Pluto. In this case, shouldn’t infrared Pluto be invisible to ground-based instruments if they can only ‘see’ the NET radiation?
barry, maybe, maybe not.
The Earth’s albedo is 0.3, so it reflects albedo*S/4 of the sunlight incident upon it, = an average of 102 W/m2.
But the Earth’s brightness temperature is 255 K, meaning it emits an average of 240 W/m2. Mostly in the infrared.
So instead of his eyes, Kristian can use a meter that records incident energy. He either thinks the Sun is invisible or the Earth is invisible. I wonder which.
David Appell says, November 7, 2017 at 6:06 PM:
Hahahahahaha!
barry says, November 7, 2017 at 9:59 PM:
Yes, that’s the level we’re at, isn’t it? Think it through, barry. Is the telescope and Pluto involved in a separate heat transfer? What does a telescope do? Have I ever claimed that photons do not exist and do not fly in all directions?
Barry,
The IR detector is usually a narrow gap semiconductor device such as HgCdTe that has to be cooled to liquid H2 ( 20 K) or liquid He ( 4.2 K) to operate properly. And such a device detects photons, not heat. The photon in converted directly into electric current, not thermalized into heat. Bolometers that convert incident energy into heat may also be used but must of course be cooled too.
Otherwise the dark noise of the instruments prevents any detection.
Moreover the telescope focuses on the detector a specific bundle of incoming radiation in a very narrow solid angle around the direction of the heavily body which excludes most of the diffuse thermal radiation from ambient.
And finally emission (and a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n) from atmosphere of course still perturbs the detection and that’s why air and satellite borne instruments are launched and preferred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-field_Infrared_Survey_Explorer
So even cold bolometers (a detector where the heat concept is appropriate) may readily detect directly a one-way incoming radiation flux Ei since the outgoing radiation flux Eo is quite negligible so that the incoming heat flux Q = Ei – Eo = Ei is indeed a positive quantity as required by second law of thermodynamics.
Sorry if I misunderstood you, Kristian. I thought you had said that IR detectors (the telescopes Im referring to are IR detectors) cannot see discrete radiation from an cooler object, because IR detectors can only see the NET exchange of radiation.
Thats why I brought up Pluto. The Earth emits more radiation to Pluto than it emits to Earth. So we can see the discrete radiation of Pluto.
If youre saying something other than what I think youve said, my mistake.
Do you agree then, that IR measuring devices can see the distinct radiation of objects cooler than them?
gamma,
I’ve been reading up on ground-based infrared telescopes. I’ve seen operating temps of the cryo units that cool detectors observing infrared Pluto at anywhere between 30 and 170 K (Pluto is 44 K av).
I think we’re not disagreeing. The cryo units housing the detectors are there to reduce background noise and local thermal noise.
I know we’re not talking about heat transfer. Just about whether IR devices can see the discrete radiation of objects cooler than the instrument. IE, that ground-based IR instruments can see downwelling IR.
Barry,
From your link above, the detector of the telescope is InSb ( 1-5 um, O.23 eV ) which operates typically at 30 K.
At any rate it’s not easy and for ground based images the “bad photons from sky” must be subtracted.
https://www.noao.edu/meetings/gdw/files/Joyce_IR.pdf
They can and it’s much easier than Pluto. They can exactly as we can “feel” the cold walls in a unheated room in winter.
barry says, November 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM:
There are two kinds of radiometric detectors.
THERMAL detectors cannot see the radiation from objects cooler than themselves. QUANTUM detectors can. However, the former kind operates within the MACROscopic realm, i.e. they observe radiative FLUXES, while the latter kind operates within the MICROscopic realm, detecting individual photons.
So again you’re invoking a MICROscopic (quantum) phenomenon to argue the existence of a MACROscopic (thermodynamic) phenomenon, a phenomenon which is fundamentally different in nature.
Again, claiming TWO opposite macroscopic (net) flows of energy within one and the same thermal radiative exchange rather than just the ONE that is actually observed (the radiative (heat) flux), is purely a geometrical/mathematical constraint imposed on the radiation field by the person analysing the exchange.
Here’s a typical BB radiation enclosure:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-1.png
As you can see, individual photons of course fly everywhere, in all directions, within the cavity, and they are also all the time being emitted AND absorbed by the surrounding walls. The evacuated cavity itself is filled by what is commonly called a “photon gas” or ‘cloud’ (Bose, Einstein).
Now, if I wanted to, I could mentally/conceptually split this spherical hollow into two halves, two hemispheres, and then simply define all photons within the cavity flying in the general direction from the first hemisphere to the second one as part of a separate macroscopic (net) flux moving ‘en bloc’, so to say, across the cavity, from one side of the wall to the other; and likewise all photons flying in the general direction from the second hemisphere to the first one as part of an opposite – and equally separate – macroscopic flux, moving the other way.
Like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-2.png
Mathematically, conceptually, such a directional partition of an inherently integrated radiation field, a photon gas or cloud, might indeed make a lot of sense. It simplifies things. Calculations. Analyses.
But it is, first and last, AN INVENTION OF THE HUMAN MIND. It is not an intrinsic condition of the radiation field itself …!
Kristian
You: “Again, claiming TWO opposite macroscopic (net) flows of energy within one and the same thermal radiative exchange rather than just the ONE that is actually observed (the radiative (heat) flux), is purely a geometrical/mathematical constraint imposed on the radiation field by the person analysing the exchange.”
What? Who would say there are two opposing net fluxes? That would make no sense.
Please show a comment where someone said that.
Kristian
You are seriously misunderstanding the hemisphere thing. It’s a physical reality, not at all conceptual.
If I am standing in a room, I am emitting and receiving radiation in every direction. OTOH, the floor of the room (a surface) is only emitting/receiving energy to one hemisphere, the “upward” one. The other hemisphere is subterranean! Radiation doesn’t fly around underground.
Another point. Place a small object (with a distinct temperature) on the side of the enclosure opposite the viewing hole. Now, from the viewing hole, try to take a picture of the object using a thermal imaging device. Based on your diagram, all the energy between the object and camera would be broken and scattered. If that were accurate, how would an image be possible?
To be clear, I’m not saying radiation isn’t scattered and chaotic. Just saying it also travels long distances in straight lines (as demonstrated by devices like FLIR)
barry…”IE, that ground-based IR instruments can see downwelling IR”.
If you are trying to measure IR using thermal means the receiver must be cooler than the source. However, it’s not necessary to detect IR thermally since it’s electromagnetic energy within a specific frequency range. IR can be detected simply as light, by counting the oscillations.
If IR is detected by frequency measurement, it is possible to set up a look-up table in the receiving device in which frequency has already been established against temperature. Detect the frequency, look up the table, find the best fit, and you have the apparent temperature. No thermal measurement required.
I would guess that most hand held radiometers use a look-up table that is programmed with frequency versus temperature. Remember, this is colour temperature not actual temperature. Colour temperature is the apparent temperature a device would give off when heated till it glowed a certain colour.
The radiation frequency is measured using some kind of photoelectric device that varies its resistance with the frequency of received radiation.
Gordon
I’m flabbergasted. From what little I’ve read on the subject, your description actually sounds right.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 8, 2017 at 3:55 PM:
LOL! You’ve officially turned into Norman.
Kristian
I take that as a compliment.
Norman would agree that the earth beneath our feet is not an invention of the human mind. No need to calculate radiative transfer through bedrock!
Kristian
The surface temperature is based on energy received and emitted.
A photon can’t strike the earth without moving in a somewhat downward direction. A photon can’t be emitted into the atmosphere without moving in a somewhat upward direction.
How is this an invented concept?
snape…”Gordon
Im flabbergasted. From what little Ive read on the subject, your description actually sounds right”.
Decades of studying and applying electronics, with a focus on communications, gives one a leg up when trying to understand things like IR devices. Now, if I could just get you guys to consider my ramblings about electrons converting thermal energy to EM.
I have no idea, after all this time, what an electron is in reality, let alone a photon, but those little blighters (electrons) are one of the building blocks of the universe. They absorb and emit photons, providing the universe with light.
I’m flabbergasted too, now what about EM and molecular vibration?
Let’s try this.
All things emit radiation in all directions.
Radiation from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer objects and vise versa.
When we measure a change in heat, we are measuring the NET effect of these energy transfers (setting aside conduction and convection for the moment – let all the following happen in space).
Whenever you mention heat you are exiomatically referring to NET energy transfer. When Clausius described ‘heat’ being radiated from both cooler and warmer objects to the other, he really meant energy transfers – photonic level physics was not part of the scientific lexicon or understanding in his time. That would come 50 years later.
The conversation gets bogged down in nomenclature. Calusius spoke of two exchanges of energy as ‘radiation’ (he used the verb ‘radiates’), he did not use the term ‘flow’, which appears to be reserved for NET (macro) exchange of energy.
So whenever you use the term ‘flow’, you are aximotically referring to NET exchange of energy (or heat). Don’t use it that way if you want to talk about discrete energy exchanges.
Bi-directional exchanges of energy WRT to the atmosphere is not a long bow to draw. The atmosphere is a shell surrounding the surface. The surface radiates, the ground radiates. Their radiation influences the other – the source for all this activity being the sun, which also directly influences the heat of, and radiative energy of the atmosphere. Bi-directional exchanges of energy is a simplified way of looking at this 3 body issue. That energy is absorbed/emitted from/to all directions is not rejected, only given over for simplification of the main features of radiative exchange. Here, we are for the present ignoring convection, to single out the topic of interest. We are not rejecting that convection is part of the mix, only that it cancels out (renders null and void) radiative transfer.
I still think we could come to some agreement if we used language carefully. Back to a space-only construct…
Kristian agrees that radiation from a cooler body is abosorbed by a warmer body (and of course vise versa), but beyond that fact is where the conversations get stuck.
I’d put it this way, avoiding terms that cause conniptions.
Introducing a cooler body to a system receiving constant energy may cause the warmer body being kept warm by an energy source, to become warmer.
The cooler body is not a self-generating energy source. It reduces the efficiency at which the energy from the warmer body leaves the system. It does this by radiating energy to the warmer body that increases its energy content, which simultaneously causes the warmer object to emit more radiation to compensate. More radiation = warmer body. These processes are not occurring in discrete intervals, but are continuous.
The energy content of the warmer body may be increased by radiation coming from the cooler body. At all times the bet flow of energy is from warm to cool, but the radiating characteristics of the warmer body change with the inclusion of a cooler body.
It is tempting to say that a cooler body can cause a warmer one to heat up, but then you’re using a word that is aximoatically describing NET energy flow.
Even adjusting language slightly – “A cooler body can cause a warmer body to get warmer” – we are still using adjectives that are functional to ‘heat’, and we are messing the terminology.
I prefer – “The introduction of a cooler body to a radiative system with a heat source can increase the energy state of a warmer body such that the warmer body energy state increases to compensate by radiating more energy.”
I’d also add that the NET exchange is always hot to cold, and that the processes both ways (and indeed in all directions) are continuous, even though we’ve focused on one aspect.
This is the best way I now how to avoid conniptions. It’s not the first time I’ve said it, but as Kristian didn’t correct me on these specific comments the last two times, I wonder if it will do.
I have no trouble acknowledging that NET processes and micro processes are all occurring at the same time. I’d say they were complementary. If I have it right, this is in the neighbourhood of where Kristian thinks others get it wrong.
barry, all of your twisted logic won’t change the laws of thermodynamics. Sorry.
You start off with: “Radiation from cooler objects is absorbed by warmer objects and vise versa.”
Radiation from cooler objects is NOT absorbed by warmer objects. But, your phraseology makes it seem reasonable, to the un-educated. Of course, I knew where you were going with that statement. You were headed to “cold” can warm “hot”.
And, sure enough: “Introducing a cooler body to a system receiving constant energy may cause the warmer body being kept warm by an energy source, to become warmer.”
Again, you appear to sound reasonable, you even use the word “may”. You try to sound agreeable and non-dogmatic.
Then, you end with: “The introduction of a cooler body to a radiative system with a heat source can increase the energy state of a warmer body such that the warmer body energy state increases to compensate by radiating more energy.”
NO barry, adding the green plate will NOT increase the temperature of the blue plate. Sorry. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will NOT increase the temperature of the surface. That’s what you want to believe, but it is wrong. Sorry.
Before you come back with “prove it”, try to understand that it takes ADDITIONAL energy into a system to raise system temperature. “Back-radiation” is ALREADY in the system, so it can NOT raise the system temperature.
Then, try baking an apple using only a mug of ice-cold beer.
Think that’s a silly concept? A 14.7 micron photon (CO2 spectrum line) has a Wien’s Law temperature of -76.6C (-105.8F). So believing CO2 can “heat the planet” is what’s silly.
Sorry.
G,
Radiation from cooler objects is NOT absorbed by warmer objects
Kristian, as well as the people he is arguing with, agree on this much. You (and Gordon, IIRC) do not.
I disagree with your statement here. There is nothing to stop the radiation emitted by a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer one. No magic shield preventing photons being absorbed.
As always, the NET exchange of radiation is from the hot object to the cold one.
This is why we can see infrared Pluto via ground-based devices that are warmer than Pluto and the space through which that infrared radiation travels. If the radiant energy from a cooler body could not be absorbed by a warmer one, Pluto’s infrared radiation would be invisible to these instruments.
g*e*r*a*n
I know you do not understand this, but making declarative statements does not make them true (to a cult mentality it will but not in reality).
You make this assertion: “Radiation from cooler objects is NOT absorbed by warmer objects.”
You got this from Claes Johnson. A made up concept based upon some mathematical magic. Not based upon reality. Not accepted by established science. Not supported by quantum physics and surface interactions.
Making up science to suit you may work for your cult members at Joe Postma’s blog but you will not be able to convert real science minded people with your unsupported assertions.
Make up physics all day long. It is what you do. You do not know how to study real physics and learn why you are wrong.
barry
I liked your post on how word use is messing up the discussion. I think your careful choice of words to generate concepts is a good approach.
barry says: “Kristian, as well as the people he is arguing with, agree on this much. You (and Gordon, IIRC) do not.”
Do you have yourself a “consensus”, barry? That’s all you need to support your beliefs.
barry says: “There is nothing to stop the radiation emitted by a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer one.”
Obviously you avoided the experiment of baking the apple with mugs of cold beer. Avoid anything that runs counter to your belief system.
barry says: “As always, the NET exchange of radiation is from the hot object to the cold one.”
Yes, 1 – 0 = 1.
barry says: “This is why we can see infrared Pluto via ground-based devices that are warmer than Pluto and the space through which that infrared radiation travels. If the radiant energy from a cooler body could not be absorbed by a warmer one, Plutos infrared radiation would be invisible to these instruments.”
No barry, we see infrared Pluto because of specially engineered devices to get around the fact that we cannot see infrared Pluto naturally.
Sorry.
Con-man makes a declarative statement: “I know you do not understand this, but making declarative statements does not make them true.”
And he doesn’t understand his own twisted logic!
Hilarious.
we see infrared Pluto because of specially engineered devices to get around the fact that we cannot see infrared Pluto naturally
But according to you, if the device detecting infrared radiation from Pluto is warmer than Pluto, we would not be able to see it, no matter how the device was constructed. According to you, the warmer object could not absorb radiation from a cooler one to be able to detect it.
But such ground-based devices (telescopes with imagers) do see infrared radiation from Pluto, and have done for decades. This clearly demonstrates that your assertion is incorrect.
“But according to you, if the device detecting infrared radiation from Pluto is warmer than Pluto, we would not be able to see it, no matter how the device was constructed. According to you, the warmer object could not absorb radiation from a cooler one to be able to detect it.”
barry, if you studied the science behind such a device, you would see that there is no violation of the laws of physics. Very specialized materials, techniques, and circuitry must be used to translate the detected IR photons into images.
Don’t you have any cold beer to experiment with?
According to the laws of thermodynamics as you see them, warmer objects cannot absorb radiation from cooler objects.
In what specific way do these devices break through a barrier you hold to be immutable? How do we manage to break the laws of thermodynamics (as you see them)?
Simple, “cold” can NOT warm “hot”. If you can learn that simple concept, you will avoid a lot of pseudoscience.
The “devices” are engineered to deal with the fact that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”. Continuing to run to such devices, to support your belief system, should indicate to you that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”. These devices do not exist in nature.
When I first presented the simplistic experiment of apple/cold beer, Norm instantly brought up liquid helium. He knew that the cold beer could not warm the apple. So, he tried to “prove” me wrong by cooling the apple first!
If you try to warm an apple with cold beer, you will first need to cool the apple well below the temperature of the beer, or you will have to get a blow torch to heat the beer well above the temperature of the apple.
Such efforts should indicate the desperation of “believers”.
anger: “”cold” can NOT warm “hot”.”
Every night, soon as the sun goes down in anger’s world, the earth surface temperature plunges to equilibrate with geothermal energy and deep space at ~2.7K. Added clouds serve to cool the surface at night. Clear sky brightness temperatures are measured under 100K by earth satellite in some permanently shadowed areas.
In the real world of science, observations and experiments show the addition of high cirrus clouds does increase the temperature of surface water over the temperature of water shaded from the added cirrus radiated energy.
In anger’s world: “..adding the green plate will NOT increase the temperature of the blue plate.”
Testing in the real world shows the blue plate (with a picture of an apple on it) at an increased temperature when the green plate (with a picture of a cold mug of beer) is added nearby in its view.
Readers just need to accept anger’s world is simply different physics than physics determined by real world experiments.
Hilarious! More entertainment please.
It didn’t take tricky long to show up with his bag of tricks.
Who’s next on the agenda–some 12-year-old?
A thermal IR detector cannot detect an object that is colder than the detector
Radiation from a cool body cannot be absorbed by warmer body
just a few among the many funny claims of the crackpots.
Of course that’s nothing but crass and blissfull stupidity and ignorance.
A thermal IR detector is called a bolometer and such a device can of course detect a cooler body than the bolometer itself.
Many examples in technology, yet what about this one::
Rattlesnakes invented their bolometer long before any funny crackpot existed on this planet and used it not only to detect preys but also to locate a cool refuge in a hot maze.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_sensing_in_snakes
gummycrud, can you find the failed logic in your pit viper example?
(Hint: If it’s not hot, it might be cold.)
anger 8:27am: Actually I and Dr. Spencer have a bag of mundane science experiments, it is the commenters without simple experimental evidence that are hilarious! and entertaining. More please.
Keep explaining how energy is not conserved in the blue plate/green plate being at the same temperature in anger’s world and readers doing actual experiments in the real world like me will keep on laughing at anger’s comments. Hilarious!
“A thermal IR detector cannot detect an object that is colder than the detector.”
gamma, Kristian has never (afaik) offered a proper replicable experiment demonstrating his assertion.
When I point my room temperature (~70F) thermal IR detector at ice water, the readout shows 32F immediately. And 212F immediately when laser dot pointed at boiling water. The Seebeck effect is commercially very viable source of earnings.
Ball4 says, November 9, 2017 at 8:45 AM:
And the Seebeck effect is SPECIFICALLY a response to HEAT transfers. It’s a THERMAL response. Read about it in the literature. You might learn something for a change.
Hum, our hilarious buffoon is still enraged
So funny.
Please more of your clown fissics.
gammacrux says, November 9, 2017 at 8:27 AM:
Hey, slow wit. Have you ever even read about how a bolometer works? Does it detect an INCOMING radiative transfer from a cooler object? Or does it detect an OUTGOING radiative transfer TO a cooler object? A bolometer is a thermal IR detector. It only detects thermal transfers of energy. That is, HEAT IN [Q_in] or HEAT OUT [Q_out].
The bolometer of course produces an output signal no matter what, if the radiative exchange is positive, negative or neutral. But it only detects the macroscopic radiative flux (the radiant heat) between it and the target.
Actually photon transfers, Kristian. I suggest YOU check the literature, starting here: Heuristic Point of View Toward the Emission and Transformation of Light. Annalen der Physik 17 (1905): 132-148.
Heat is a definition in your thoughts, the thermal IR detector can not read your thoughts.
Ball4
+1
I was wondering how long it would take for tricky to mention Dr. Roy. Just his second comment this morning. Mentioning Dr. Roy is all tricky has–such a “hanger-oner”!
barry says, November 9, 2017 at 2:54 AM:
Even here I’m afraid you need to be more specific in order to avoid confusion, barry. Because this is already where people get confused.
All things emit PHOTONS or EM WAVES in all directions. This is a true statement. All things do NOT, however, thereby emit a thermal RADIATIVE FLUX in all directions too. They only do so toward objects or regions that are COOLER than themselves. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. A thermal radiative flux spontaneously move DOWN a temperature (or, equivalently, a ‘radiative intensity’) gradient only.
It is not at all wrong to call the emission of photons/EM waves from a body “radiation”, but it’s still essential to discriminate the QUANTUM from the THERMO definition of the phenomenon. As long as everyone partaking in the conversation is on the same page about the particular usage, you’ll be fine. But that seems never to be the case in these discussions …
Kristian
“All things emit radiation in all directions.”
That is simple, clear and specific. Your long winded ramblings don’t prevent confusion, they create it.
Hum, this clown is still enraged too. Funny.
More fake fissics, please.
“All things do NOT, however, thereby emit a thermal RADIATIVE FLUX in all directions too.”
Kristian has no experiment showing this assertion is true.
Experiments (for example Planck’s) show, the “things” emit a thermal radiative flux in all directions, this satisfies 2LOT as universe entropy is increased in the process. Even toward a warmer object in which case universe entropy is also increased.
A real thermal radiative flux CAN spontaneously move DOWN a temperature (or, equivalently, a radiative intensity) gradient since universe entropy is increased in the process. As Planck found from the referenced experiments.
“it’s still essential to discriminate the QUANTUM from the THERMO definition of the phenomenon.”
It is not essential, as long as both real quantum, thermo. experiments increase universe entropy in the respective process. It is Kristian not on the same page as experiment.
Or, please, show us Kristian’s experiments demonstrating the verbiage he uses.
anger: “Mentioning Dr. Roy..”
I mentioned Dr. Spencer’s experiments and my experiments. Where are anger’s experiments? Nowhere! Hilarious! More entertainment please.
Please though no actual mundane experiments anger, your half baked turkey verbiage is much more hilariously entertaining than having to parse thru your actual data.
gammacrux says, November 9, 2017 at 10:09 AM:
Haha! Not enraged at all, troll. Just calling it as I see it. Read anything about bolometers yet?
Kristian 10:39am, I read gamma as directing his comment toward anger, not you. Though at times your use of capitals can be grounds for such a comment.
g*e*r*a*n
YOU STATE: “When I first presented the simplistic experiment of apple/cold beer, Norm instantly brought up liquid helium. He knew that the cold beer could not warm the apple. So, he tried to prove me wrong by cooling the apple first!”
Actually it was liquid nitrogen. I was not proving you wrong. I was showing how ignorant of physics you are. It is not hard to do with you since you have your own made up version of science and can’t see how wrong it really is.
I also gave you far too much credit on thinking ability. I have now come to realize your mind is very simplistic and when things get just a wee bit complex (like a comparison between two conditions or states). I just need to respect your limitations of thought process.
We have two conditions. An apple that is actually being warmed (powered) by walls and other surfaces to maintain a room temperature with a cold mug put next to it that acts as a block and prevents the warmer walls from hitting the apple.
So you get a surface temperature of the room temperature apple. It will be at room temperature at equilibrium (absorbing energy from the walls and radiating the same away), with a cold mug present it will have a cooler temperature because some of the warming wall energy is blocked. With a mug of liquid nitrogen the apple surface will be cooler than with the cold beer. The energy radiated by the apple is receiving back even less energy from the liquid nitrogen than from the cold beer.
I know you are not capable of grasping these ideas but they are established physics and you can read up on it in any textbook on heat transfer.
“I know you are not capable of grasping these ideas..”
True that, however, seeing no success with that tactic, you too should do the experiments behind your assertions. Turn them from ideas into reality.
The basic experiments nowadays are really simple, Dr. Spencer’s a bit more complex. Planck’s and Tyndall’s experiments were complex for their time. Good IR thermometers can be had for $30. And used forever to show real data to counter assertions by Kristian, Gordon, anger (or me!) where they do not line up with that data from your experiments.
Con-man, at least you admit to your attempt to confuse the apple/cold beer experiment. Often you don’t hold up to your own words.
You and tricky must both have dead-end GOV jobs. Typically people in real jobs don’t have time to blog all day.
Oh well, you can imagine you’re valuable to your organization, just as you imagine you know physics.
Kristian,
All things do NOT, however, thereby emit a thermal RADIATIVE FLUX in all directions too
Doesn’t the term the RADIATIVE FLUX axiomatically means ‘NET exchange?’
If so, I already made very clear that the NET exchange was hot to cold, and this qualification is redundant.
You agree hot objects absorb radiation from cold ones. I agree that the NET exchange is hot to cold.
Is there anything left to argue about?
Kristian says:
“All things emit PHOTONS or EM WAVES in all directions. This is a true statement. All things do NOT, however, thereby emit a thermal RADIATIVE FLUX in all directions too”
You’re claiming that neither photons or EM waves carry energy?????????????
Kristian says:
>> David Appell says, November 7, 2017 at 6:06 PM:
There ARE two separate energy transfers, one in each direction. <<
"Hahahahahaha!"
That's the BEST you can do? Acting like a clown?
Where are the measurements that prove your claims?
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Radiation from cooler objects is NOT absorbed by warmer objects”
Laughably wrong.
No evidence given.
Do you think radiation does a U-turn when it somehow “knows” it’s approaching a warmer object????
And how do it know?
g*e*r*an*,
Very specialized materials, techniques, and circuitry must be used to translate the detected IR photons into images.
The bolded bit is what you have denied can happen. You have contradicted yourself. A warmer object, according to you, cannot detect photons from colder objects. You said:
Radiation from cooler objects is NOT absorbed by warmer objects
The point has nothing to do with how the detected photons are imaged, and everything to do with the fact that they ARE detected – by a device warmer than the source.
——————————————————–
Cold beer and apples:
An apple in a room in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings is receiving radiation from all directions, including the walls of the room. When you put a mug of cold beer beside the apple, the beer blocks some of the radiation coming from the wall. Now the apple is receiving a bit less radiation, because the beer is colder than the wall. The apple cools very slightly because part of its surface area is receiving radiation from an object cooler than the (warmer) part of the wall it is blocking.
I described a scenario where a constant heat source supplied the apple (a heater in a box with it), and the mug of cold beer was placed over the hole through which heat vented from the box. This eventually makes the apple warm up (through insulation). Why did I introduce a heat source? Because it is necessary in an analogy that shows how a warmer object loses its heat less efficiently even with the introduction of a cooler object. In effect the introduction of the cooler object occasioned the warming of the warmer object.
Why would I talk about a system with a heat source? Because that is the situation we are all interested in. The heat source is the sun, the apple is the Earth’s surface, the mug of cold beer is the atmosphere reducing the rate of heat loss from the surface of the Earth.
No laws ofphysics are broken here. But the laws of physics are broken by the insistence that warmer objects cannot absorb the radiation emitted by cooler objects. They do. They also emit more radiation than the cooler object, so the NET flow remains hot to cold. All these things are happening at the same time.
Davie, you can think of it as a “U-turn” if it helps you to understand. Some more technical terms are “reflection” and “scattering”.
It’s the reason you can NOT bake a turkey with ice.
barry, barry, barry! Your belief system has you so blinded you can’t even see your failed logic.
You believe that an elaborate apparatus to detect photons somehow “proves” “cold” can warm “hot”? Try unplugging the elaborate apparatus and see how many photons you detect!
And you have to use a heater to heat the apple to “prove” that “cold” can warm “hot”?
Sorry, but all that is just hilarious.
barry says, November 9, 2017 at 2:54 AM:
Yes. At the QUANTUM level.
I guess you mean a change in internal energy [U] rather than heat [Q]. Or do you simply mean a change in the intensity of the thermal radiative flux between two bodies/regions at different temperatures?
Either way, you’re right. The radiative flux is the NET (bulk) effect of ALL individual QUANTUM transfers of EM energy. Described and explained by statistical mechanics. It is the NET exchange, not of two opposing macroscopic (THERMO) fluxes, like arrows on a piece of paper, but of ALL microscopic movements, scattering, emission and a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n events within the radiation field and at each surface (if such exist).
Yes. Or just the “macroscopic/thermodynamic energy transfer”.
Mmm, well, yes and no. As you allude to, he didn’t really mean microscopic energy transfers. He was simply going by the reigning paradigm of the day, the caloric “Theory of Exchanges”, proposed by Prevost at the end of the 18th century, which is more or less the same conceptual model of thermal radiative exchange as we use today (the two-way/bidirectional model).
However, this is still, and always has been, purely an INVENTION OF THE HUMAN MIND. A mental construct. A simplifying model.
It works, mathematically. But the two separate and opposing macroscopic fluxes inside the one radiative exchange AREN’T REAL. They’re conceptualised entities only.
Yup. Flow, stream, flux, W/m^2. All the same. Whenever you use one of these terms or units, you are basically (“axiomatically”) operating within the MACROscopic realm. You are talking about THERMODYNAMIC quantities of energy.
And there aren’t TWO separate and thermodynamic quantities of energy moving through each other inside one thermal radiation field. There is just ONE flux, one net/bulk movement of energy. The statistical (probabilistic) average of ALL microscopic movements.
Agreed. At the QUANTUM level. Not at the THERMO level, though.
No. THIS is where we start disagreeing. Their radiation isn’t what influences the other. Their TEMPERATURE is.
This is thermodynamics, not quantum mechanics. The radiation is a mere EFFECT (a radiative expression) of temperature, not a CAUSE of it. People keep looking at this apparent effect and think they somehow see a cause, a driver of temperature.
That’s perfectly fine. As long as people know how to use this way of describing the exchange. As long as they understand what it’s ACTUALLY saying, and – even more importantly – what it ISN’T saying …! People persistently talking about how the cooler atmosphere ADDS or TRANSFERS energy to the warmer surface to make it warmer still, simply do not get it. This is a THERMODYNAMIC problem. Temperature is a thermodynamic property of a system. It doesn’t exist in the quantum realm. Just as the Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply there.
Better, then, to simply stay clear altogether of the bidirectional description of the radiative exchange between the surface and the atmosphere. Because it ONLY causes confusion. If you (and I’m not talking about “you” personally, barry) cannot distinguish between what ‘happens’ and ‘exists’ in the QUANTUM realm and what ‘happens’ and ‘exists’ in the THERMO realm, then you shouldn’t go anywhere near the bidirectional description. Not because it’s inherently wrong. But because it will quickly get you utterly confused as to cause and effect in the climate system. Only people who know and understands the underlying physics properly should use it. And even they need to make sure they use it CORRECTLY.
We don’t need a bidirectional approach in order to explain the insulating/warming effect of the atmosphere on the solar-heated surface. In fact, it is much easier to comprehend using a purely thermodynamic approach (U, Q and T) – the thermal flow of energy follows the temperature gradient.
I think you’re way too optimistic here, barry. I’ve been using the language carefully and consistently the entire time. There’s still no agreement. Not even close. People seem to wilfully and chronically ‘misunderstand’ me. As if they didn’t want to agree with me.
Indeed. Because people can’t and don’t want to distinguish between the QUANTUM and the THERMO realms.
Yes. Well put.
Still good.
This is where it all breaks down. This is where your explanation starts conflicting directly with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
When you talk about an increase in the “energy content” of the warmer body, you are in THERMO land, barry. The energy content of a body is its “internal energy”, its U. And when you talk about the warmer body getting “warmer” as a result of the addition of energy from the cooler body, then you’re most definitely in thermo land. When a body’s U increases from t_0 to t_1, its T goes up from t_0 to t_1 as well, save during a phase transition. Disregarding the performance of work [W] on a thermodynamic system, the only way an absolute increase in its U and T from t_0 to t_1 can occur in the event of a transfer of energy TO the system, is via the process of HEATING.
And a cooler body CANNOT spontaneously HEAT a warmer body. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
IOW, you need to change your explanation of what is going on.
And I think you’re already able to tell where the problem lies. You are conflating MICRO (quantum) processes with MACRO (thermo) processes. Macroscopically, the atmosphere DOES NOT TRANSFER ENERGY TO THE SURFACE. Even if photons from the atmosphere are indeed absorbed by it. Which is to say that, when you write “radiating energy to the warmer body that increases its energy content,” you’re mixing up quantum phenomena and thermodynamic effects. The “radiating energy to the warmer body” can ONLY be about radiation in the MICROscopic sense, while the “increases its energy content” is a MACROscopic (thermodynamic) conclusion drawn from the same MICROscopic interpretation of the phenomenon.
This is exactly what people tend to mess up.
No. This will never happen naturally in our universe. 2nd Law.
No. There’s no NET flow. There’s just the flow. At all times the flow of energy is from warm to cool. No more, no less. The ‘flow of energy’ is simply the net of all individual microscopic movements inside the radiation field. There’s only ONE macroscopic (bulk) movement of energy.
Well, the warmer body ends up even warmer and so emits more photons.
Not too bad at all.
Yes. But the NET process is all that matters. This is a thermodynamic problem. Bringing in quantum processes evidently has people confused. They’re seemingly incapable of separating the one realm, the one aspect of reality, from the other. And so we should really drop the whole quantum part completely, rather than continuously and obsessively dwell on it …
Kristian
[“The cooler body is not a self-generating energy source. It reduces the efficiency at which the energy from the warmer body leaves the system.”
Still good.”]
After this you said Barry gets confused. So why don’t you explain it to us? How does the cooler body reduce the efficiency at which the energy from the warmer body leaves the system?
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 10, 2017 at 5:42 PM:
It’s explained on a regular basis, Snape. That’s basically what I do whenever I post here. And if you were only capable of understanding the distinction between the movement of individual packets of energy (at the microscopic/quantum level) and the bulk movement of energy (at the macroscopic/thermodyanmic level), you wouldn’t need to be constantly asking this stupid question.
You don’t even get the gist of ‘the dime analogy’, an exposition specifically of this distinction which is so simple and straightforward that a schoolchild would understand it immediately. Which means there’s no hope for you. You’re a lost case. In short: Why don’t you go off and start discussing things you actually know something about, Snape …?
“Its explained on a regular basis, Snape. Thats basically what I do whenever I post here.”
Nice dodge, Kristian. Telling people they misunderstand micro/macro isn’t an answer. Either is, “It just does”.
So one more time, “How does the cooler body reduce the efficiency at which the energy from the warmer body leaves the system?”
As for your dime analogy. Present it as a continuous process, rather than a singular event. (I’m guessing you will refuse.)
So you say some people misunderstand the quantum view. I think you are right.
Svante says, November 11, 2017 at 6:55 AM:
Not really. It’s not like they necessarily misunderstand the quantum view. And not the thermo view either. What they cannot grasp is the distinction between the two perspectives or aspects of reality.
You’re simply not looking at the same thing when you take a MICROscopic perspective as opposed to a MACROscopic one … And people tend not to get this. At all. Which means that, whenever they think about a thermally emitted PHOTON moving from cold to hot, they reflexively think that this must also be true of the thermal FLOW (or ‘flux’) of radiative energy of which this particular photon constitutes but a tiny part. That you can just extrapolate directly from the one photon to an entire radiative flux. As if the flux automatically moved in the same direction as the photon. Statistics of course tells us it doesn’t …
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 11, 2017 at 9:59 AM:
In what way is it a “dodge” stating that it IS already explained, that you simply have to UNDERSTAND what that explanation is …?
Yes it is, because that is why you don’t understand the explanation given …
You just don’t get it. You’re basically the frog in the well looking up and thinking he sees the whole sky. Read my response to Svante just above.
Kristian
You say you’ve already answered the question, so just paste it to us one more time.
From your response to Svante: ”
“Youre simply not looking at the same thing when you take a MICROscopic perspective as opposed to a MACROscopic one …”
Again, telling people they misunderstand micro/macro isn’t an answer. Insults aren’t an answer either.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 11, 2017 at 11:03 AM:
Sorry. If you can’t figure it out from what I’ve been writing during the last months or years, I’m afraid I can’t help you.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 11, 2017 at 11:19 AM:
Again: Yes it is. In the sense that it’s a reminder WHY you don’t understand (or accept) the answer you’ve been given a hundred times already.
Figure out the MICRO vs. MACRO bit, and you’ll realise that the answer is right there in front of you.
A hundred times? You’ve never answered that basic question, Kristian.
(One time you said, “it just does”.)
I take that back. I once asked you how the “cloud” knows to move from warm to cold. You answered, “it just does”.
Only takes a few seconds to copy and paste.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 11, 2017 at 12:48 PM:
*Sigh*
Yes, I have. Stop pestering. Rather go back and read.
Kristian,
Looks like we’ve pinpointed our point of divergence (above and beyond use of language).
In a system heated and affected purely by radiative energy transfer, such as Eli’s 2-plate set up, we agree that the introduction of a cooler object may reduce the efficiency at which a warmer object loses heat, whereupon the warmer object becomes even warmer.
Mentioning MICRO activity carefully up to this point can be done, but as soon as we want to talk about what mechanics cause the warm object to become warmer, you forbid discussion of the MICRO effects.
I would like you to state clearly what happens at the MICRO level upon introduction of the green plate. I know you say the NET is “all that matters,” but this seems like dogma rather than free discussion.
There MUST be some cause and effect at the MICRO level. If you could describe that MICRO activity clearly, then I for one would be careful not to conflate that activity with the NET activity, nor mistake quantum statistics for thermal flow.
barry, I’ve posted my response at the bottom of the thread.
FYI,
The green-blue plate solution with blue warmer and green cooler is essential to spacecraft thermal management, as discussed here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
G*eran and SGW and Postma will need to argue with the rocket scientists.
Looks like MLI is based on exactly the same principle as GHE.
Gordon, g*e*r*a*n, Skeptic Gone Wild, et al., is MLI a hoax?
A bit of a diversion: Emirates Melbourne Cup to run in under an hour first Tues in Nov – East USA/Canada 11am; Perth, West Oz, noon; Melbourne 3pm (has daylight saving).
Richest two-mile handicap race in the world ($6.2m prizemoney). The race that stops the nation; even Parliaments stops to watch.
Usually has 24 runners; this year only three are Oz horses. Has a long history going back to its first run around 1862 (from memory; no am not that old). Well worth picking up the atmosphere; look on the net; this site gives some background:
http://www.theroar.com.au/horse-racing/melbourne-cup/melbourne-cup-schedule-start-time/
Back on topic: Perth will be 36C today darned high; Melbourne 16C. Was in Melb a week or so ago when weather was great. But Melbourne Spring can really be fickle; have seen a Melb cup run in deluge conditions where horses swam to the finish (metaphorically). The remainder of the meeting was abandoned.
Enjoy the day!
Is not that high pressure in the south?
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2017/11/07/1800Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=-234.75,-33.79,786
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anome.11.6.2017.gif
Polar bears in Hudson Bay can already hunt on ice.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00945/yo1bxye317se.png
When can they usually start hunting on ice?
(I bet you don’t answer this.)
Whenever they want to, Davie.
Do you plan to stop them?
It is amazing to read one more time about a possible influence of geothermal energy on warming, though it is known since decades that it sums up to no more than 0.1 Watt/m2, what is totally negligible when compared with solar irradiance.
And it is not less amazing to read that the increase of ocean heat contents would be solely due to solar energy, though it is on the decline since decades. But some would have no problem in telling you that actual OHC increase is due to the solar activity around 1950!
+1
Bin, when someone tells you that your don’t know what you’re talking about, just claim it was your imagination.
You get to imagine whatever you want.
(However, before acting on your imaginations, always check local statutes and ordinances.)
“TempLS mesh anomaly (1961-90 base) was up from 0.618C in September to 0.73C in October. This compares with the smaller rise of 0.055C in the NCEP/NCAR index, and a similar rise (0.09) in the UAH LT satellite index.”
“The energy available is simply immense, far beyond anything ever before harnessed by mankind. National Geographic estimates the energy escaping from just the known vents to be 17,000,000 MW, an amount that approximates all human consumption on the planet, and there are tens of thousands of kilometers of ridge system that have never even been explored.”
http://www.marshallhydrothermal.com/complete.htm
17,000,000 MW = 1.7 x 10^13 watts
Wiki:
“Heat flows constantly from its sources within the Earth to the surface. Total heat loss from the Earth is estimated at 44.2 TW (4.42 10^13 watts). Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
So wiki say total world is 4.42 10^13 watts
And someone claims that “National Geographic” estimates
1.7 x 10^13 watts from ocean thermal vents
Or about 1/3rd of world total comes from thermal vents,
and someone said the thermal vents haven’t been completely explored yet. Or what is commonly said, the earth oceans are less explored the our Moon. And would tend to say our Moon hasn’t been explored nor has our oceans. Wiki also
say:
“The heat of the Earth is replenished by radioactive decay at a rate of 30 TW. The global geothermal flow rates are more than twice the rate of human energy consumption from all primary sources.”
So if there is 1.7 x 10^13 watts in ocean vents that could global solution for endless energy amount of energy and of course, causing no Co2 emission.
And basically earth is nuclear reactor and you using the heat from this nuclear reactor.
A big problem is the location of these energy source- they aren’t very close to populations. As said in other post, the one fairly close to the State of Washington is reasonable close to population and close national electrical grid, BC. Canada has been exporting a large amount of electrical power to California for decades.
But it seems more exploration is needed and finding these resource close to consumers of electrical power.
Another solution is long distance transmission is via space.
But it seems in near term one focus on sites which closer.
Despite its geological significance, this heat energy coming from Earth’s interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth’s total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget
Friend of mine years ago talked the potentials of tapping more of Earth’s subterranean heat energy as a source of (virtually) renewable clean power. Still, looks like there’s a lot more potential coming from above. Not that this should eliminate possibilities.
“Friend of mine years ago talked the potentials of tapping more of Earths subterranean heat energy as a source of (virtually) renewable clean power. Still, looks like theres a lot more potential coming from above. Not that this should eliminate possibilities.”
I don’t think there is more than 1% of ocean sea floor one could harvest for Geothermal energy.
Likewise there aren’t very many places on land one could harvest geothermal energy [unless you talking heat pumps and residential heating and cooling.
With oceans you can get geothermal energy from a volcano, because you be 3 km above the volcano with 3 km of water between you.
I wanted to check something: “deepest underwater nuclear test”
And got:
–“What if you exploded a nuclear bomb (say, the Tsar Bomba) at the bottom of the Marianas Trench?”
Evin Sellin
Surprisingly littleespecially compared to what would happen if you put it just under the surface.–
and go on:
“Most of the tests, however, involved either small bombs or shallow water. Evins scenario concerns neither…..”
And wiki:
“Unless it breaks the water surface while still a hot gas bubble, an underwater nuclear explosion leaves no trace at the surface but hot, radioactive water rising from below. This is always the case with explosions deeper than about 2,000 ft (610 m)”
So to finish what ws going to say, if nuclear when off 3000 meter underwater, you would barely notice it. Or there is less danger of using the geothemal energy from a underwater
volcano.
The kind of system my friend spoke of was turbines built over deep holes dug to hot geothermal fields (dry-rock).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dry_rock_geothermal_energy
Drop or inject water to hot rock, which heats and turns into steam used to power turbine. Water condenses and is used again to inject to hot-rock field deep underground. My friend said there could potentially be many of these sites, as long as we drill deep enough.
There are other geothermal systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power#Power_station_types
barry
Maybe geothermal energy underwater is a solution but on land certainly it isn’t (countries with minimal population excepted).
In Europe for example, using geothermal energy led to big amounts of microearthquakes.
gbaikie…”As said in other post, the one fairly close to the State of Washington is reasonable close to population and close national electrical grid, BC. Canada has been exporting a large amount of electrical power to California for decades”.
You mean BC has been giving away its energy to California for decades. We did it supposedly to be good neighbours but next thing you know Trump will be accusing us of dumping it unfairly.
BC doesn’t sound very smart, giving away power for “free.” (But I doubt that, simply because you claimed it, and we know how wrong you always are.)
It is surprising how warm global temperatures have been and are as of today despite factors which should promote cooling.
THEY ARE
Above avg. global snow cover
Low solar and associated secondary effects
La Nina tendency
Overall lower sea surface temperatures down about .1c in last few months, and La Nina, looks to be forming. I know lag time has to be considered. I just can’t wait.
So my take it is early yet and when/if the global temperatures cool it could be in a step down fashion rather then a slow gradual fashion.
My other take is AGW does not exist . I might be wrong on the global temperature drop off I expect but until /if global temperatures do not rise enough to make this period of time in the climate unique AGW is also not correct.
We will inevitably see cooler TLT anomalies. Probably by next month. But your latest prediction is about temps getting to baseline by next summer.
The surface of the Earth was 1000C during its formation, so I’m not sure what meaning you assign to ‘unique’.
exactly Barry they have to get there.
Salvatore: Global temperatures do not have to rise “uniquely” for AGW to be happening.
Salvatore
Take North Dakota, the most variable state in the USA. The standard deviation of detrended monthly anomalies for North Dakota is 2.75. As 95% of data fits within 2 standard deviations either side of the mean, that means the middle 95% of months fall within a range of 11 degrees. When we add one degree of warming do you expect this variability to just vanish? In fact North Dakota has warmed by about 1.75 degrees since 1895, but that still means you would expect 95% of anomalies to lie between -3.75 and +7.25.
You don’t need extreme temperatures every month or even every year to indicate warming. The extremes TEND TO (but not always) occur within El Nino and Nina, and we are not there.
The same principle applies nationwide and globally, the difference being that the standard deviation falls as you aggregate data.
It is the entire DISTRIBUTION of temperatures that is rising, and you cannot expect temperatures to be at the very top of the distribution at all times.
But you’re assuming anomalies follow a normal distribution, which is not the case given autocorrelation.
Percentage of scores:
(1) within one standard deviation of mean
(a) in a normal distribution … 68%
(b) in detrended North Dakota anomalies … 73%
(2) within two standard deviations of mean
(a) in a normal distribution … 95.5%
(b) in detrended North Dakota anomalies … 94.1%
I don’t see how those minor deviations from a normal distribution affect my point in any way. The only normal distributions in reality are those made up by mathematicians.
One of the comments on my post at WUWT leads me to the following. I believe the area from 60 to 90 is 6.7%. Please correct me if I am wrong.
The anomaly for the south pole went up from -0.76 in September to +1.09 in October for a total change of 1.85. Assuming an area of 6.7%, 0.067 x 1.85 = 0.124. Since October went up by only 0.09 over September, it appears as if the Antarctic alone could account for the October increase over September. Do you agree?
Werner
I agree with that. The Arctic was unusually warm both months, but in October the Antarctic joined in.
Same for the first week of November.
Sounds correct indeed.
But much more impressive is the ratio between the Southern Hemisphere and Antarctica (whose land areas show an anomaly increase of not less than 2.90 C).
“I believe the area from 60 to 90 is 6.7%”
The area between latitudes of 60 degrees and 90 degrees IN ONE HEMISPHERE is 6.7% of the area of THE ENTIRE EARTH.
The area between 60N and 90N is 13.4% of northern hemisphere, and the area between 60S and 90S is 13.4% of southern hemisphere. Meaning the total area with a latitude greater than 60 degrees (north and south) is 13.4% of the entire earth’s surface.
Thank you!
Thank you to both of you! It is also interesting to note that RSS went down by 0.04. As we know, RSS and UAH treat the Antarctic very differently, so that may explain the discrepancy. My number above was 0.124 and the difference between +0.09 and -0.04 is 0.13!
Of the 26 regions published by UAH, only three cooled between September and October:
Tropical oceans
Arctic land
Arctic (weighted average of land and ocean)
http://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
Back radiations, a new attempt.
For conduction, we have:
Q = R(T2 – T1)
As for radiative transfers, we can explode the equation:
Q = R*T2 – R*T1 = Q2 – Q1
Q1 represents the backconduction. Why is this notion never used in a thermal calculation?
Because it’s perfectly useless and brings only confusion. The same goes for backradiations.
Why are backradiations so frequently used in the specific case of the atmospheric greenhouse effect?
Because we do not know how to calculate the greenhouse effect.
Let me explain.
To lead a thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect, it would be necessary to be able to calculate all the transfers components involved, thus also convective transfers.
The problem is that we do not know how to calculate convective transfers.
The solution invented by climatologists: jumps over thermodynamics by assuming that convection is independent of radiative transfers and that convection only fixes the thermal gradient.
The consequence of this hypothesis is that any radiative imbalance can be restored only by translation of the thermal profile. An imbalance caused by a variation of the solar flux or an imbalance resulting from an increase in the CO2 level is thus restored in an identical way.
It is to give a veil of plausibility to this trick, that the notion of backradiations is so often invoked. The radiative imbalance is called radiative forcing. The value of the corresponding backradiations is not modified by the return to equilibrium and thus these backradiations can be presented as genuine additional heating of the surface.
“..these backradiations can be presented as genuine additional heating of the surface.”
Actual experiments with the real atmosphere do demonstrate that effect. phi has offered no counter experiments of his own because the physics wouldn’t work as phi claims.
As Dr. Spencer once similarly answered Kristian, it doesn’t matter whether heating, warming or reduced rate of cooling verbiage is used, the experimental result is the same: a higher temperature.
(This is a response to an upthread conversation)
Kristian claims global warming is the result of a “hotter” sun. Solar energy to the earth is measured as TSI (total solar irradiance), and this has been generally decreasing in recent years.
https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&client=safari&hl=en-us&ei=06oEWtTSI4re0gKc6I6wCg&sjs=3&q=total+solar+irradiance+graph&oq=total+solar+irradiance&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.3.0i71k1l5.0.0.0.28951.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0….0…1..64.mobile-gws-serp..0.0.0….0.VqaDNDyGb3Q
So how does Kristian support his claim when the evidence runs contrary? He points out ASR (absorbed solar radiation) has increased.
So is the sun getting hotter or has the atmosphere/surface been absorbing a higher percentage than before? To me, evidence suggests the latter.
Here is the TSI graph David linked to:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
Looks about flat since 1960, whereas global temps have definitely not be flat. Then again, over the same time period, the TSI has been a lot higher than it was previously.
Of course, whether or not the TSI has increased or deceased is not the end of the discussion. How much these changes, one way or the other, have affected global temperature is the bigger question.
From Kristian’s post:
Heat INPUT (ASR) to the Earth since 2000:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/asr.png
Heat OUTPUT (OLR) to the Earth since 2000:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/olr.png
Earths net flux (ASR minus OLR) since 2000:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/net.png
Heat IN has gone steadily up. Heat OUT has not simultaneously gone steadily down, but up as well. The net has increased. Gee, I wonder what might be the cause ?
From Kristian: “The net has increased. Gee, I wonder what might be the cause ?”
How about a decrease in albedo as a result of land/sea ice loss? More in, more out. Or more water vapor available to absorb solar energy (as predicted by climate models)?
Both ideas are more compelling than “a hotter sun” since the TSI has been up and down (little trend) over the period of Kristian’s ASR graph
I don’t think Kristian claims higher TSI, only higher ASR.
Svante
He points to the sun as the cause of warming, but uses an increase in ASR as evidence. From what I can tell, the sun has not changed much since 2000, even decreased a little. Climate feedbacks, as you pointed out, could account for a change in ASR.
I don’t mean to pick on Kristian. It’s an interesting argument. Just trying to steer the discussions away from the constant, “can a cold object make a warmer object even warmer”. It never gets anywhere!
snape….”Kristian claims global warming is the result of a hotter sun. Solar energy to the earth is measured as TSI (total solar irradiance), and this has been generally decreasing in recent years”.
The spectrum is so broad that it’s possible for it to increase significantly in one part of the spectrum while maintaining the same average.
It depends on how the average is calculated. Take one half of a sine wave from 0 degrees to 180 degrees as an approximation of the EM spectrum. There are several averages that can be applied. One is the RMS (root mean squared) which equals 0.707 of the sine wave peak. Another is the common average which is 0.637 of the peak value.
When you use the typical value given for TOA for solar intensity, what does that mean? You cannot average over such a broad spectrum that easily. I don’t trust the value other than for a very rough comparison.
Gordon Robertson
This one should help you understand what actual scientists do.
If you look at this link it shows how TSI is measured. Problems with different measurements and how the problems were addressed and corrected. You can read up on how the instrumentation that determines the TSI work.
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/09/G2pm5YoonSurfaceandExoAtmosphere.pdf
Gordon Robertson says:
“When you use the typical value given for TOA for solar intensity, what does that mean?”
Simple – it means you measure all the incident energy coming from the Sun. Not difficult at all.
phi…”The radiative imbalance is called radiative forcing. The value of the corresponding backradiations is not modified by the return to equilibrium and thus these backradiations can be presented as genuine additional heating of the surface”.
There is a clue in the term radiative forcing. There is no such thing in the real atmosphere as a forcing, the term forcing comes from differential equation theory where an input function to a diff equation ‘forces’ an output from the DE. The input function is called a forcing function.
That terminology comes from climate modeling where they rely on differential equations. It is also fraught with scientific misinformation in which modelers make presumptions that are not backed in physics. If their presumptions could be backed by physics the models would be validated and they are not.
The back radiations have no effect on the surface temperature. It is a presumption of modelers that all IR incident on a surface must be absorbed and converted to heat. That is an erroneous interpretation of the Stephan-Boltzmann equation which suggests a two way transfer of thermal energy between bodies of different temperatures.
Stephan of S-B admitted the equation could not be verified experimentally. Modelers have applied it without proving it to be true in all cases.
The 2nd law prohibits back-radiation from a cooler atmosphere from raising the temperature of a warmer surface that supplied the IR in the first place. That is not only a contravention of the 2nd law it is a claim of perpetual motion.
Gordon R wrote:
“Stephan of S-B admitted the equation could not be verified experimentally.”
You keep claiming this.
Without proof.
I suspect you’re lying again, as you so often do here.
David Appell
I am not sure Gordon is intentionally lying or just delusional. It has been several times that he posts Mid-IR is the result of electrons moving up and down energy levels. It has been several times he has been corrected. He completely ignores the post educating him or does not read it then a few posts later he repeats his made up physics.
I think skepticism is great for science. The only problem with this blog’s skeptics is about 99% of them make up their own physics based upon their own conceptions. Here is the list, g*e*r*a*n, Gordon Robertson, Kristian, SkepticGoneWild, Mike Flynn maybe others, the man from Australia that was banned.
They make up physics and when you challenge it they do not respond as normal scientific minded people would do, find supporting evidence to present. g*e*r*a*n goes off wild tangents and attacks a person’s work as if that has anything at all to do with science. He does it a lot to different people so he must think it is a valid response, but he totally ignores the challenge and will not support anything he says, ever (I think his denial of science ranks around 100% with slight fluctuations).
Kristian has his one-way flux mentality. I have asked him to support it. I have linked him to established physics textbooks that say that the NET energy is what is emitted minus what is absorbed (two energy fluxes, no science material states different), he has not linked to one source of established science that supports his view.
The others completely ignore any links to science or state you got it wrong.
These bloggers (who I strongly suspect have little actual science training other than reading blog science) give skepticism a bad name.
Wonder if simple-minded g*e*r*a*n will respond to this with some condescending attack that has little to do with the idea of the post.
Good points, Norman. I agree completely.
Norm, a long rambling comment, but you forgot to include any of your hilarious pseudoscience.
Are you running out of ways to corrupt the laws of physics?
g*e*r*a*n
Thanks for the response. You are the master of pseudoscience. You come up with the belief that warm objects cannot absorb energy from cooler bodies. Completely made up fake physics. No support for this opinion but you express it as if it were established fact. It is an irrational and illogical opinion that has very little basis in factual reality.
This is fantasy physics, no support in reality and not even logical.
YOU: Radiation from cooler objects is NOT absorbed by warmer objects.
Where is your support for this opinion. You declare it as fact and yet you cannot find even one established science source to support it. You make up your own physics as much as Gordon or Kristian. That is all you know how to do. Make up your own science without any experiments or logical thought process and hope people are too stupid to see through your cons. I think you might be the biggest Con-Man on this blog.
Con-man, you seem to be in a slump. Your attempt at juvenile insults just come across as unoriginal and lame.
Where’s the good stuff?
I remember when you used to present long dissertations on how two cold objects could heat a warmer object, claiming their infrared would add. That was hilarious.
Don’t you have any new material?
Yes Norman,
I have always wondered what the motivation for these characters, such as Gordon, Mke Flynn etc. are.
I did have my pet theory that Mike Flynn was a false flag operative whose job was to discredit the global warming denial movement. He was eminently successful (may be too successful) and now appears to have moved on to wreak devastation elsewhere.
His spiritual heirs are still here promulgating similar nonsense and perhaps their role is just to continue Mike Flynns magnificent work.
However, if they are serious I request (actually importune) that their unique insights into thermodynamics and atmospheric physics are disseminated widely. I have previously suggested a journal that would be a perfect fit for their ideas, but my suggestion was ignored for some reason.
It is such a pity. The combined intellectual might of this quartet (g*e*r*a*n, Gordon, Kristian and SkepticGoneWild) could finally put the final nail into AGW and save all the worry (and unnecessary expense) about climate change.
The world would be eternally grateful, and we could all sleep easy at night. Also imagine the accolades from the hacks at Fox News, The Daily Mail, Breitbart and other similar illustrious journals. Fame and fortune awaits. What is keeping you guys?
MikeR
Who’s side are you on?
Agent Flynn was doing a fine job. Then you came along and blew his cover.
g*e*r*a*n
Like I had stated previously, in past posts I had given you some credit for thinking ability. I am sorry I had assumed to much about you and led you into confusion and incomplete thoughts.
My actual claim (not your confused and distorted reality of the concepts I discuss) was that yes cold objects will add energy to a warmer one. But the warmer one is LOSING energy at a faster rate than the energy being added by the colder objects.
The warmer surface of an object surrounded by cooler objects (a powered warmer surface, one that has a source of continuous input energy) will reach a higher equilibrium temperature based upon the temperature of the colder objects. It is a relative comparison between different conditions. You can’t think in this complex area so get totally confused and mixed up and proclaim things never stated.
Again, my apologizes for making the assumption you had stronger thinking ability.
g*e*r*a*n
One more time. What supporting evidence do you have for your declarative statement that directly contradicts established science.
YOU: “Radiation from cooler objects is NOT absorbed by warmer objects.
Just one time provide evidence or support for you obvious pseudoscience. Why can’t you do this?
Con-man, you’re still not making it. You used to be much funnier. You seem stuck in a rut. You just say the same things over and over. There’s no new pseudoscience.
Even the amateur Svante has conceived a hilarious “thought experiment” (down thread). His poorly worded experiment “proves”, to him, that “cold” can warm “hot”. It’s hilarious!
Your competition is closing in. You need to try harder.
g*e*r*a*n
I wonder if it is impossible for you to support your statement with valid established science.
Why do you ignore my request with drivel? Why divert, invest in your own beliefs. Support what you think is true.
Your obsessive compulsion to divert the conversation to unrelated and pointless topics makes you one of the top pseudoscientists on this blog. Gordon just ignores things he can’t deal with and does not continue posting when his fantasy physics is exposed. You on the other hand must post but you only divert.
Your fantasy pseudoscience is challenged and all you can muster is diversion. Talking about my job or how funny I used to be just ignores the request.
So will you provide support for your made up physics or not?
I know what the answer is and you will not surprise me (you never do). You will not support you claim, you will not attempt to support your claim. You will ignore my request that you support your claim with established science.
Again, if you forgot the request in the cloud of your diversion, you claim a warm object cannot absorb radiant energy from a cooler body. Prove this claim or do what you only know how to do. Divert to some unrelated point that no one is interested in.
Norm, I know it is frustrating when your belief system is destroyed. But, you can’t blame that on others. You can only blame yourself. You put those worms in your head. It’s now YOUR job to get them out.
You do not seek science. You seek pseudoscience. You don’t understand thermodynamics, or radiative heat transfer. All you understand is “cold” can heat “hot”, which violates many well-established laws of science. AGW is a hoax, yet you refuse to re-examine your beliefs.
The simplistic apple/cold beer scenario is easily understood, even by someone that does not understand physics. Yet you run from truth. Why are you afraid of truth?
g*e*r*a*n
So you still cannot find any established science to prove your claim that a hot object cannot absorb radiant energy from a colder one. So sad.
You just have some more diversion. Nothing of value. Explaining your opinion of me does not address the request. It is another diversion, your primary obsession it would seem.
In your reply to my post not only do you divert but throw in some dishonest deception for good measure.
YOU: “You do not seek science. You seek pseudoscience. You dont understand thermodynamics, or radiative heat transfer. All you understand is cold can heat hot, which violates many well-established laws of science. AGW is a hoax, yet you refuse to re-examine your beliefs.
The simplistic apple/cold beer scenario is easily understood, even by someone that does not understand physics. Yet you run from truth. Why are you afraid of truth?”
What truth do I run from? A question you will not answer.
When do I say a “cold” heats “hot”. I do not claim this nonsense. It is your deception to avoid answering the request.
Find a post where I say cold can heat hot? You make up your deluded comments and then post them.
Again, so that we all know how dishonest and delusional you are as you cling to your made up physics. Here is my claim.
A powered object (one with continuous energy added at a set rate) will have a temperature that is determined by how much energy it is absorbing from the surroundings. If the surroundings are very cold, the temperature will be lower than if the surroundings are warmer yet still colder than the object. This is exactly what established science says. You are not a denier of climate science, you are a denier of science in general. You call established science pseudoscience and your own made up science (based upon nothing but your opinion) is the only reality you understand. Delusional person.
Norm, you believe that adding a colder object to a system can warm (raise the temperature of) a hotter object in the system. That is where your pseudoscience begins.
Norm says:
“When do I say a cold heats hot. I do not claim this nonsense.
Most of your pseudoscience buddies here claim this, Appell being the ringleader.
g*e*r*a*n
Your post: “Norm, you believe that adding a colder object to a system can warm (raise the temperature of) a hotter object in the system. That is where your pseudoscience begins.”
That is an incomplete version of what I am stating.
Again, to clarify, the hotter object must be powered. It must have a continuous source of power. A hot object with no input of energy will still cool even with another object present (that is cooler than the hot object).
The temperature of the hot object that has an input source of energy is not a fixed number. You can change the temperature of the powered heated object by surrounding it with variety of temperature surroundings. Take a light bulb and measure its surface temperature in a warm room. Take the same light bulb and put it in a freezer and see what the temperature ends up. Surrounding directly affect the heat flow and energy transfer.
g*e*r*a*n
Take a deep breath and focus. Keep your mind on one task. Don’t divert.
Request: Find valid established science that supports your declarative statement that a hot surface will not absorb energy from a cooler object. Focus. Remain on task. Find the information and post it.
Con-man, your attempt to spin yourself out of this is hilarious. You’re getting back your old comedy talent!
First, you denied you had ever said “cold can warm hot”. When I gave you an example, you started talking about putting a light bulb in a freezer! What a clown.
That’s the hilarious pseudoscience I appreciate.
Norm,
You give an example with a very complex item, a light bulb. The filament is powered, the surrounding glass is not. Too many variables. Forget that.
The real question is: does the presence of the earth (a passive object) make the sun, a powered object, rise slightly in temperature. Appell and his minions say yes.
You can even devise an experiment. Place and power up one of those parabolic radiant heaters (http://tinyurl.com/gojnr6z) in a room. Place a second one of those heaters (unplugged) about a foot in front of the powered one, so the parabolic mirror of the unplugged heater can reflect back radiant heat to the powered heater. Do the radiant heater elements of the powered heater increase in temp? Does the room get warmer with the second device reflecting energy back to the heating elements? If so, why don’t the makers of these heaters supply a second parabolic mirror to reflect radiant energy back to the elements to create even more heat?
Pseudoscience should be able to create some wonderful free energy devices.
Take insulation, for instance. Apparently if you wrap a heated element with enough insulation, astronomical temperatures can be achieved.
So engineers should be able to insulate a room temperature heating element and raise its temperature to over 100 degrees C with just the right amount of insulation, which could then boil water to power a steam engine.
What’s next? Backradiation solar panels to capture all that free energy at night!
g*e*r*a*n
Please, NO SPIN ZONE! You are still diverting.
Now once again focus. Hold your breath a second. Concentrate. You still have not supported your claim yet. How many posts will you go on with your diversion before addressing the actual issue. I really do not care what you opinion of me it. That has nothing at all to do with the post.
Please try.
“Request: Find valid established science that supports your declarative statement that a hot surface will not absorb energy from a cooler object. Focus. Remain on task. Find the information and post it.”
How many more diversions do I have to go through before you tackle the request?
Sir Isaac, please accept my sincerest apologies for disclosing Mike Flynn’s real agenda but It was being more and more obvious that his work was done and his presence here was superfluous.
I suspect he may have been redeployed to WUWT where his stupidity would be lost amongst the noise. Don’t worry there is more than enough cannon fodder with the continuing presence of g*e*r*a*n and the rest of the crew.
MikeR
No big deal. Several other nitwits have taken his place (phignoramus comes to mind). Flynn set the bar pretty high though.
Okay Norm, just because I find your pseudoscience hilarious. I took a few moments to do a quick search for something you might understand.
“In physics, the second law of thermodynamics says that heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature, and heat doesnt flow in the opposite direction of its own accord.”
And, it’s at a site just for you:
http://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/flowing-from-hot-to-cold-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
g*e*r*a*n
Amazing. I count 5 times in this nested loop that I requested “Request: Find valid established science that supports your declarative statement that a hot surface will not absorb energy from a cooler object.”
In your last post you posted a link that does not in any way support your declarative statement.
YOUR POST: In physics, the second law of thermodynamics says that heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature, and heat doesnt flow in the opposite direction of its own accord.
A true statement but it does not even in the slightest address your statement that a hot surface will not absorb energy from a cooler object.
Heat flow is the NET energy exchange at a surface between what is being emitted by a surface minus what is being absorbed. Science directly contradicts your statement.
So to date you have still not supplied any information that supports you pseudoscience. What is taking you so long? Should not be so tough for a brilliant mind like your own.
SkepticGoneWild
I am not sure what your post is trying to state.
Here you are trying to make and absurd concept and then you think you understand heat transfer?
For you case: “So engineers should be able to insulate a room temperature heating element and raise its temperature to over 100 degrees C with just the right amount of insulation, which could then boil water to power a steam engine.”
When you say a room temperature heating element, are you indicating it is being powered and has insulation wrapped around it or is it just at room temperature and you are assuming I make the claim that insulation will raise the temperature of a non powered object?
Not exactly sure what your point is.
Con-man, you’re on a roll! What a climate clown.
The quote I included WAS the Second Law. It was not MY statement!
“In physics, the second law of thermodynamics says that heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature, and heat doesnt flow in the opposite direction of its own accord.”
Here’s your response to established physics:
“Heat flow is the NET energy exchange at a surface between what is being emitted by a surface minus what is being absorbed. Science directly contradicts your statement.”
So, your “science” (pseudoscience) contradicts the Second Law!
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Now you are just being stupid on purpose.
Again: YOU: In physics, the second law of thermodynamics says that heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature, and heat doesnt flow in the opposite direction of its own accord.
Yes I agree. But how does physics define heat flow?
Read this:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
Heat flow is the NET energy exchange at a surface. The amount emitted minus the amount absorbed.
So you are claiming actual physics from MIT is pseudoscience and you think I am a con-man. Great, your delusion only is exceeded by your ego.
Heat flow is the NET energy exchange at a surface between what is being emitted by a surface minus what is being absorbed. Science directly contradicts your statement.
So, your science (pseudoscience) contradicts the Second Law!
How exactly does MIT science contradict the 2nd Law of thermo? You make wild and unsupported claims based upon nothing.
The Law as you state says “heat flow”. Heat flow (which would be a rate in watts) and could be a flux if you add are. It does not make any claim of energy flow. Heat flow is defined as NET energy flow. Hot objects are emitting more energy than colder ones (if the surfaces are of the same material). The heat flow, NET energy, is from HOT to COLD. How does my statement contradict the 2nd Law?
Norm,
You are hilarious. You call g*e*r*a*n stupid and simple minded but can’t even get the correct definition of heat from the source your gave! Your source defines heat as:
“Heat is energy transferred due to temperature differences only”
You further stated:
“The warmer surface of an object surrounded by cooler objects (a powered warmer surface, one that has a source of continuous input energy) will reach a higher equilibrium temperature based upon the temperature of the colder objects.”
Yet you steadfastly claim, “When do I say a cold heats hot. I do not claim this nonsense.”. YOU JUST DID IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH! Make up your mind! So you believe the earth heats the sun just like Davie. Welcome to the club.
The more Norm rambles, the more he contradicts himself.
It’s fun to watch.
SkepticGoneWild says, November 11, 2017 at 11:57 AM:
No, he doesn’t, actually. Both you and g*e*r*a*n have a serious problem grasping the thermal effects of “insulation”.
If you insulate a constantly heated object, it WILL end up at a higher steady-state temperature than if it weren’t insulated. This is a trivial fact.
This does NOT mean that the insulating layer is HEATING the insulated object. It means that it INSULATES the insulated object.
Norm’s example did not involve insulation, Einstein.
And you are just as confused about insulation as a certain individual who shall remain nameless.
This is what Norm stated further:
“A powered object (one with continuous energy added at a set rate) will have a temperature that is determined by how much energy it is absorbing from the surroundings. If the surroundings are very cold, the temperature will be lower than if the surroundings are warmer yet still colder than the object. This is exactly what established science says.”
So according to Norm, if you have the sun, and then throw the earth in the mix, the earth will warm up, which will cause the sun to warm up as well, since the sun is now affected by the warmer earth. This is Norm’s established science.
So even though Norm emphatically states cold objects cannot warm up warmer objects, this is obviously not true, since the cold earth did indeed warm up the sun.
So apparently my 1500 Watt room heater runs at a cooler temperature when my room is very cold.
But since Norm’s physics change like the wind, perhaps Norm can correct me if I’m wrong.
It’s a semantic issue – “flux” refers to NET flow automatically. That’s Kristian’s view via the thermodynamic lexicon. Use a different word and see if that changes things.
SkepticGoneWild says, November 11, 2017 at 12:42 PM:
Mmm, yes it did. Here’s what he said:
“The warmer surface of an object surrounded by cooler objects (a powered warmer surface, one that has a source of continuous input energy) will reach a higher equilibrium temperature based upon the temperature of the colder objects.”
When you make the cooler surroundings of a constantly heated object warmer, you are in effect INSULATING the constantly heated object. The surroundings are still cooler than the object, but warmer than they USED TO BE.
This is what insulation does. It is a layer surrounding an object that is cooler than the object itself, but warmer than the outside surroundings. The insulating layer is normally itself heated by the insulated object.
Kristian,
You really have a reading comprehension issue, and resort to lying as well. How can I argue with someone who blatantly makes stuff up? Norm was not talking about insulation. He did not mention the term insulation. The context was cooler bodies or objects. If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the distortions and outright lies.
Right.
So what is insulation to you, SGW? What does insulation do according to you? And how does it physically work?
In one ear and out the other. It would not be fair or kind to continue this discussion with someone who has an obvious mental defect.
SkepticGoneWild says, November 13, 2017 at 1:13 AM:
Hahaha! Why so angry? You know the two of us are on the same side of this discussion. You know I don’t agree with Norman. You know that I know there is no RADIATIVE GHE. You know that I know that there is therefore also no AGW and that more CO2 in the atmosphere cannot and will not make the surface any warmer.
But you (and g*e*r*a*n) evidently both have a serious mental block when it comes to the topic of insulation. And I fear it somehow derives from the teachings of reverend Joe Postma. You are absolutely correct up to a point, but beyond that point it only gets embarrassing to watch. Please think it through and straighten out your argument. I’m on your side, SGW. But the “insulating an already constantly heated object won’t make its equilibrium temperature any higher” nonsense is NOT helping …!
Norman wrote:
“Kristian has his one-way flux mentality. I have asked him to support it”
I’ve asked him the same thing.
His only response was “Hahahahahaha!”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-271782
When they flake out like that, you know they don’t have a real response.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The back radiations have no effect on the surface temperature. It is a presumption of modelers that all IR incident on a surface must be absorbed and converted to heat. That is an erroneous interpretation of the Stephan-Boltzmann equation which suggests a two way transfer of thermal energy between bodies of different temperatures.”
Complete bullsh!t.
The SB equation is about, and only about, the radiation from a blackbody.
It doesn’t say a damn thing about two-way transfers. Idiot.
phi says:
“The problem is that we do not know how to calculate convective transfers.”
Wrong. It’s been done since at least 1967, in Manabe and Wetherald’s model:
“Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, v24 n3 (May 1967) pp 241-259.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf
The Manabe calculation is a very simple one.
Convection processes are still parametrized in climate models. So we don’t know to calculte it, in the sense that we need some approximations somewhere.
That’s say, people who deny greenhouse effect are deeply idiot.
I do not deny the atmospheric greenhouse effect. I’m just saying that there is no thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect because we do not know how to calculate convection.
What I am still saying is that it is the specific simplifying hypothesis on the gradient which bases the concept of radiative forcing and which allows the assimilation of backradiations to heating.
Thermodynamics does not allow these concept of radiative forcing and independent backradiations.
Well view that these concept works pretty good, they are allowed by thermodynamics… You are so stupid.
This blog is a high concentration of stupid people.
Mickey Prumt,
“This blog is a high concentration of stupid people.”
Perhaps, then you’re the king of this blog.
At least try to argue if you can.
You’re wrong.
I am not a king, but a god.
You are so stupid that normal people are gods here.
mickey…”Well view that these concept works pretty good, they are allowed by thermodynamics”
They all contradict the 2nd law. How is that ‘allowed’ in thermodynamics?
What you lot have done is re-invent the wheel while making it square. You have confused electromagnetic radiation with thermal energy, summed the EM, and claimed that a positive net energy flow satisfies the 2nd law.
Not allowed.
Gordon Robertson
No scientist (including skeptics) say greenhouse effect contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Only very few people say that.
There are two solutions :
all scientists are stupid.
you and few others are stupid.
If you use a blanket, it warms you, even if the blanket is colder than you. No problem with the second law.
You have to be exceptionally stupid to keep saying that greenhouse effect contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Any planet with an atmosphere has a greenhouse effect.
Because that atmosphere radiates, in all directions.
QED
What’s true is that convection cannot be taken into account starting from first principles. The calculations do not solve directly the relevant problem of fluid mechanics and so determine the heat ( latent and sensible) transported upwards by convection.
So it is simulated at higher level and parametrized with more or less sophistication in a physically quite reasonable and realistic way from what have observed and learned about what drives convection, namely the local instability of the air column. The vertical temperature gradient close to the adiabatic is an emergent property and a very well established and observed feature be it on Earth, Mars or Jupiter, essentially independent on GHG’s concentration once there are enough of them to make the atmosphere unstable with respect to convection.
And of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the pertinence of the concept of back radiation or radiative forcing nor does it mean that thermodynamics principles might not be quite satisfied. The emergence of the gradient is actually a problem of far from equilibrium thermodynamics not ordinary equilibrium thermodynamics.
The concept of back radiation is ubiquitous in physics in general.
So all this drivel is just more bullshit or clown “fissics” made up out of thin air by yet another roaming buffoon.
You are clueless.
Radiative forcing is based on the possibility of adding the irradiance deficits from the earth (hence the increase of back-radiation) to the solar flux. It makes no sense if the gradient is not assumed to be fixed.
There is not what stupid people call “backradiation” at top of the atmosphere. At top : only an incoming solar radiation.
Radiative forcing is defined at top of the atmosphere.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
You are a idiot.
Everything make sense : if atmosphere is opaque to IR and less energy is radiated to space, and to overcome this, na increase in temp is necessary, then the RF concept is usefull.
Explain to me how you overcome the GHG increase without warming.
(it is impossible from what we observe, so whatever you will answer, it will be a stupid answer).
Mickey Prumt,
“stupid people”
“You dont know what you are talking about”
You are a idiot”
“it will be a stupid answer”
Try to control yourself a little better!
1.
The radiative deficit at TOA due to CO2 corresponds to nothing else than downward back radiations.
2.
“the RF concept is usefull.”
The concept of radiative forcing assumes that an increase in the energy entering the system has the same effect as a change in the radiative structure of the atmosphere. It is a thermodynamic heresy.
3.
“Explain to me how you overcome the GHG increase without warming.”
The increase in GHG does not presuppose a uniform warming at first.
You say
“The radiative deficit at TOA due to CO2 corresponds to nothing else than downward back radiations”
It does not. OLR is upward and there is of course no LW telluric downward…
I am sorry but you are stupid.
You say :
“The concept of radiative forcing assumes that an increase in the energy entering the system has the same effect as ”
You are wrong whatever you would put after as. You just understood nothing. the radiaitve forcing is just the change in the energy entering the system.
You say :
“The increase in GHG does not presuppose a uniform warming at first.”
Great. Nobody presuppose this. You didn’t answer my question (note that you can’t).
Mickey Prumt,
Funny.
“It does not. OLR is upward and there is of course no LW telluric downward”
And what do you think is an OLR deficit due to CO2 ?
Right back at you : “I am sorry but you are stupid.”
“the radiaitve forcing is just the change in the energy entering the system.”
Uh ? And GHG forcing is energy entering the system?
Right back at you : “I am sorry but you are stupid.”
“Nobody presuppose this.”
Yes of course, but, right back at you : “You just understood nothing.”
phignoramus drivel is invariably a formidable masterpiece of obscure confusion and idiocy.
Radiative forcing RF is the difference energy in – energy out at top of atmosphere and concerns the global energy balance of the whole system or planet at a given time t.
Back radiation is the IR radiative energy necessarily flowing from atmosphere into the earth ground or surface and it necessarily adds to the solar flux into ground in all instances. It’s an internal phenomenon and the essence of the GHE.
A planet may well exhibit radiative forcing without any back radiation if there are no GHGs and thus no GHE.
Conversely there is back radiation on earth surface even if there is no radiative forcing.
So back radiation is certainly not just RF or vice versa
And even the change in back radiation brought about by CO2 addition is generally not at all the same as the RF.
Indeed when GHG concentration suddenly goes up in an already optically thick atmosphere as is earth’s one, the back radiation that is nothing else but IR radiation back scattered resonantly by the GHGs doesn’t at all at first since it is already saturated. It only increases later on when temperature progressively goes up.
And on the other hand when GHG concentration goes up, energy out = IR radiation at top of atmosphere immediately goes down since it comes now from higher altitudes and thus cooler air. As a consequence a radiative forcing RF appears immediately and that until everything warms up and a new balance is reached where again RF = 0. But now back radiation is definitively larger than before !
Fanally of course nobody ever assumes the lapse rate to be fixed or heating to be uniform.
In summary everthing”s wrong in phi drivel, as usual.
gammacrux, alphagruis, Tsih, Manivelle, etc.
You swim in sauerkraut, landlubber.
Go re-read this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-271904
Oh thanks phi !
A new masterpiece of clown fissics and entertainment after my swim.
More please !
Hilarious.
I’ll miss you.
My swim in Atlantic Ocean, of course, 23 C air temperature
To close this lovely and lively convesation, I propose this passage of Science of Doom to ponder :
“As Ramanathan and Coakley pointed out in their 1978 paper, convection is what determines the temperature gradient of the atmosphere but solving the equations for convection is a significant problem so the radiative convective approach is to use the known temperature profile in the lower atmosphere to solve the radiative transfer equations.”
And so ?
What’s the problem, except that you are completely confuse ?
Quoting this doesn’t make you less idiot than before,
don’t you think ?
The quote is not for you. I doubt that someone who says “the radiative forcing is just the change in the energy entering the system” has the means to appreciate it. Your specialty is rather insults, isn’it? Goodbye.
A radiatve forcing is an externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of the climate sytem. That’s the change in the energy flux entering the climate system, of course without considering the radiative resposne of the cliamte system so for global surface temperature kept invariant.
Said a little quickly, that the change in energy entering the system. No real problem with that, except for a stupid guy who need to avoid answering a lot of questions.
phi…”As Ramanathan and Coakley pointed out in their 1978 paper, convection is what determines the temperature gradient of the atmosphere…”
Clearly, Ramanathan and Coakley are wrong. If it was convection causing the gradient, the gradient would be different all over the planet.
The gradient can be calculated accurately with altitude, what does convection have to do with altitude in general? Convection is local but the gradient is constant around the globe.
It’s blatantly obvious the gradient is due to gravity. At the top of Everest, at 30,000 feet, oxygen is 1/3 the density it is at sea level. I am confident the same applies to nitrogen.
How would convection cause that? Only gravity could cause it and in a constant volume, constant mass system like our atmosphere, pressure decreases with altitude and so does temperature.
gamma…”Back radiation is the IR radiative energy necessarily flowing from atmosphere into the earth ground or surface and it necessarily adds to the solar flux into ground in all instances. Its an internal phenomenon and the essence of the GHE”.
How does IR that is essentially off the end of the solar energy curve add to anything? When EM energy frequencies are summed they must overlap in frequency and be in phase.
This notion is pseudo-science of the highest order. The claim is that solar energy warms the surface and the surface converts the SW energy to LW IR. The IR is apparently recycled by GHGs then added to the same solar energy that created it in the first place.
Perpetual motion anyone?
And who said back-radiation is absorbed by the surface? Where’s the proof?
Gordon Robertson
You are a very silly person. You really do not want proof do you. You just pretend you do hoping no one accepts your challenge.
I know you are not really interested but you did ask.
Here is some proof that Backradiation, Downwelling IR is absorbed by the Earth’s surface.
Notice the graph of the radiation and look at the air temperature.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5a067cb40a42b.png
With the downwelling IR less than the Upwelling at night notice how in this image the temperature drops about 10 C overnight
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5a067d6668cac.png
The proof is out there. You are not interested in the Truth. You can’t handle the truth. Go back to your make believe fantasy world of delusion where you create your own reality based upon your own imagined laws of physics. It is where you are happiest. Reality is not your thing. Are you an old hippie by any chance? Reality is what you make it. If it feels right, it is.
In conclusion, be sure that once phi spouts himself insults and/ or says “goodbye” to his interlocutor he has flown in a terrible rage.
Invariable outcome when he ever dares to go into some technical stuff in order to substantiate his laughable drivel and is readily and invariably shown to be dead wrong.
Let’s admire once more his latest feat:
According to phignoramus:
“noting else”. Scientists are breathless.
Hilarious.
Norm, your links indicate another example of the worms controlling you. You look at those links and are convinced the graphs are “proof” DWIR warms the surface. A rational person would look at those same graphs and see NO correlation of DWIR to the surface air temps.
But, there is a definite correlation of temps to daytime hours. It’s like they say, “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Your mind is the one possessed with Postma worms, so dug in nothing (even rational logic) can remove them.
You cannot even follow a rational argument and interject what noone is talking about.
I can bring try to bring your confused mind up to speed. Gordon Robertson peddles the same false unsupported physics you do (strong possibility Gordon is also a Postma disciple).
Gordon Posted made this challenge: “And who said back-radiation is absorbed by the surface? Wheres the proof?”
So I provided very strong evidence of the “proof”. When downwelling IR and upwelling IR are nearly equal the drop in night time temperature is much less. This is strong proof the surface is absorbing the Downwelling IR, contrary to the made up physics you prefer.
Somehow you were able to find this in my post: “You look at those links and are convinced the graphs are proof DWIR warms the surface. A rational person would look at those same graphs and see NO correlation of DWIR to the surface air temps.”
Where did I ever suggest DWIR “warms the surface”? That is your own distortion of my post. I was demonstrating that the surface does indeed absorb DWIR. I guess those who make up their own physics are also good at making up points that do not exist.
You also stated that rational people would not see correlation of DWIR to surface air temps. You would have to look at the UPIR at the same time. Something your simpleton mind is not able to do. You have never shown the slightest ability at higher reasoning powers and still demonstrate a complete lack of this ability.
Simpleton, I did not know you would respond to my post to Gordon, but the NET IR directly correlates to the surface temp (rate of heat loss at night, which I clearly stated in my posts)
Simpleton, here is what I posted: “With the downwelling IR less than the Upwelling at night notice how in this image the temperature drops about 10 C overnight”
Norm claims: “I was demonstrating that the surface does indeed absorb DWIR.”
No Con-man, the graphs do not indicate that.
But, the longer you ramble, the more you contradict yourself. Please continue.
g*e*r*a*n
You are really on a roll to post as the really stupid comments.
YOU: “Norm claims: I was demonstrating that the surface does indeed absorb DWIR.
No Con-man, the graphs do not indicate that.
But, the longer you ramble, the more you contradict yourself. Please continue.”
Yes simpleton, the graphs do exactly demonstrate the surface absorbs DWIR. What logical support do you use to demonstrate that it does not? The temperature is not going down when the DWIR is equal to the UPIR (Net heat loss of zero). But both sensors (one pointing at surface and one pointing at sky) are detecting radiant energy flows in Watt/m^2. The surface is not cooling when equal yet it cools at night when not. What, simpleton, is the surface doing that it is emitting radiant energy and the temperature is not dropping. Are you really this stupid or are you just pretending so that you might annoy someone so Joseph Postma will give you a pat on the head.
Does anyone disagree with this (where)?
1) Give heater A 400W.
2) Give heater B 0W.
3) A loses energy [J] to B.
4) Loss rate [W] depends on temperature difference.
5) Give heater B 1W.
6) Loss rate [W] is reduced.
7) A input [W] exceeds output [W], its temperature must rise.
One issue … how far apart are the heaters? The Change in temperature of heater B does not depend on the temperature of heater A. It depends on the Power per Unit Area it receives from heater A. If heater A is far enough away from heater B so that one part in 400 of its power is incident on heater B then energy in = energy out for B.
Distance should be irrelevant. You can wait for equilibrium or not. It is assumed that they are in view of each other because A loses energy to B, which implies radiation (even that should be irrelevant).
In 5) I just want any small temperature increase.
A is always warmer than B because it loses energy in 3) and 6).
Distance is ABSOLUTELY relevant. Do you think a star with the same energy output as the sun but located a million light years from the earth will supply the earth with enough energy to match the energy output of the earth?
There is no need to match, I just want to show how a cold object can make a warm object warmer still. I’m not interested in the amount, it can be infinitesimal. The numbers are only there to paint the picture, they are irrelevant too.
Svante,
You need to talk to David Appell. He has the whole “earth heats the sun” thingy figured out.
He’s trying to publish a paper. National Enquirer rejected it, though.
SkW: do you have any science, or have you been reduced to going for laughs?
You see right through me.
svante…”Distance should be irrelevant”.
Can’t be, the intensity drops off with distance as per inverse radiation law.
I only want to establish the direction of change, not the amount.
I disagree at 7). And, conceptually, about the entire comparison between this situation and reality. You cant count the heaters ELECTRICAL input of 400 W into your calculations if youre just trying to think about THERMAL exchange. As output is 400 W. Its input (thermally speaking) is 0 W to start with (this is assuming that the ambient temperature is at 0 K). At 5) you are adding 1 W input to A, from B. So, As output is 400 W and its input is 1W. So no, it doesnt raise in temperature.
By which I mean…if you are trying to let a heater be analogous to the sun…the input to the sun will just be the ambient temperature of the vacuum of space, approx. 3 K. Whatever that temperature relates to in W. The output will be 5778 K, whatever that temperature relates to in watts. This output will be more or less continuous (though not in the long, long term) due to internal nuclear reactions. Your heaters ELECTRICAL input will be continuous (same as the nuclear reactions within the sun) but we dont consider those nuclear reactions when thinking about thermal exchange between the sun and Earth.. We just consider the suns output at its surface, then the distance between the sun and Earth (to get to the solar constant), etc.
So this is where any analogy breaks down. Its pointless to think about heaters if you are going to include their ELECTRICAL input into your considerations. You should just say;
1) Heater As output is 400 W
2) Heater Bs output is 0 W
3) A loses energy (J) to B
4) Loss rate (W) depends on temperature difference
5) Increase Heater Bs output to 1 W
6) Loss rate (W) is reduced
7) A input (W) is less than A output (W).
8) Since loss rate (W) is reduced, Heater B takes slightly longer to equilibrate to 400 W
Actually 8) should be that B equliibrates over slightly less time.
That’s a great improvement Tony!
The focus is on A, and I would rather not mention equilibrium, so I would just like to change the last points, and keep it as simple as possible.
1) Heater As output is 400 W.
2) Heater Bs output is 0 W.
3) A loses energy (J) to B.
4) Loss rate (W) depends on temperature difference.
5) Increase Heater Bs output to 1 W.
6) Loss rate (W) is reduced.
7) A must warm (more than before).
A doesnt warm. B warms. A will only warm if Heater Bs output is increased to beyond 400 W.
Tony gets it.
So the loss rate (W) of A is reduced, but that has no effect on A?
In the reverse case, you can draw more and more power (W) out of A, but its temperature will never change?
Svante, ever heard of “GIGO”?
So the loss rate (W) of A is reduced, but that has no effect on A?
Thats correct, Svante. Because A, like the sun, is continuously producing energy. So no, change in the loss rate (because Bs power output has increased) has no effect on A. All it means is that it takes less time for B to equilibrate to 400 W…because it doesnt have so far to go.
Tony
Even when it’s really cold outside, your body, like the sun, is continuously producing energy. Does that mean you will stay warm wearing just your underwear?
In the reverse case, you can draw more and more power (W) out of A, but its temperature will never change?
I see a relevant reference has been provided in a discussion above, to answer this question:
http://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/flowing-from-hot-to-cold-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
In physics, the second law of thermodynamics says that heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature, and heat doesnt flow in the opposite direction of its own accord.
The law is certainly borne out in everyday observation when was the last time you noticed an object getting colder than its surroundings unless another object was doing some kind of work? You can force heat to flow away from an object when it would naturally flow into it if you do some work as with refrigerators or air conditioners but heat doesnt go in that direction by itself.
Hopefully the discussion so far will be enough to answer any silly questions about underwear that anyone blatantly disingenuous could dream up. Thats that. Goodbye.
Bye. Don’t forget Your coat.
tony…”In physics, the second law of thermodynamics says that heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature, and heat doesnt flow in the opposite direction of its own accord”.
I think most alarmists in this blog would agree with that statement. The problem arises with radiative heat transfer, somehow, when electromagnetic energy fluxes become confused with heat transfer.
That seems to stem from the Stephan-Boltzmann equation which deals with EM fluxes. Somehow, modernists have attributed properties to S-B the equation does not have. Some have suggested a ‘net energy flow’ which S-B says nothing about. Stephan of S-B pointed out that the equation cannot be proved experimentally so it’s not clear how it became equated to a two way heat transfer.
It should be clear that heat can only be transferred from a region of higher potential energy to a region of lower potential energy no matter the means of transfer. With radiative transfer that is true only from hot to cold just as it is in a solid from hot to cold. Heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body with a lower potential energy to a hotter body with a higher potential energy.
The green plate in Rabbett’s thought experiment is doing nothing to the blue plate. It can radiate till it turns blue, it’s radiation has no effect on the blue plate because the green plate is cooler.
Gordon: “It’s radiation has no effect on the blue plate because the green plate is cooler.”
Remind me, how does the blue plate know the temperature of the green plate?
Gordon Robertson
Heat flow is the NET radiation exchange so it will obviously be from hot to cold.
You are wrong. Even if a hot object absorbs radiant energy from a cooler object, the NET is still from Hot to cold.
A hot object emits 1000 watts/m^2 and receives 300 Watts/m^2 from a colder object, it is still losing heat at the rate of 700 watts/m^2
The hot object will absorb the energy from the colder object. Nothing to stop it. The amount it emits is equivalent to the amount it will absorb.
What logic do you use to falsely believe that a hot object cannot absorb energy from a colder one. Do the math. You are just wrong and will always be wrong as long as you believe your made up science with no evidence to back them up.
Tony
Are you another one of those Joe Postma disciples? How many converts does he have?
Tony and Gordon, energy flows from hot to cold in the example, why do you argue about that when we are in agreement?
Tony, you are saying that a heater element can not be cooled.
Dip it in a freezing river and its temperature does not change?
The first two paragraphs in my comment, immediately after the link, were a quote from the link. Only the second paragraph was specifically relevant to Svantes question about drawing power out of A. I didnt see any harm in including the first paragraph as I certainly dont expect anyone to disagree with it.
All comments about cooling the heating elements, naked bodies in cold environments etc, are missing the point. The sun continues to output 5778 K despite its surroundings of 3 K, far colder than an icy river or any conditions we could experience on Earth, clothed or otherwise. If you dip the heater in an icy river, water and electricity doesnt mix, it stops working and thus cools, that is hardly analogous to the sun…and the whole point of this (I assumed) was for a heater to represent the sun. If not, I fail to see the relevance of the point being made.
Norm says:
A hot object emits 1000 watts/m^2 and receives 300 Watts/m^2 from a colder object, it is still losing heat at the rate of 700 watts/m^2
Yes, exactly. But if the hot object is continuously generating new, raw energy (like the sun, through its internal nuclear reactions, or the heater, through its electrical input) then that change in the loss rate does not mean it will not still output 1000 watts/m2. All it means is that the colder object has less far to go in order to warm, until it equilibrates. So that hot object is not going to warm unless it receives greater than 1000 watts/m2 from the other object.
Tony
My question to you was not at all disingenuous. It’s hard for me to picture either the sun or a heater changing temperature based on the surroundings. That’s why I brought up an example we’re all intimately familiar with, the human body.
The human body Is constantly producing heat. We know from a first hand, experimental basis, that the environment DOES change its temperature.
Tony, I haven’t noticed you commenting here before, so let me warn you. This site is infested with people that do not understand basic physics. They basically reject the laws of physics, or try to distort them.
The best way to handle them is just teach real physics. They will argue and insult, but you just have to realize they are “climate clowns”.
They will never appreciate your efforts, but there are many reading that will appreciate proper presentations of science. So, your time is not wasted.
Thanks g*e*r*a*n. I must admit to being so surprised by some of the responses, I had pretty much decided to leave and never come back…and still may! From the direction this is going in it seems like some of these people might actually think the Earth warms the sun!? What the hell is going on here!? I assume they MUST be being disingenuous. No-one could genuinely think that is true? If so, I despair.
Tony, here’s a water heater:
https://tinyurl.com/ycefey5a
Put it in cold water, warm water, take it out. Nothing in the world will change its temperature? Really?
Logic is not really one of your strong points, is it svante?
Svante, I have no idea what you are finding difficult to understand. Youve already said yourself that Heater As output is 400 W. This was, presumably, with surroundings either at 3 K (space) or 0 K. And the output is 400 W. Because there is a supply of electricity to the heater to keep it that way. No matter what the surroundings. Like the sun, with its internal nuclear reactions. Whats the problem?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/?replytocom=272244#respond
Tony
If an engine’s surroundings get too hot, it will overheat. The surroundings don’t need to be anywhere near as hot as the engine for that to happen.
Tony wrote:
“So that hot object is not going to warm unless it receives greater than 1000 watts/m2 from the other object.”
Will that object lose heat at a lower rate?
What does that mean for its temperature?
Extra credit: why do you sleep under blankets?
Gordon Robertson says:
“The problem arises with radiative heat transfer, somehow, when electromagnetic energy fluxes become confused with heat transfer.”
Isn’t heat energy?
Don’t EM waves carry energy?
Just how do you think the Sun heats the Earth, anyway?
I’ve asked you this several times, and you always refuse to answer. Telling.
Since nobody has anything intelligent to add, I guess thats that.
Tony,
Well said.
Appell believes that electromagnetic radiation is heat. So the earth heats the sun, ice emits heat, blah blah blah. Pretty pathetic considering the clown Appell has a PhD.
And unfortunately probably a majority in here think earth heats sun.
SkW: does radiation from the Sun heat the Earth?
If so, why?
And why doesn’t radiation from the Earth heat the Sun?
Does it do a U-turn when it gets there?
“Pretty pathetic considering the clown Appell has a PhD.”
You can get PhDs on-line for less than $100.
Unless you have a productive job, it stands for “Probably Half Drunk”.
Davie doesn’t have a productive job …
When d*u*m*m*y can’t answer scientific questions, he resorts to juvenile name calling. Weak, very very weak.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“Appell believes that electromagnetic radiation is heat.”
Does the Sun heat the Earth?
If so, by what mechanism?
Tony,
This never ending so called debate has been going on, in these comments pages, zombie like for at least 4 years and probably longer.
If you read the comments by Roy Spencer below from several years ago, you will soon realize that there are those who will indefinitely resurrect these old arguments as if it is Groundhog Day . It is clear that their target audience is the gullible and/or those who have newly stumbled upon this material.
Please read these
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/#comment-111743 and http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/how-can-home-insulation-keep-your-house-warmer-when-it-cools-your-house/
and any reputable text book on physics and thermodynamics, then let us know what your opinion is of Roys arguments
The amount of hot air generated in these endless debates may be the real reason that global temperatures have risen so rapidly since 2013.
Maybe gbaikie could construct a theory based on this (as long as he attributes my role appropriately). A simple correlation between the number of comments at the end of the month and the corresponding UAH temperature would be intriguing.
Further to my comment above.
With regards to g* role in perpetuating nonsense, he has form. You can get the full pungency of his contributions with a simple Google search of g*e*r*a*n (without the asterisks) ,Roy Spencer and Joe Postma and as your search terms.
It is very illuminating and confirms Ball4s statement of last month Dr. Spencer tried to banish g*e*r*a*n for the whacky untested physics comments (as unlearnt as many) & the insults, simply resulting in a name change adding the *, so Dr. Spencer stopped that approach, was a wasted effort.
To verify this read https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/08/11/roy-spencer-ae-language-warning/ if you have the stomach for it (also g*s comment-27658) .
The whole debacle is confirmed by g*e*r*a*n himself at https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/11/16/heat-is-not-pollution/#comment-28203 .
This assumes no-one has hacked g*’s account, but as he has not made any effort to correct the record then one can only conclude that g* has hoisted himself on his own petard.
MikeR,
This never ending so called debate has been going on, in these comments pages, zombie like for at least 4 years and probably longer.
Indeed. And this clearly shows that there is as much confusion on one side as the other.
What is really surprising is that classical thermodynamics has solved the problem for a long time but everyone seems to be huffy with it (except Kristian, at least on this thread).
Except no object, heater or otherwise, emits “0 Watts.” (Third law of thermodynamics.)
Your brain being the exception.
Since nobody has anything intelligent to add, I guess thats that.
Tony, we have got the disagreement down to one simple statement:
A heater element can not be cooled.
You are right that its power is constant.
You are wrong that its temperature is constant.
The loss rate is driven by the temperature difference.
If the loss rate goes down, temperature goes up until equilibrium is restored.
This is easily tested in a number of ways.
It would be good if nuclear power plants did not need cooling systems though.
The sun emits a (pretty much) constant temperature. Nothing else is relevant to your thought experiment if the heater is meant to in any way be analagous to the sun.
Thats that.
Plus, the ambient temperature doesnt change in the thought experiment, as the surroundings are presumably a vacuum. Thus all distractions about moving heaters from a warm ambient environment into cold water, or human bodies wearing clothes, as compared to those without, exposed to low air temperatures, are just that: distractions. Red herrings. Irrelevant. Yet you people keep going on, and on, and on, and on, and on, with more and more of them.
Regarding loss rate.
You said yourself that Heater As OUTPUT is 400 W. Once you turn up Heater B, you seem to think something you call the loss rate of A is reduced. Well no, not in terms of Heater As radiant power. Heater A still emits 400 W. What I had assumed you meant by the loss rate was the rate of HEAT loss from A. THAT reduces as you turn up B.
Once B has warmed until it too emits 400 W (either through turning up the heater or through just leaving it to equilibrate with A) then that rate of heat loss from A has gone to zero. Yet Heater As ENERGY loss rate will still be the same. 400 W. You cant reduce that loss rate…not unless you turn Heater A down; supply the heater element less power.
And no, an object doesnt warm up because its rate of heat loss is reduced. It would just cool down over a longer period of time. Unless of course it is a powered object in a vacuum. In which case it has no reason to cool until the power supply runs out, or is switched off.
And thats that.
Yes, we were done when you said a heater element can not be cooled.
Now we just need to measure, has anyone got an immersion heater and a thermometer?
You are determined to miss the point. Thick, stubborn, obnoxious and wrong. GFY
Can you please focus on point 1) to 7) and avoid the gish-gallop, there are a lot of confused people here.
Let me clarify, B does not reach 400W.
It doesn’t matter if it’s radiation, convection or conduction.
I say the temperature of A depends on its surroundings, you say it stays the same regardless.
It should be easy enough to measure, just let water of different temperature flow around an immersion heater.
Will the heater have the same temperature?
Its taking place in a VACUUM FFS
I say the power (energy loss rate) depends on the temperature difference for conduction and convection too, although the latter may be a bit more chaotic.
Do you not agree that the same principle should apply to all three?
Conduction and convection…in a vacuum!?
What are you talking about!? Why worry about factors that have nothing to do with your thought experiment, unless you are simply trying to obfuscate?
I say the power (energy loss rate) depends on the temperature difference for conduction and convection too
Hang on a minute…too!? As if to imply that its agreed that the energy loss rate depends on the temperature difference for radiation!?
The HEAT loss rate depends on the temperature difference between two OBJECTS. The ENERGY loss rate OF an object in a vacuum (in other words its radiant power) depends only on its temperature and emissivity.
Tony,
Now I feel like Kristian, I’ve been talking about the NET between A and B, but I’m keen on two way radiation as well.
I agree with your last paragraph:
A and B will radiate according to their temperature.
Net radiation loss rate (W) depends on the temperature difference (q=εσ(Ta^4-Tb^4)Ac).
If temperatures are the same there is no net loss.
Net loss rate increases smoothly if the temperature difference increases.
When B gets warmer, the difference is reduced.
A runs a surplus and will warm until the net loss is restored (at 400 W).
A runs a surplus and will warm.
Nope.
Since youve agreed that A and B radiate according to their temperature, you ought to be able to see that if A WARMS, it will be emitting more than 400 W. Then your heat loss rate would be increasing again…not reducing…oh dear.
You see, the heat loss rate from A to B goes to 0 as Heater B warms to match with Heater A. Thats called equilibrium. At no point is Heater As temperature decreasing. Its got an electrical power supply to make sure that doesnt happen, you see. Pretty sure weve been through that. Thats when you and the gang started piling in with irrelevant examples about icy rivers etc.
No no. ITS A VACUUM.
Equilibrium is when input power equals output power, not when A and B have the same temperature.
A:s NET radiation must be 400 W at equilibrium.
E.g, if A receives 0.5 W from B, A:s equilibrium output radiation must be 400.5 W.
Note: B does not reach the same temperature as A in this example, because A loses NET energy to B in both 3) and 6).
BTW, I made the example and I did not say vacuum, but never mind.
You concede that temperature determines the power emitted. A and B will radiate according to their temperature. Your words. Their physical size isnt changing. Their emissivity isnt changing.
Then you declare that equilibrium is when the power emitted is equal, and not the temperature.
You will no doubt pretend there is no contradiction.
This is because you are a liar.
Now, you say:
A:s NET radiation must be 400 W at equilibrium.
E.g, if A receives 0.5 W from B, A:s equilibrium output radiation must be 400.5 W
No, As NET radiation must be 0 W at equilibrium. In other words, radiating the same as it is receiving.
If the Heater is not in a vacuum then its not analogous to a sun, and so your example would be a complete waste of time from the point of view of most discussions going on here.
Although…it IS a complete waste of time. So I guess it can be whatever you want. If you start changing up the surroundings and adding that to your list, you can obfuscate relentlessly! Why not give that a go?
Tony says:
“As NET radiation must be 0 W at equilibrium. In other words, radiating the same as it is receiving.”
No, heater A has 400W (electrical or whatever) input, which it must radiate (net) at equilibrium.
Lol, Svante. Back to the beginning, eh? You cant consider the electrical input to the Heater in your considerations of thermal exchange. Remember? That whole comment I started with? Were only looking at the OUTPUT of the heater? Which you agreed with, by saying it was a great improvement?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272017
Round and round we go. Where it stops…well…it never stops. That would require integrity on your part.
I see the misunderstanding, you are discussing a heating element with a thermostat?
Oh FFS. Just carry on and talk to yourself.
Instead of me saying something, why dont you just write in whatever it is that you want to hear from me, in my name. Then you can write back in response to that, as yourself.
If the heater is analogous to the sun, then yes. It should have a thermostat. Like the sun:
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5081/why-is-the-sun-hot
So why even ask the question?
I didn’t know that the Sun had a thermostat, thank you for informing me, I was wondering why you kept talking about it.
I also understand why you said the heater could not be cooled.
So two more notes are needed, the heaters in the example do not have thermostats, and the example does not apply to the Sun.
OK, no problem. But as it doesnt apply to any sort of sun/Earth relationship Im out.
But, glad we eventually got somewhere.
And Im sorry for being rude. I obviously jumped to the wrong conclusions whilst we were simply talking past each other. My bad.
Play nice now boys and girls.
RW
I have only seen one woman post on this blog. Laura was her moniker. I have not seen many more posts from her.
Please put a stop to all the childish name-calling, and while you’re at it, please put a stop to all the meaningless psuedo-science and gobble-de-goop. It makes for very uninteresting reading and does the authors’ credibility no good whatsoever. In case your wondering, I’m addressing this to both the skeptics and to the alarmists.
Why “skeptics and alarmists”? Why not “deniers and warmists”? Are you expressing your leanings?
des
“Please put a stop to all the childish name-calling”
Wouldn’t it be ironic if Russ is a Trump supporter?
Ok Des, whatever you want to call or label yourselves. I’m ok with that …………. just not impressed with your ad hominem attacks on each other. It’s almost always a sign where those in short supply of a meaningful counter-argument resort to their basest and most defensive instincts.
Sir Isaac Snapelton – Something Trump might do, right?
russ…skeptic here…I’ll bet you’re one of those kinds at a party, wearing a party hat and a Hawaiian shirt, who tried to get everyone up dancing.
You’re not a “skeptic,” you’re a denier, and not a smart one at that.
For all skeptics who do not understand physics. Please watch this video. You are all wrong and need to correct your false science. These threads go thousands of posts because skeptics refuse to learn real physics and continue to peddle their own version of science which is based upon nothing and supported by nothing but absurd claims like ice cooking turkey.
Here is the real deal. Gordon Robertson, g*e*r*a*n, SkepticGoneWild, etc. Have a view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=425&v=otdK1x-WCsk
The deniers will wait for your comment to disappear up the page so they can pretend it didn’t happen.
Again Norm, you do not understand that equation. That equation is based on “black bodies”. The equation is used for instructional purposes, but you have to understand the entire physics of radiative heat transfer.
Photons are NOT automatically “accepted” by a surface. You’ve got to get that worm out of your head. (I use “accepted” because this site has problems with the correct a.b.s.o.r.b.e.d.)
In the real world, there are no perfect black bodies. And, even if there were, the emission spectrum changes with temperature. In the real world, temperature affects both “accepting” and “rejecting” of photons.
“In the real world, temperature affects both accepting and rejecting of photons.”
Would you please provide a link for this claim. Note – I am not asking for a link regarding EMISSION – only for “accepting and rejecting” of incoming photons. Show me a formula for the wavelength dependence of this “acceptance”.
And then tell me what happens to a photon that impinges on the sun that is not “accepted”. Where does it go?
Better than trying to explain quantum physics, I’ll give you an easy-to-understand example.
You can NOT warm a room temperature apple with a block of ice 1 sq. meter on each face. (Ice emits about 300 Watts/sq.meter.) BUT, you can warm the apple with a 300 Watt light bulb.
The difference is in the wavelengths of the emitted photons.
g*e*r*a*n
Your thought process is incomplete and you are not able to process all that is going on with your apple example.
First, the block of ice is not taking any energy away from the apple. The reason the apple cools with a block of ice present is because the radiant energy of the walls, maybe around 400 W/m^2 at room temperature, will not penetrate the ice to reach the apple surface. The apple (at room temperature) is emitting around 400 W/m^2. The ice is only returning 300 W/m^2 to the apple’s surface so it will cool. The apple is still absorbing the 300 W/m^2 but it is losing 100 NET W/^2 toward the ice and cools.
If you had a colder item such as a block of dry ice. It would emit around 80 W/m^2 toward the apple and block the 400 W/m^2 from the walls. The apple would lose energy at a much higher rate of 320 W/m^2 if you put a block of dry ice near it rather than water ice at a much higher temperature.
Now the 300 W bulb will warm the apple because the apple is receiving 400 W/m^2 from all the walls and emitting the same. The light bulb is not taking away from this, it is only adding to the energy the walls are providing.
Your ideas of quantum physics are crackpot from the king crackpot Claes Johnson. He is more mixed up than even you but you accept what he says as if it were true but reject all the thousands of scientists who have done many experiments to develop the science.
Follow the crackpots and nuts. It seems to make you happy. Gordon makes up his own physics and you get your physics from the crackpots on the Web.
Norm must reject the laws of physics so that he can live in his world of pseudoscience.
Hilarious.
I asked for a LINK to justify your claim. Waiting …
des, do a search on “quantum physics”.
Let me know when you find something that disagrees with something I said here.
Waiting …
g*e*r*a*n
YOU: “Norm must reject the laws of physics so that he can live in his world of pseudoscience.
Hilarious.”
And which laws would that be? The ones you don’t understand?
I guess you have your fellow disciple on board, SkepticGoneWild, and the two of you reinforce your nonsense.
Des has you pegged, you do not like to support your statements and the few statements you post are not supporting of your stupid braindead ideas that a Hot object cannot absorb energy from a colder one. Absolute stupid made up science. I have asked you many times to to support it. Above you give a post about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics that has nothing to do with your stupid statement.
Hey Con-man, have you noticed that the more science I present, the more hostile you get?
I think that’s neat. So, here’s some more real science. Enjoy you evening.
You believe that all photons must be “accepted”. But, even visible light is not always “accepted”. That’s why we can see objects–light is reflected from them.
Photons are not always “accepted”.
anger 10:15am writes: “Let me know when you find something that disagrees with something I said here. Waiting…”
I easily found something that disagrees with anger by running an actual experiment which shows a mug of cold beer can warm an apple next to it.
“Obviously you avoided the experiment of baking the apple with mugs of cold beer. Avoid anything that runs counter to your belief system.” and “..to show is how a mug of cold beer can warm an apple next to it.” from the last thread.
I took a large red delicious apple (aka the blue plate) and sat it next to my 60watt desk lamp (aka the sun) 1.5″ away shining on one “hemisphere” of the apple in furnace controlled room temperature 68F.
My IR thermometer with emissivity setting 0.95 read 212F on my boiling tea kettle and 32F on a plastic bowl of ice water thus showed reasonable calibration.
When the apple stabilized at 83F on the lit side I set the bowl of ice water 1″ away (aka the green plate) in the apple shade next to the apple unlit side blocking some of the radiation (aka backradiation) from my 68F room walls et. al. stuff. The unlit side of the apple stabilized lower at 60F.
I then filled a cold mug of beer from my refrigerator which thermometer & IR thermometer indicated at 36F. I set the cold mug of beer 1″ from the unlit side of the apple replacing the 32F plastic bowl of ice water. Some 10 minutes later the unlit side of the apple now read 62F increased from 60F next to the cold mug of beer, after 15minutes unlit apple side read 63F.
What do you know, I found by experiment something that disagrees with something anger said! I showed how a cold real mug of beer can warm a real apple next to it. Hilarious!
Next episode: demonstrate how to bake a turkey with ice. No, wait, Dr. Spencer already showed a replicable experiment that shows how to do that.
Perhaps anger can ask Norman to explain these results to him which are in accord with the blue plate/green plate theory calculations.
Proper testing like Dr. Spencer & Dr. Feynman performed really is needed. Words are susceptible to different interpretations. Expressions in words can have wide differences from actual experiment.
Do the testing anger et. al.
Hi Ball,
Kudos to you for trying an experiment to test your hypothesis that cold can warm hot.
However i have a problem with your data… You neglect to list the stable temp of the backside of the apple before the introduction of the cold items.
I am quite sure it would have been higher than both your other readings .
Had you done so , you would have been able to come to the correct conclusion that BOTH the beer and the ice COOL the apple … The beer just less so.
A valiant but failed attempt to show cold warms hot.. The second law stands unshaken…
By all means keep trying .. If you find a way youll solve the worlds energy needs…
g*e*r*a*n
Is that how you believe science works?
Albert Einstein: “I believe that the energy of a body is proportional to the mass, the constant of proportionality being the square of the speed of light. I can’t prove this, but I don’t have to – it’s up to you to prove me wrong”
YOU CAN’T FIND A LINK TO SUPPORT YOUR BS CLAIM
des, you’re so desperate that you’re comparing me to Einstein!
Thanks, but what I am talking about is not new. It is established science. You’ve just never heard of it, so it appears new to you.
Just do a search on “quantum physics”. There will be enough reading to last you for quite awhile.
“Established science” which you CAN’T FIND A LINK TO … hahaha
Not a link that you would change your belief system.
ball4…”I found by experiment something that disagrees with something anger said!”
All you did was leap to the wrong conclusion, that somehow, contrary to the 2nd law, that a cold mug of beer could radiate energy to an apple and warm it.
Gordon Robertson says:
“All you did was leap to the wrong conclusion, that somehow, contrary to the 2nd law, that a cold mug of beer could radiate energy to an apple and warm it.”
Why do you sleep under a blanket at night?
The blanket has no heat source. So how does it keep you warmer?
Davie queries: “Why do you sleep under a blanket at night? The blanket has no heat source. So how does it keep you warmer?”
Davie does not understand that the human body is a thermodynamic heat source. But, he doesn’t understand a lot about physics.or math.
Hilarious.
D*u*m*m*y doesn’t understand the Earth is also a thermodynamic heat source.
No – an UNQUALIFIED can’t find a link.
Ball4
+10 for doing an actual experiment.
Your results are the same as what I have been telling g*e*r*a*n. He is unable to comprehend. Your test should finally convince him he is on the wrong side of physics following the loon Joseph Postma down the path of lunacy, physics made to order.
Others are starting to see what was obvious to me long ago. Neither g*e*r*a*n nor SkepticGoneWild will support their statements with valid established science of any kind. When one points them to actual science to read, their only counter is to make the claim that I am not understanding the material properly. When pressed for more information none is provided. Others are asking g*e*r*a*n for evidence of his statements. He diverts but does not provide.
g*e*r*a*n
When your false physics is getting destroyed you resort to lying, making up things never said.
HERE YOU CLEARLY LIE: “You believe that all photons must be accepted. But, even visible light is not always accepted. Thats why we can see objectslight is reflected from them.
Photons are not always accepted.”
When did I ever post that I believe all photons must be “accepted”. You are just lying out your ass with that deception. It is one thing to peddle false physics to gain approval from your Master Joseph Postma, it is another thing all together to just flat out lie.
I guess that is when we know you are unable to come up with any more made up physics. You then must resort to fabrication and lies.
“D*u*m*m*y doesnt understand the Earth is also a thermodynamic heat source.”
Einstein doesn’t understand if you turn off the sun, the earth goes cold. The earth is passive. It’s temperature is dependent upon the sun. Wow! What a concept!
PhilJ 2:49pm, that is actually a good point. But you will have to run the simple test yourself to discover the answer to your own question, report the data, results, and if apple start of test equlibilbrium backside T matters on your own. I can only do so much.
Also, my simple test results are fully in accord with 2LOT as universe entropy increases during the process as the apple increases in T when irradiated from the colder mug of beer & arrives at the same result as did Dr. Spencer in his test so replicates and corroborates the same physics.
Remember, as always, it doesn’t matter whether you call the process cold warms hot, slow the cooling, heating, warming or call it what you will, the experimental result is the same: an increase in temperature. For the apple, from 60 to 63F when the colder mug of beer is set close enough to the apple in the apple’s view.
What you are missing sir is that the beer did nothing to warm the apple , in fact it prevented the apple from rising to the temp it would have if you simply removed the ice …
“…the beer did nothing to warm the apple..”
Do the experiment PhilJ, you can learn a lot just from observing.
The apple’s temperature increased when the cold mug of beer was placed in its view proving out basic 1st principle theory.
I recommend doing the testing as it is obvious PhilJ doesn’t understand radiative physics as learned from much Plankian testing. The colder mug of beer added more photons to the apple irradiating the apple with more energy for it to absorb (and reflect) than the container of ice water thus increasing its T. m*Cp*delta T.
Same physics as operating in Dr. Spencer’s testing.
Umm no .. The apples temp went up because you removed the ice .. Placing the cold beer there slowed and limited that increase in temp,
Keep trying, youve yet to show cold heats hot
PhilJ, “Placing the cold(er) beer there slowed and limited that increase in temp.”
Aha, now PhilJ agrees “an increase in temp.”
Replicate my test and determine if all your claimed slowing and limiting is in the data and result, let us know. Use your own room temperature, refrigerated beer so forth.
g*e*r*a*n,
‘Norm must reject the laws of physics so that he can live in his world of pseudoscience.’
Funny you mention that because Joe Postma just rejected my comment so that he, and all of you, can continue to live in his world of pseudoscience.
My comment, below, contained information that was apparently too hot (and too counterfactual), for his followers to see:
“BTW, your solutions for this problem, and the green-blue plate problem, are at odds with well understood technology, multi-layered insulation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation, used to insulate in space and for cryogenics. Your approach cannot explain how MLI works.”
Joe Postma commenter name used to post around here but many of his claims were rejected by results of experiments performed by Dr. Spencer. So Joe retreated to safer climes.
If you want to find Joe now sans any experiments at all just enter climate sophistry into google search, the blog name says all you need to know. It is good for a few laughs, not atm. science.
Wow! That guy Joe Postma is a real a**hole and master manipulator.
First he went on a massive tirade and called me a whole bunch of names, for apparently diagreeing with him, then,
he had the gall to edit my comment to make it seem like I agreed with him!
I wrote
“I agree with the math you showed in your second post on this subject. There is nothing wrong with it. You described in words what you thought was wrong with it, but I dont agree with you.
So, because I dont agree with you, but I do agree with textbook physics, that makes me all the f*ing things you called me?”
He changed it to:
” I fully agree with the math you showed in your second and third post on this subject. There is a paradox/contradiction there and thus it disproves itself. I am forced to agree with you by pure mathematics.
So, because I agree with you, and I do now agree with textbook physics, I hope I am no longer all the ****ing things you called me.”
Wow. Just amazing. This the guy you respect G*e*r*a*n??
Wow, now Postma has deleted this exchange and my response to it altogether. And I’m cutoff.
The guy is extremely insecure!
Postma blocked me long ago. He isn’t interested in science or discussions, only in his own pronouncements.
g*e*r*a*n
You must have only watched the first few minutes of the video. They bring up blackbody initially but then quickly go to real world using the same equation but adding emissivity.
The equation is used in heat transfer applications, it is not a teaching tool but real world physics. Your physics is incomplete and misguided. Watch the entire video.
Norm, you are just looking for excuses not to face reality.
“Adding emissivity” just implies making a black body “real”. The temperature of an object affects the object’s emissivity, which affects the object’s emission spectrum.
g*e*r*a*n
I was looking around to see how much temperature affects emissivity. It does to some extent but with a small range of temperatures, not so much.
Here are a few real world examples of emissivities of select material changing with temperature.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227299587_Infrared_Radiation_Coatings_Fabricated_by_Plasma_Spray
Fig 2 shows a change of emissivity of from 0.87 at around 0 C to 0.88 at 400 C
https://www.irsm.cas.cz/materialy/cs_content/2016_doi/Zhang_CS_2016_0023.pdf
This link shows a drop of emissivity from 0.8 to 0.7 in 1000 degree change in C
Yes temperature will have some effect on emissivity but within ranges of Earth temperatures, not much. It would not change anything to significant amount.
Con-man, you are soooooo desperate.
Temperatures affect emissivity. You had to “look around” because you did not know that.
Glad to help.
norman…”I was looking around to see how much temperature affects emissivity. It does to some extent but with a small range of temperatures, not so much”.
Temperature is a scale invented by humans to measure relative degrees of heat. EM emission has to be directly proportional to temperature since temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of atoms with the electrons in atoms being the determining factor for thermal energy.
Electrons are responsible for emission, they convert thermal energy to EM. The intensity and frequency of the EM is determined by the energy level at which the electrons reside. The energy level is the temperature.
Why would you not think emission is related to temperature?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Temperature is a scale invented by humans to measure relative degrees of heat”
Then you agree that “heat” is a property of a body, and not just energy transfer.
Gordon Robertson says:
October 15, 2017 at 1:20 PM
If your muscles do enough work they will increase the heat in your body.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-268729
g*e*r*a*n
You have poor memory recollection. I already knew from Hottel’s work with CO2 and H2O emissivity does change with temperature, but I also knew that with the gases the change is small and only makes an impact with very large temperature changes. I was just looking around at other materials to see the amount of change. And again it is not much and will not have significant impact on terrestrial surface radiant heat energy balances. It will not have noticeable effect on your apple example or any hot plate examples given on this blog.
Con-man, someday you will wake up and realize the only one you have conned is you.
And, that’s not really funny …
Norm,
You are a complete moron. I don’t need to watch some dumbass video. I have my physics books from University, and I don’t need your stupid pseudoscience.
Well said!
Especially the “complete” part.
☺
Confirmation bias:
“confirmation bias identifies how people readily read information that confirms their established opinions, and readily avoid reading information that contradicts their opinions.”
“It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.”
Just try to understand all that, sis.
Then explain it to Norm.
Best of luck.
snape…”Confirmation bias:
confirmation bias identifies how people readily read information that confirms their established opinions, and readily avoid reading information that contradicts their opinions.”
That would align closely with an appeal to authority, an apparent hallmark of climate alarm.
You’re one to talk!
SkepticGoneWild
Then why don’t you read your physics book from University and see what it says. What you call pseudoscience is straight out of textbooks. What is your physics book? General physics or specific to heat transfer?
I know you don’t want to watch the educational and valid physics video. Your Master would not like that too much (Joseph Postma, the lunatic that inspires all in your cult). I know it is impossible for actual science to reach your deluded cult programming. You will continue to vomit your material here.
Basically what you are loudly and proudly proclaiming is you are clueless on how radiant heat transfer works. I guess you have g*e*r*a*n who agrees with you. No physics teacher would agree with you and if you took a class on heat transfer you would fail. Your understanding of physics of heat transfer is F material. Sorry to be honest with you. The only moron is the one looking at you when you face a mirror.
Yup, “complete” is a good adjective.
Completely!
Hilarious.
Please quote the part from your physics book that states or implies that the sun does not absorb radiation in the far infrared.
Maybe you can understand this, des. It’s from a special site, set up especially for Warmists.
☺
“In physics, the second law of thermodynamics says that heat flows naturally from an object at a higher temperature to an object at a lower temperature, and heat doesnt flow in the opposite direction of its own accord.”
http://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/flowing-from-hot-to-cold-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
That’s wrong.
The Earth emits IR in all directions.
Why doesn’t the Sun absorb the part of this radiation that’s headed its way?
But I’m not surprised you’re taking your science from books written for dummies.
I was hoping to keep it simple enough you could understand, Davie.
Heat flow is an aggregated statistic. Similarly, I suppose you think that when you turn on an electric circuit that ALL electrons are flowing in the same direction.
D*u*m*m*y – clearly you read books for Dummies. Then you try to cite them, even when they’re wrong.
Dumb. Or should I write, D*u*m*b.
des…”Please quote the part from your physics book that states or implies that the sun does not absorb radiation in the far infrared”.
Why should it unless there’s another star nearby that is hotter? There is absolutely no reason why our Sun should absorb in the infrared since there are no hotter sources to supply the radiation to be absorbed.
I don’t think the Sun absorbs anything, it’s a very hot radiator.
Fail.
The Earth emits IR in all directions.
Why doesn’t the Sun absorb the part of this IR that’s headed its way?
David Appell
In the Sun surface case it may actually not absorb the incoming IR. It might get reflected. As temperatures go up emissivity geneally starts going down. More electrons and protons in the plasma state may be at higher vibrational states and will not be able to absorb an incoming photon. I think as the temperature increases the probability of an available lower vibrational state is decreased and photon has less chance of being absorbed.
At room temperature most molecules are at the lowest vibrational state and nearly all molecules will be able to absorb any photon that resonates with their vibrational states.
Norman: why would the incident IR radiation on the Sun get reflected?
David Appell
No available absorbing targets.
If that were true, the IR would go straight through the Sun and come out the other side. I don’t think that’s happening.
David Appell
I am sure that an IR photon won’t make it through the Sun either.
Take it to lower temperature conditions like a CO2 molecule. The CO2 will absorb the 15 micron photon from Earth if it is not in an excited. If the CO2 molecule happens to be in a higher vibrational state the photon will not be absorbed but scattered.
This is why the emissivity and absorbitivity of CO2 goes down as the gas gets hotter. The rate of photon emission does not follow the temperature, as the gas gets hotter the emission rate declines for the given temperature.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
You lose about 1/2 your potential emission rate going from 1500 K to 3000 K.
Here is a calculation of the percent of molecules in water in excited states at room temperature:
“298 K (25 C), typical values for the Boltzmann factor β are: β = 0.089 for ΔE = 500 cm−1 ; β = 0.008 for ΔE = 1000 cm−1 ; β = 710−4 for ΔE = 1500 cm−1. (The reciprocal centimeter is an energy unit that is commonly used in infrared spectroscopy; 1 cm−1 corresponds to 1.2398410−4 eV). When an excitation energy is 500 cm−1, then about 8.9 percent of the molecules are thermally excited at room temperature. To put this in perspective: the lowest excitation vibrational energy in water is the bending mode (about 1600 cm−1). Thus, at room temperature less than 0.07 percent of all the molecules of a given amount of water will vibrate faster than at absolute zero.”
From this site:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_geometry
As the water heats up, more molecules are in excited states and less able to absorb incident IR so it is scattered or reflected away as seen in the declining emissivity with temperature. Especially at greatly increased temperature. With your math abilities you may be able to determine the percent of plasma that is in excited states for incoming Earth IR to see the probability of being absorbed. I think that math is beyond my level as I never had a statistics class. Took Calculus long ago. No stats.
oK. I thought we were discussing the sun. But whatever.
David Appell
Returning to the Sun. It emits very little of its energy in the Mid-range IR. Most is in UV, Visible and Near IR. If it is emitting very little Mid-IR it would also be likely it is absorbing very little. I am not sure how plasma generates the IR photons so I do not know what modes would be absorbing and emitting in this substance.
Norman, any blackbody (of which the Sun is a very good one) emits all wavelengths, from zero to infinity, by definition (and by physics). The Sun has plenty of atoms that can emit IR in certain configurations, although it’s only a tiny component of its overall spectrum.
“any blackbody (of which the Sun is a very good one)”
DA, the sun is not enclosed in an opaque container thus does not emit blackbody radiation.
Ball4 says:
“DA, the sun is not enclosed in an opaque container thus does not emit blackbody radiation.”
Nope. A blackbody is a property of an object, and does not depend on anything outside of it.
Norman:
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-a-blackbody
Norman, I appreciate your responses and especially your efforts to understand and get to the bottom of the physics. I don’t know much about the solar plasmas, and I can’t answer detailed questions about it without some research, which I just don’t have the time or inclination to do right now.
“Nope. A blackbody is a property of an object, and does not depend on anything outside of it.”
No real object has the property of being a black body David, though black body radiation exists and is very useful.
norman…”Here is the real deal. Gordon Robertson, g*e*r*a*n, SkepticGoneWild, etc. Have a view.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=425&v=otdK1x-WCsk”
I watched several of the videos at your link and found myself in agreement with most of it. All I disagreed with was his loosey goosey description of radiative heat transfer using q1 and q2 from different surfaces. He needs to tighten that up.
One thing you need to do is go back and watch them again. In one vid, he gives a problem where an astronaut is in a space suit at a certain temperature and floating around in a cargo bay with walls at -100C. The problem requires you to calculate the heat transfer from the astronaut to the colder walls.
BTW, he defines heat transfer as energy in transit due to a temperature difference. It’s quite obvious that many of you alarmists have confused heat transfer with heat itself. Heat has NOT been redefined as energy in transit, ‘heat transfer’ is energy in transit.
In the problem. he draws a freebody diagram, a hallmark of engineering problem solving. He draws the astronaut at one temperature and shows her floating in a vacuum in a chamber with walls at -100C.
Please note: he draws a vector showing the direction of heat transfer, from hot to cold. THERE IS NO VECTOR SHOWN IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO SHOW HEAT TRANSFER FROM COLD TO HOT. In fact, the radiation transfer equation has no provisions for heat transfer from cold to hot.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“BTW, he defines heat transfer as energy in transit due to a temperature difference.”
That’s true — except it’s energy in transit due to ANYTHING.
DA…”Thats true except its energy in transit due to ANYTHING.”
Where else would energy come from in a problem from thermodynamics other than a heat source?
Thermodynamics is a study of heat. I was commenting on a problem in thermodynamics and the definition came from a professor teaching thermodynamics.
You need to get over your myopic view of energy. We are talking about thermal energy and in the case of radiation, the conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again where applicable.
You still don’t understand that thermodynamics is a classical discipline, and it does not include quantum mechanics.
Why do you do that?
Gordon Robertson says:
“We are talking about thermal energy and in the case of radiation, the conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy and back again where applicable.”
So you agree that EM radiation affects a thermodynamic state.
Finally.
ps. he actually describes the problem as heat loss from the astronaut. The amount was so low that he calculated 22 raisins per hour would replenish the heat loss.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Its quite obvious that many of you alarmists have confused heat transfer with heat itself. Heat has NOT been redefined as energy in transit, heat transfer is energy in transit.”
So then, what is “heat?”
DA..”So then, what is heat?”
According to Clausius it’s the kinetic energy of atoms in motion.
What is it according to scientists who came after Clausius?
BTW, Gordon, your reading of Clausius is incomplete:
From Clausius, On the nature of the motion which we call heat (1857):
“By means of a mathematical investigation given at the end of the present memoir, it may be proved that the vis viva of the translatory motion alone is too small to represent the whole heat present in the gas; so that without entering into the probability of the same, we are thus compelled to assume one or more motions of another kind.”
https://web.lemoyne.edu/giunta/CLAUSIUS57.html
Gordon, yet again: how does the Sun heat the Earth, with a vacuum
in between?
Gordon avoids this simple question. ALWAYS.
DA…”Gordon, yet again: how does the Sun heat the Earth, with a vacuum in between?”
I have explained it so many times I get tired of explaining it. Heat as thermal energy at the Sun is converted to electromagnetic energy, which can travel through a vacuum like any other EM. At the Earth, the EM is absorbed by matter and converted back to thermal energy.
Gordon 12:40am, +1
Stick to that story ALL the time and you will begin to get your stories straight and consistent with experiment.
Gordon Robertson says:
>> DAGordon, yet again: how does the Sun heat the Earth, with a vacuum in between?< Earth heating as due to kinetic energy in the matter making up the solar wind…..
David Appell says:
November 19, 2017 at 4:41 PM
Gordon Robertson says:
>> DAGordon, yet again: how does the Sun heat the Earth, with a vacuum in between?< Earth heating as due to kinetic energy in the matter making up the solar wind….
Finally!
Finally you recognize that heat is energy, and there's nothing special about molecular kinetic energy, photonic energy, thermal energy, etc.
It's all just energy. Playing semantics with it proves nothing.
!
Gordon Robertson
I am agreeing with you. You are arguing a semantic point, not a conceptual one. So far I am unable to get g*e*r*a*n or SkepticGoneWild to understand this. It has been explained many times so one more will not hurt.
YOUR POINT: “Please note: he draws a vector showing the direction of heat transfer, from hot to cold. THERE IS NO VECTOR SHOWN IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO SHOW HEAT TRANSFER FROM COLD TO HOT. In fact, the radiation transfer equation has no provisions for heat transfer from cold to hot.”
Very true. Heat is a NET energy exchange. There are not two heat exchanges taking place at one surface. There are two energy exchanges taking place at the surface. The equation does have provisions for both these flows of energy.
The heat is one way, the energy is two way. The astronaut suit emits energy away toward the walls and the walls emit energy to the suit which is absorbed with a very low absorbitivity factor (same as the emissivity of 0.05).
The radiant energy exchange of the suit is very small because of the very very low emissivity. Earth emissivity is about 20 times greater.
Use his equation and see for yourself how the surroundings effect the heat flow and will require different food input to sustain the body.
Q=(0.05)(3)(5.67×10^-8)(273^4-173^4)=39.6 watts
Now change the surroundings to equal the suit surface temperature
Q=(0.05)(3)(5.67×10^-8)(273^4-273^4)=0 watts
Or if you go to colder surrounding, near absolute zero
Q=(0.05)(3)(5.67×10^-8)(273^4-4^4)=47.2 watts.
The surrounding definately have an effect on the energy loss of the astronaut even in a very well insulated space suit.
norman…”The heat is one way, the energy is two way. The astronaut suit emits energy away toward the walls and the walls emit energy to the suit which is absorbed with a very low absorbitivity factor (same as the emissivity of 0.05)”.
Not according to the freebody diagram the professor drew. He showed heat transfer as a vector from the suit to the walls. There was no vector from the walls to the suit as would be required in a freebody diagram if it was there.
Also, the formula he used had 2 T’s, one, the larger, was the temperature of the suit and the other, the lower. was the temperature of the walls (-100C). Combine the two and you have a heat transfer from the warmer suit to the cooler walls.
The thing to note is that the heat transfer is via EM. The astronaut loses heat via radiation of EM and the walls absorb the EM from the astronaut and rise in temperature. There is no heat transfer walls to astronaut via radiation.
Gordon 12:37am: “The thing to note is that the heat transfer is via EM.”
“There is no heat transfer walls to astronaut via radiation.”
In Gordon speak, at first there IS heat transfer and then there is NO heat transfer in the same comment. This is the sort of extreme physics confusion on display produced by invoking the myth of heat.
If Gordon drops the heat term and simply uses energy instead, perhaps Gordon will get his point across consistent with actual experiment without such confusion.
Good comment. But don’t expect Gordon to learn anything anytime soon — he resists it with all his might.
I don’t think anyone cares about measuring back radiation in places other than Earth.
I assume all would agree there is no back radiation if on the lunar surface?
What about the surface of Mars? Very little?
How about in atmosphere of Venus at the elevation where there is 1 atm of pressure. So around 50 km elevation and maybe air temperature of 70 C.
One could assume it’s a lot. How much?
Would same instruments commonly in use on Earth, work on Venus?
Though I guess first do they work if at 5 km elevation on Earth?
One find a mountain and measure it there, or hang it from a balloon which is at 5 km elevation.
Is mid-air different than standing on mountain?
Any planet with an atmosphere has backradiation.
And therefore, any planet with an atmosphere has a greenhouse effect.
Translation: All the planets are copying Earth. The ETs are burning their fossil fuels like crazy. Soon all the planets will be hotter than the Sun.)
(Sleep well, Warmists.)
Another idiotic reply from guess who.
(You probably know without guessing: D*u*m*m*y.)
Except … all the planets are NOT “copying the earth”.
So planet with a nitrogen atmosphere has back radiation and greenhouse effect?
Yes. See “collisional broadening.”
–David Appell says:
November 13, 2017 at 11:19 PM
Yes. See collisional broadening.–
Oh good, something to agree about.
Hum, no.
If an atmosphere contains no GHGs and is made solely of N2 and O2 there can hardly be any sizable back radiation of relevance to climate, that is in IR spectral range of 4 – 20 micrometers. Thus no sizable GHE either.
Of course an extremely tiny (but completely negligible in terms of climate) amount of back radiation would be left because of higher order quadrupolar interaction of IR radiation with N2 and O2. In other spectral ranges, for instance microwave, back radiation from O2 remains unchanged but of no relevance to climate GHE, except… allowing Dr. Roy measuring atmospheric temperatures.
gammacrux says:
>> Any planet with an atmosphere has back radiation. <<
"Hum, no.
"If an atmosphere contains no GHGs and is made solely of N2 and O2 there can hardly be any sizable back radiation of relevance to climate"
It's not sizeable, but it's there — during N2-N2 collisions, or O2-O2, or N2-O2 – the four molecules for a brief time act as a 4-atom molecule that has rotational and vibrational IR bands. It's called "collisional broadening," and happens in real atmospheres and must be accounted for.
No, what you talk about is not “collisional broadening” but a quite different phenomenon called collision induced emission
google Wikipedia, quote:
Collision-induced emission is distinguished from collisional broadening in spectroscopy in that collisional broadening comes from elastic collisions of molecules, whereas collision-induced emission is an inherently inelastic process.
This phenomenon of collision induced emission is, once again, completely negligible in every respect as far as GHE calculations are concerned.
Collisional broadening instead is a quite different thing thats deals with the collision induced broadening of the ordinary dipolar emission lines of molecules that are IR active such as CO2 or H2O in a dense gas, for instance the CO2 15 micrometers band. This is the result of a decrease in usual roto-vibrational emission life time due to the collisions not a matter of emission from temporary complex formation with IR inactive molecules such as N2.
Collisional broadening must be taken into account in GHE calculations but it concerns of course only a dense atmosphere with GHG !
Hence, there is definitely neither a GHE nor any relevant back radiation in an atmosphere
Hence, there is definitely neither a GHE nor any relevant back radiation in an atmosphere without GHGs
gammacrux says, November 14, 2017 at 3:52 AM:
Not on Titan.
Possibly.
A recent discussion
A 100 meter diameter solid copper sphere would be close to an ideal thermally conductive blackbody, and a 1000 meter diameter solid copper sphere would further away from being ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
At earth distance from the Sun, a 100 meter diameter solid copper sphere should have an average temperature of about 5 C.
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody would have uniform temperature of about 5 C. So regardless of whether a portion of sphere was in daylight or night, it’s surface temperature would the same temperature, and with a 100 diameter copper it would similar, but there would be some difference in temperature between daylight and night- and with 1000 diameter
copper sphere there would more difference in temperature as compared to 100 diameter sphere in daylight or night.
If 1000 meter copper sphere had one side facing the sun, the side facing the sun would have higher surface temperature than 5 C and night side would much cooler with the result of having in lower average temperature of the entire sphere. And the sunlit side of 1000 meter diameter would warmer in the portion of sphere where the sunlight was closest to being at zenith.
And these difference would less with a 100 meter diameter sphere.
Therefore with 100 meter sphere it makes less difference if the sphere is rotating relative to the the sun- and with ideal thermal conductive blackbody, it’s rotation has no effect of it’s average or uniform temperature of about 5 C.
Now compare 100 meter copper sphere to a 100 meter granite rock sphere and both have one side are always facing the sun.
The granite sphere will be about 120 C in section of sphere where it is near zenith, and copper sphere will be about 5 C in the section of sphere near zenith.
On the night side of granite rock will have temperature of about -150 C and copper will temperature fairly close [but less than] of about 5 C.
The granite rock could have a much lower temperature than -150 C, it could -200 C or colder. Though if granite rock rotated it should warmer than -200 C, and if copper rotated, it wouldn’t make much different.
What I think is more important then how cold granite rock becomes at night is the difference of it’s temperature of it’s sunlit side.
As said with large 1000 meter sphere there is more difference in temperature between near zenith and other areas of the side in daylight, and granite it’s a much large difference- so zenith 120 C and where sunlight 80 degree away from zenith the surface could be colder than 0 C/
With that “explained”, I will ask a question:
What has higher average temperature, a 100 meter copper sphere or 100 meter copper cube if the copper cube always has one of it’s sides always facing the sun?
No one finding this fun?
Give a clue: cube will be warmer than the sphere.
You can disagree, but if you agree, now, in order to continue the fun, the question is, about how much warmer.
gbaikie
I think the cube will be warmer because 1/6 of its surface area is directly facing the sun, rather than a tiny portion of the sphere.
How much warmer? Too much work.
yes, that is roughly a good explanation.
I’m curious, keeping in mind your explanation, can see why a rotating sphere
is warmer (or can be warmer)?
Gbaikie
A rotating sphere would constantly present a cooler surface to the sun, whereas a stationary sphere would present a very hot surface, decreasing rate of heat exchange.
Rotating sphere would be hotter.
-Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
November 11, 2017 at 9:06 PM
Gbaikie
A rotating sphere would constantly present a cooler surface to the sun, whereas a stationary sphere would present a very hot surface, decreasing rate of heat exchange.
Rotating sphere would be hotter.”
I think even the small 100 diameter solid copper sphere would be a bit warmer compared to the same sphere which always had one side facing the sun.
But with larger diameter the rotation would larger effect or if made from iron instead of copper, the rotation would also have larger warming effect.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
“I think the cube will be warmer because 1/6 of its surface area is directly facing the sun, rather than a tiny portion of the sphere.”
1/2 of a sphere’s area is directly facing the sun. Because irradiance varies as the cosine of latitude, that means 1/4th of the sphere’s surface area is effectively facing the sun.
The sphere will be warmer.
As I said Sir Isaac Snapelton provides roughly a good explanation.
And David Appell disagree with me, who else disagrees with me and/or Sir Isaac?
And question will remain, if 100 meter cube is warmer than
100 diameter sphere, how much warmer.
And if anyone agrees with David, what would the average temperature of 100 meter diameter solid copper sphere at Earth distance from the sun.
I will also note that with ideal thermally blackbody which is basis of greenhouse effect theory which is suppose to have uniform temperature of 5.3 C, there is caveat that the curved part of sunlight sphere absorbs all incidence sunlight,
You also likewise assume the copper sphere does the same thing, but copper isn’t a perfect conductor of heat so in this sense only, it different then ideal thermally conductive blackbody of the Greenhouse effect Theory.
But as I said since it’s a small sphere, copper does for this scale, conduct heat pretty good.
But I think the copper sphere which absorbs all incident sunlight striking it, is cooler than the 100 meter cube.
I should say that copper is “effectively” the same/similar as ideal thermally conductive sphere. Ideal thermal conductive sphere is actually impossible or if you like, magic.
The Earth isn’t solid copper.
So your question isn’t pertinent to climate change.
–David Appell says:
November 11, 2017 at 8:16 PM
The Earth isnt solid copper.
So your question isnt pertinent to climate change.–
It’s pertinent to global climate.
But unless want to guess what temperature the copper
sphere would be, you answered my question. I thank you for your opinion and I would appreciate if others would also give
theirs.
Btw, this related to plate thing, that so many people argued about.
I will be providing an answer to my own question, but I thought I would allow others to answer first.
It’s possible they will provide an answer which is accurate- maybe far more accurate, then would I will give.
I don’t think it’s too much work and I think it will be fun to answer it.
I don’t see how it’s pertinent.
A copper sphere/cube is a great conductor of heat.
The solid Earth is not.
gbaikie
I was thinking of writing a qbasic program to tackle the cube alone from earlier but it is much more complex than just the sides radiating. The heat flow rate of conduction will become critical on the non heated sides. The heated surface facing the sun will warm and then conduction will start moving energy throughout the cube. The dark edges of the cube closest to the solar side will be somewhat warmer than the edges further away and will have complex radiation emission rates from the dark sides of the cube.
The same problem would apply to the sphere, the dark regions closer to the lighted areas would be warmer than areas farther away (rate of conduction) and radiate at different rates. I will keep thinking about it, maybe something will come up, maybe at equilibrium the energy on the dark sides would come to equal values.
Plates, many plates and big cube.
As was saying, if one had 100 meter cube and it started out warm [0 C] it would take quite a long time to cool [david disagreed].
So have 100 meter cube you stick in a room with constant room temperature of 0 C and given enough time it gets a temperature of 0 C.
You put in space at earth distance from the sun and have one side cube facing sun. Call it side A.
Next have plate with thickness of 1 cm and it’s 100 meter square. the plate is also 0 C.
You put this plate in front of side A.
So sun has to warm plate before it could warm the cube.
Put plate 2 cm in front of cube.
One side of plate is the sun which has 1367 watts per square meter and on other side of plate is cube which 0 C [emitting
about 314 watts per square meter.
So 0 C plate and 0 C cube is not warming each other, but cube can’t lose [much] energy to space on side A.
And the plate can’t lose [much] energy on the side facing the cube. The plate can radiant into space the 1 cm edge on it’s four sides [which is a small amount of energy and I will ignore it- it’s 4 square meters at 315 watts per meter]
And then have side of plate facing the sun- 10,000 square meters times 1367 watts.
The mass of plate is 10,000 / 100 times copper density
Or 100 meter square at 1 cm thick is cubic meter. so pate
has 100 cubic meter of mass and cubic meter of copper is
8960 kg. So total mass plate is 896,000 kg. But per square meter it’s 89.6 kg.
And requires 385 joule to warm 1 kg by 1 K
385 times 89.6 is 34496 joules.
So square meter of copper plate requires 34496 joules of heat to warm by 1 C.
34496 / sunlight of 1367 watt is 25.23 seconds to warm plate
to 1 C.
And when it 1 C it will radiant energy to the cube side A.
So about 30 mins it heat plate up by about 60 C. And in 1 hour’s time it’s pretty and radiate and warming the cube.
Some might imagine the hot plate can somehow radiate more than 1367 watts per square meter to the cube’s side A.
But I think it’s a bit less than 1367 watts being transferred from plate to cube side A.
So cube without the added plate in sunlight shining on side A, in hour time, NOT going to warm the side A much higher than O C.
And with the plate in front of it, in first hour it will warm up less as compared to without the plate.
So in hour time the plate will be radiating nearly 1367 watt to surface cube side A which is about 0 C [or it’s radiating
about 315 watts per square meter.]
So, it’s possible for plate to hot and radiating to cube side A and not warming Side A by much. But side is not losing much energy to space, whereas the other 5 side are- they radiating because cube started a 0 C, so 315 watts per square meter, and each side has 10,000 square meters or
50,000 watts times 315 watts.
Now if move hot plate so it’s touching Side A, it can conduct all heat much faster, or in 30 mins, instead of being 120 C, the plate is about 0 C [or it become slightly warmer than Side A of the cube].
So that’s plate argument- does hot plate when separated from cube by 2 cm transfer more than 1367 watts per square meter? Or less?
David
Now I’m thinking cube and sphere would get exactly the same amount of light.
“The solid angle subtended by one face of the cube will be 1/6 of the solid angle subtended by the entire sphere.”
Also note that 1/6 the surface area of a cube is greater than 1/6 the surface area of a sphere of same volume.
That was for Gbaikie too.
Isaac – at sufficient distance, light rays from the Sun will be essentially parallel when they strike the cube or sphere.
This really is a dumb question that isn’t worth much, if any, time for those interested in real climate science.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
“Also note that 1/6 the surface area of a cube is greater than 1/6 the surface area of a sphere of same volume.”
The relevant surface area of the sphere is 1/4th, not 1/6th.
David
“at sufficient distance, light rays from the Sun will be essentially parallel when they strike the cube or sphere”
Yes, but because the earth curves away from the sun, each square meter of surface will be leaning away from the light. Only the vertical component (of each square meter) will add anything, the horizontal component is a non factor.
–Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
November 12, 2017 at 10:09 AM
David
at sufficient distance, light rays from the Sun will be essentially parallel when they strike the cube or sphere
Yes, but because the earth curves away from the sun, each square meter of surface will be leaning away from the light. Only the vertical component (of each square meter) will add anything, the horizontal component is a non factor.–
David says:”Because irradiance varies as the cosine of latitude, that means 1/4th of the spheres surface area is effectively facing the sun.”
A 1/4 of 100 meter sphere is 1/4 of 31415.93 square meter which is 7854 square meter.
The 100 meter cube is 10,000 square meter, If put insulated
boxes on cube in sunlight they heat to 120 C.
And in the effective area of sphere 7854 square meter only about 1/2 of 7854 square meter area would the boxes get a temperature of about 120 C. Or average temperature of “effective area” could be around 90 C, though a even larger area is doing some warming [or can warm something which is at 5 C or cooler].
Or in David’s way of saying it, a cube is more effectively facing the sun than compared to a sphere in area it’s effectively facing the sun. Or on cube the sun is at zenith for all the 10,000 square meters of the side of cube in sunlight.
The large area and intensity of sunlight per square, may not seem to David as related to climate, but it is.
–David Appell says:
November 11, 2017 at 8:44 PM
I dont see how its pertinent.
A copper sphere/cube is a great conductor of heat.
The solid Earth is not.–
This is about making something which is similar to an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody.
Or Ideal thermally conductive blackbody is not real, it’s model, or thought experiment or fantasy [your choice].
A copper sphere could exist in real world- or doesn’t require a huge leap in technology to occur [to make the magical Ideal thermally conductive blackbody].
BUT Earth does have ocean and ocean is transparent to
sunlight, and per cubic meter it has 4,184,000 joules of per K degree. Whereas copper is 385 joules per kg
and cubic meter is 8960 kg:
8960 times is 385 is 3,449,600 joules per K degree.
So water and copper are similar in terms of volume.
[Iron/steel closer than copper but it’s less conductive of heat.]
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
“Yes, but because the earth curves away from the sun, each square meter of surface will be leaning away from the light. Only the vertical component (of each square meter) will add anything, the horizontal component is a non factor.”
Everybody knows this. That’s the cosine factor that gives an extra factor of 1/2, so the total solar irradiance S gets divided by 4, not 2:
(1-albedo)S/4 = sigma*T^4
David
You mean I shouldn’t try to publish my discovery?
gbaikie says:
“Or in Davids way of saying it, a cube is more effectively facing the sun than compared to a sphere in area its effectively facing the sun.”
Wrong — I said the exact opposite.
A spinning sphere absorbs 1/4ths of solar irradiance, a cube (spinning or not) absorbs only 1/6th.
gbaikie…”at sufficient distance, light rays from the Sun will be essentially parallel when they strike the cube or sphere…”
I makes far more sense that the energy is a series of wave fronts than a flux of rays.
“Gordon Robertson says:
November 14, 2017 at 12:28 AM
gbaikieat sufficient distance, light rays from the Sun will be essentially parallel when they strike the cube or sphere
I makes far more sense that the energy is a series of wave fronts than a flux of rays.”
Sir Isaac Snapelton said: “at sufficient distance, light rays from the Sun will be essentially parallel when they strike the cube or sphere”
My question is:
What has higher average temperature, a 100 meter copper sphere or 100 meter copper cube if the copper cube always has one of its sides always facing the sun?
Both cube and sphere are not rotating in relation to Sun.
Both are 1 AU distance from the sun
Both have coating giving the solid copper objects a blackbody surface [this surface conducts heat the same as copper]
I said the cube will have higher average temperature.
David Appell says sphere will have higher temperature.
Sir Isaac Snapelton appears to change his mind about which is warmer.
And David and Sir and myself agree a rotating copper sphere is warmer as compared to copper sphere which doesn’t rotate.
I think a rotating copper sphere which is only 100 meters in diameter [or a smaller size] doesn’t have much difference in average temperature, but 100 meter rotating sphere would be a bit warmer.
And I think the the non rotating 100 meter cube is warmer
than the rotating sphere.
I didn’t want to add the complexity of rotation of either objects. And when say non rotating I mean in relation to the Sun, and since they have to be in orbit around the sun [1 year orbit] if non rotating to sun they have to rotate once a year relative to the stars. Or one could consider that the objects are tidally locked to the sun and do rotate relative to the universe at an 1 year rotation rate.
SkepticGoneWild
The thread above was getting too long and not sure if you would go back and look.
YOU STATE: “This is what Norm stated further:
A powered object (one with continuous energy added at a set rate) will have a temperature that is determined by how much energy it is absorbing from the surroundings. If the surroundings are very cold, the temperature will be lower than if the surroundings are warmer yet still colder than the object. This is exactly what established science says.
So according to Norm, if you have the sun, and then throw the earth in the mix, the earth will warm up, which will cause the sun to warm up as well, since the sun is now affected by the warmer earth. This is Norms established science.
So even though Norm emphatically states cold objects cannot warm up warmer objects, this is obviously not true, since the cold earth did indeed warm up the sun.
So apparently my 1500 Watt room heater runs at a cooler temperature when my room is very cold.
But since Norms physics change like the wind, perhaps Norm can correct me if Im wrong.”
Actually my physics have not changed at all for some time. Not sure what changes you refer to.
Here is an actual experiment that demonstrates what I talk about in real world conditions. Your ideas are wrong. You need to study more physics. You and g*e*r*a*n have been led down a rabbit-hole of stupid physics by the PSI group, primarily the obnoxious Joseph Postma.
Here is the real deal. Room temperature changes the temperature of powered (heated) objects in lab setting. If the room temperature is increased the heated objects get hotter. The surrounding temperature does directly effect the equilibrium temperature objects will reach that have a continuous energy source.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/
Real physics will someday prevail. There is only so long you can deny reality and peddle your made up physics. You are really deluded but sooner or later truth will win out, it always does.
Norman wrote:
“Real physics will someday prevail. There is only so long you can deny reality and peddle your made up physics. You are really deluded but sooner or later truth will win out, it always does.”
Only after many funerals.
My computer will overheat if air temperature is high.
Or higher air temperature reduces air convection losses.
Also computer rooms are kept cooler, to reduce computer chips
from overheating.
Also when air temperature of room is warmer, I can sweat more.
Is this news to anyone?
gbaikie
Do you think g*e*r*a*n or SkepticGoneWild will comprehend your post?
Powered objects do not have some set or absolute temperature they reach. The surroundings will determine the final equilibrium temperature.
+1, Norman
— Norman says:
November 11, 2017 at 8:38 PM
gbaikie
Do you think g*e*r*a*n or SkepticGoneWild will comprehend your post?–
You suggesting they don’t know that warm air causes things to be warm. What do they think their home heating system does?
Cold air will make things cooler.
I think if add an atmosphere to Mars, it makes things cooler.
Against the idea.
Or if you want Mars warmer, add a tropical ocean which absorbs the energy of sunlight.
Land cools, oceans [in tropics] warms.
Not good enough Norm. You would need to isolate each piece of equipment in a controlled environment in a vacuum. Some electronic equipment is very sensitive to changes in the ambient environment and only operate properly within a certain temperature range, or failure will occur. This has nothing to do with radiative physics. The specific details of the equipment were not provided, where the temperature probes were taken, etc. Too many variables not taken into account. Input voltages, etc.
Thanks for indicating that you do in fact believe the earth heats the sun. If you want to pedal this fantasy physics, be my guest. Who in their right mind would believe such stupid nonsense?
The Earth emits radiation some of it in the direction of the Sun.
That radiation carries energy.
So why doesn’t it heat the Sun?
He refuses to explain this. He apparently believes that either the radiation manages to pass right through the sun unobstructed, or that energy is destroyed.
Totally agree. Their silence say it all.
The sun is the only energy source dumbass.
SkepticGoneWild
You are not correct. The Sun is not the only energy source.
An Earth at 288 K is a source of energy.
The Sun is the only Heat source, different idea. Just correcting you on your word use.
Ask our self-proclaimed expert Tim Folkerts. He knows everything.
(notice he’s totally silent on this)
The Earth doesnt heat the sun…
…because the SUN is warmer than the EARTH…
…and its a fundamental LAW OF PHYSICS…
…that a cooler object…
…CAN NOT SEND HEAT…
…to a hotter one.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?
Tony
The problem is with your understanding of physics not the other way around.
Correct, a colder object cannot send “Heat” which is defined as the energy transfer form a hot object to a cold. Heat is the joule amount sent, heat flow is the rate.
Cold objects still radiate energy that reaches a hot surface. If the hot surface is a good emitter of IR it will also be a good at absorbing IR. The closer the cold object is to a hot one, the more energy it radiates and the NET energy (Heat flow) is reduced.
A colder surroundings will add energy to a hotter object. The relatively warmer surroundings will allow a powered (heated) hot object to reach higher temperatures.
A room at -100 C will add so much energy to objects at 100 C. The same objects with the same energy input to them will warm above 100 C if the room temperature is raised to 0 C. It is established physics. Read up on it.
Despite the fact that youre arguing with David elsewhere that the Earth doesnt heat the sun, you are now arguing with me here that the Earth DOES heat the sun.
Dont bother replying. You people are
THICK
AS
SHIT
AND
WRONG
Tony
You do not follow posts very well do you. You can’t follow posts an then get upset with people. Get a grip.
My point with David Appell was if a Mid-range IR photon would be absorbed by the solar surface or not. It has little to do with your points.
My point with SkepticGoneWild about the Earth and Sun point was to agree that the Earth does not Heat the Sun.
My point is that with a powered object (like the Sun), the Sun’s surface will be a little warmer with planets than without. The Energy that would be leaving is not and will lead to a warmer surface or slightly expanded one. It is not the same as saying the Earth Heats the Sun. The Earth allows the Sun to reach a higher temperature. Threads back Ball4 enlightened people that using the word “heat” was confusing everyone and creating long threads that went nowhere.
Heat is defined as the energy transfer from a hot body to a cold body. the Earth cannot heat the Sun but that does not prevent the Sun from reaching a higher equilibrium temperature because less radiant energy is leaving the solar system with planets.
That is how astronomers find planets around stars, dips in the energy leaving the star system when a planet crosses the photon stream headed to Earth
You could do the math. A star without planets will emit so many watts total to space. With planets that amount is less. The same star is not getting rid of the energy so will warm a very tiny amount until it is radiating at a level that removes the energy and it radiates away the same amount as a system without planet. It would be a very small amount. I did the calculation and it was very very tiny amount.
My point is that with a powered object (like the Sun), the Suns surface will be a little warmer with planets than without. The Energy that would be leaving is not and will lead to a warmer surface or slightly expanded one. It is not the same as saying the Earth Heats the Sun. The Earth allows the Sun to reach a higher temperature.
That is EXACTLY the same as saying the Earth heats the sun. How do you not get that? If the suns surface is warmer with planets then the planets have made the sun warmer.
And as for David Appell, he LITERALLY said:
So why doesnt it heat the sun?
Youre not even aware what youre actually arguing to David upthread. You are absolutely contradicting him in his assertion that the Earth heats the sun, and youre talking at the quantum level in order to make your case. Whether youre aware of that, or not. Then down here you pretend (or maybe genuinely dont understand) that you are arguing the exact opposite, but on the macro end of the discussion.
RIDICULOUS.
Tony
This debate has been going on quite some time over many threads.
Because the surroundings alter the surface temperature of a surface does not equate to it “heating” the surface. The only situation where surroundings would “heat” and object if the temperature of the surroundings were higher than the temperature of the object.
The reality that you can have many different surface temperatures of a powered (heated) object. That one state has a higher temperature does not equate to your conclusion that the cold surrounding are heating the hot surface. The cold surroundings are not “heating” the hot object. The different temperatures of the colder surroundings allow different surface temperatures of the powered object but they are not heating it, once the object reaches an equilibrium temperature with its surroundings the surface no longer gets warmer, the surroundings are not “heating” the object, if they were the temperature would not reach an equilibrium temperature.
Consider this object in space with no other energy inputs. If you added 400 watts to a one-meter square near black body object your surface temperature would reach an equilibrium state of around 290 K. If you added 400 watts to an object with a 10 m^2 surface area the equilibrium temperature would be 163 K. Now add 400 watts to a object with a surface area of 0.1 m^2 and the object’s surface temperature will reach 515 K.
Now just changing the surface area keeping the input energy to the object the same greatly alters the surface temperature. You are not adding more energy in any one of the three cases I posted but the temperatures are considerably different. You would not claim that by applying the same energy to a smaller object that the surface area added heat to the object even though the smaller object is considerably hotter. Why would you think I am saying that because different temperatures of surroundings change a powered object’s surface temperature that the cold surroundings are heating the object?
Tony
On your other point about the Sun. I am still unsure it the Earth would lead to a higher solar surface temperature. If the IR is reflected it would not change the Sun’s output.
I am not saying David Appell is wrong. I really don’t know the answer and have not been able to find conclusive information at this time.
Tony,
From your comments above, you obviously havent read the Roy Spencer material that I suggest you read earlier, see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272277 .
The material is not complex so I am surprised that someone of your undoubted intellectual sophistication is incapable of understanding this material or alternatively perhaps you are afraid you might read something that might be upsetting to your preconceived ideas?
Please take the 5 minutes or less required to read that material and then make a considered reply rather than just shouting.
For the love of God, why the hell do you people keep blathering on about the temperature of the surroundings. The surroundings are a fucking VACUUM
Consider this object in space with no other energy inputs. If you added 400 watts to a one-meter square near black body object your surface temperature would reach an equilibrium state of around 290 K. If you added 400 watts to an object with a 10 m^2 surface area the equilibrium temperature would be 163 K. Now add 400 watts to a object with a surface area of 0.1 m^2 and the objects surface temperature will reach 515 K.
Norman, the size of the sun doesnt change because youve added planets to the mix. So what the hell is your point!? Other than stating the obvious!
And if, for some ridiculous reason, by surroundings of the sun you mean…the planets (!)
Just because you say about five times in your post that the cold surroundings…er…planets…are not heating the sun…it doesnt mean Im not going to see through to the fact that this IS, in effect, EXACTLY what youre saying.
You have said that in absence of the planets, the sun would be cooler. So you have two options:
1) You are saying the cooler planets are heating the warmer sun.
2) You are saying the sun is making itself warmer somehow, because the planets are there.
Both are equally wrong. But by all means take your pick.
Tony
With the Sun the answer is not so easy to come by. I am not a great fan of the Sun/Earth situation for trying to demonstrate how different temperatures of cold objects will indeed lead to different equilibrium temperatures of powered (heated) objects.
Tony
In your post above you state it correctly.
YOU: “The HEAT loss rate depends on the temperature difference between two OBJECTS. The ENERGY loss rate OF an object in a vacuum (in other words its radiant power) depends only on its temperature and emissivity.”
You clearly state the HEAT loss rate is based upon the temperature difference. Lower the temperature difference and the HEAT loss rate goes down. The input energy is not changing, therefore the object has more energy remaining.
You clearly state the HEAT loss rate is based upon the temperature difference. Lower the temperature difference and the HEAT loss rate goes down. The input energy is not changing, therefore the object has more energy remaining
Heat loss rate going down, in this situation, only means the secondary object has less far to go to warm to get to equilibrium. Does not mean the primary (heat source) object gets warmer. Objects cant warm themselves either through their own emitted energy or energy from a colder object.
And before you ask why…to put it as simply as possible:
The molecules of the warmer and the cooler object are vibrating, the former more rapidly than the latter. The radiation from the slower vibrating object will not be able to make the vibration In the hotter object molecules happen faster. The photons from the cooler (or indeed same temperature) object simply lack the frequency to do so.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy
Tony
Okay now I see, you really do not understand physics. You are a blog physics guy and it sounds like you got your latest from the complete crackpot Claes Johnson that Gordon adores so much. I have been to his blog where real physics people tell him how he is wrong and does not understand what he is talking about. Does not matter to that crackpot, he is right and that is all there is to that.
The molecules in a hotter object have an average vibrational state greater than a colder object. But a colder object has some molecules vibrating faster than a hotter one. You need to study some chemistry to get insight into this or read some real physics to get the true information.
If need to believe this phony physics of the PSI group, too bad for you. Not much point in trying to communicate real physics, you will reject it anyway and go on your own way.
Well, not enough of them, vibrating fast enough, to make the molecules of the hotter object vibrate faster. On average, as it were. Whatever it is that you need to hear, basically.
Because obviously if colder objects could make warmer objects hotter, everything in the Universe would be constant heating up everything else, even with objects heating themselves in some cases; indefinitely.
Since that hasnt happened, we can be absolutely certain cold doesnt heat hot. Sorry to disappoint you. Those are the laws of physics for you. You and a bunch of fringe nutters from a few blogs arent going to tear that down through a mixture of igno-arrogant stupidity and deliberate despicable lies and distortion, relentlessly shifting on your intellectual and moral superiors.
Youve failed, its over. Youve lost…EVERYTHING. To be eternally derided and despised for holding back the progression of mankind.
When Norm, the Con-man, starts the insults, you know you have won.
(Just ask him where he got his bachelor of ARTS.)
Norman lost when he argued with David that the Earth doesnt heat the sun. Then down here argued that the Earth doesnt heat the sun…its just that its presence means the sun comes to a higher equilibrium temperature. In other words…heats. Because of the Earth.
So according to Norman…the Earth both does and doesnt heat the sun. It doesdoesnt heat the sun.
You nailed it Tony. Norm does not have the scientific goods to understand he’s giving two diametrically opposed answers to the same question.
Tony
Not sure what your raw emotionalism is about.
YOU: “Youve failed, its over. Youve lostEVERYTHING. To be eternally derided and despised for holding back the progression of mankind.”
What is really odd is you based your rant on your own made up conclusion of what I stated.
Let us go back. I made this correct scientific statement: “The molecules in a hotter object have an average vibrational state greater than a colder object. But a colder object has some molecules vibrating faster than a hotter one. You need to study some chemistry to get insight into this or read some real physics to get the true information.”
From that you generate this thought: “Because obviously if colder objects could make warmer objects hotter, everything in the Universe would be constant heating up everything else, even with objects heating themselves in some cases; indefinitely.
Since that hasnt happened, we can be absolutely certain cold doesnt heat hot. Sorry to disappoint you. Those are the laws of physics for you. You and a bunch of fringe nutters from a few blogs arent going to tear that down through a mixture of igno-arrogant stupidity and deliberate despicable lies and distortion, relentlessly shifting on your intellectual and moral superiors.”
Not really sure I can follow your thought process. It certainly is not based upon a logical rational approach.
Where did I even make the slightest suggestion that colder objects could make warmer objects hotter?
You should turn off your rabid emotions and use that brain energy for logic and rational thought process, then you might be able to comprehend what is being stated.
Tony
I will attempt again. Please try to follow with logic and not your ballistic emotional reactionary nonsense.
If you have two non-powered objects with different temperatures (in a vacuum so only radiant energy applies).
1) The hotter object will cool and the cooler object will warm
2) The temperature difference between the two objects determines the rate the hotter object will cool.
3) Without energy input both will eventually cool unless in a closed system where no energy leaves (perfect insulation), then the two will reach the same temperature and remain at that state.
Do you agree with this so far?
If you have a powered object (with constant energy input) the system in open. It has a continuous supply of energy. The temperature the object will reach is not determined by just the input of energy but also by the output rate.
Do you agree with this so far?
With a powered (heated) object you have an influx of energy.
The temperature of the surroundings will then determine what the final surface (equilibrium) will be.
Tony
I sent a link to SkepticGoneWild showing him that colder surroundings do influence the equilibrium temperature powered objects achieve.
He did not really think about it and threw out his standard diversion tactic. When you prove him wrong that is what he does. We will see if you do the same. I am hoping you will not but come to understand my view. It is based upon empirical science.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/
This is the whole experiment you can read through if you want.
Here is Table 2 of the article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/table/Tab2/
If you click on the link you will clearly and without doubt see that different cold surroundings change the equilibrium temperature of hotter objects that are powered (have a heat source)…if they were not powered they would reach equilibrium with the room temperature.
The hotter objects must be absorbing energy from the cooler surroundings (both conduction and radiative) since the temperature goes up.
The temperature of all the heated objects is significantly higher than the room temperature. When the room temperature is raised so do the powered objects temperatures go up.
Empirical real world science supports the statements I make. Hopefully real would science has an influence on your thought process.
g*e*r*a*n and SkepticGoneWild are too far gone and will not evaluate any real science. Are you this delusional as well or will actual evidence convince you?
norman…”I sent a link to SkepticGoneWild showing him that colder surroundings do influence the equilibrium temperature powered objects achieve”.
Come on, man, the reason is obvious. A colder environment, with a medium of air, has air molecules with lowered kinetic energy. That’s why they are colder.
Such an environment absorbs heat through conduction from the powered objects and that will lower their equilibrium temperature.
Have you never heard of heat sinks, or forced air cooling?
norman…”1) The hotter object will cool and the cooler object will warm
2) The temperature difference between the two objects determines the rate the hotter object will cool”.
The temperature between the bodies has nothing to do with the rate of cooling of the hotter object. It’s rate of cooling is dependent only on the temperature of the air at it’s surface. If you raise the temperature of the air to the surface temperature of the object it will stop radiating. Raise the air temp higher than the surface temperature and it will start absorbing.
norman…”Correct, a colder object cannot send Heat which is defined as the energy transfer form a hot object to a cold”.
You directed me to a video the other day which was supposed to teach me about thermodynamics. I sent you a quote from the video in which the engineering prof giving the lecture claimed that heat transfer is energy in transit due to a temperature difference.
Norman, somehow you and other alarmists have misconstrued the point. It’s not heat that is energy in transit it’s heat transfer that is energy in transit.
Tony says:
“And as for David Appell, he LITERALLY said:
So why doesnt it heat the sun?”
Tony: why does’t the Earth heat the Sun?
It is amazing the lengths you and others here will go to avoid answering this one simple question.
Norman says:
“My point with David Appell was if a Mid-range IR photon would be absorbed by the solar surface or not.”
Norman, just where do you think this photon goes?
It becomes part of the Sun’s plasma.
Youve had plenty of answers, David. You just refuse to understand them.
Poor old Norman.
David Appell
If all possible vibrational states are continuously occupied because of the high temperature of the solar plasma the Mid_IR photon could get reflected as does a visible photon striking a mirror. If all the available vibrational states of the Plasma are at higher energy states, the incoming photon will not be absorbed, it will be reflected. That is why emissivity and absorbitity go down as temperature gets much hotter, more vibrational sites are occupied so an increase in the objects temperature does not emit energy at the same rate as when it was cooler.
You can see Hottel’s work, water vapor drops down considerably in emissivity when the temperature goes to 3000 K, the Sun is over double that and it may drop to near zero.
Gordon Robertson
Your physics is no longer “crackpot” but “quackpot”, a duck could come up with better reasoning than you do.
Your made up physics wears down the scientific mind. Difficult to take.
YOU: “The temperature between the bodies has nothing to do with the rate of cooling of the hotter object. Its rate of cooling is dependent only on the temperature of the air at its surface. If you raise the temperature of the air to the surface temperature of the object it will stop radiating. Raise the air temp higher than the surface temperature and it will start absorbing.”
Totally made up, unproven unphysical crap!
Where do you come up with your fantasy physics? Why not read actual physics. You are so wrong about so much it is not funny or amusing anymore. I think I would be okay if you were a grade-school student. You are a grown up adult but spout off like a young child. Making up your own delusional physics. Why do you do this so often. I can see getting a few things wrong and correcting your errors. You just make up physics all the time. Really Sad Gordon!
Poor old Norman.
Norman, you may not have a Phd, but you are one brilliant student.
You found Gordons U-turn for him. Tony informed me about the Suns thermostat (search here).
I’m turning into a solar lukewarmer.
SGW says: “So apparently my 1500 Watt room heater runs at a cooler temperature when my room is very cold.”
Of course it does! The fact that you even question such a statement means you are are not even close to being qualified to comment on these topics!
Go to any university and ask any physics or engineering professor.
I would imagine you are in the “earth heats the sun” club as well.
Crickets………….
SkepticGoneWild
No you really would not have to isolate anything in a vacuum. That would be necessary if you wanted to investigate only radiative effects. In this case I don’t think that is important.
The evidence is strongly against your view Yes specific details of the equipment is provided. Look at Table 1 (click on the image and it brings up a larger view).
If you click on Table 2 you will see all the lab equipment is at a higher temperature than the colder ambient temperature. You will also see that when the room temperature is increased, the hotter items did indeed increase in temperature. They had there own internal supply of power and were supplied increased energy from the surroundings via both conduction and radiative IR.
I think you really have to shut off your brain to ignore the clear evidence. The surroundings provide direct energy to a warmer surface, and if powered (internally heated) the objects raise in temperature.
Maybe you should link Joseph Postma to that link. I would like to read how he responds to try and keep his faithful from seeing how flawed his reasoning actually is, based upon false and misleading physics.
SkepticGoneWild, you fell for his Con and deceptive physics. Now wake up and learn real and correct physics that is experimentally proven.
Here is what I said: “A powered object (one with continuous energy added at a set rate) will have a temperature that is determined by how much energy it is absorbing from the surroundings. If the surroundings are very cold, the temperature will be lower than if the surroundings are warmer yet still colder than the object. This is exactly what established science says.”
The experiment I linked to shows exactly that effect.
I am thinking since you studied actual physics you may yet see how your thoughts have become deluded and cult minded and it is possible that actual tests may break the programming. It may be possible with you. g*e*r*a*n, I don’t think so. He could look at the link, read the contents, look at the Tables provided and be unable to decipher the meaning. I have some hope for you, I think you are intelligent, just caught in a cult.
norman…”If the surroundings are very cold, the temperature will be lower than if the surroundings are warmer…”
Why?
In the colder environment the atoms/molecules are moving more slowly hence their kinetic energy is lower. Lower KE = lower thermal energy = lower temperature.
At absolute zero the atoms/molecules essentially stop moving. There is no KE, therefore no heat, and no temperature.
Don’t you get it?
From upthread,
barry says, November 11, 2017 at 7:38 PM:
No. The Laws of Thermodynamics ‘forbid’ it. You simply can’t explain a THERMAL (thermodynamic) effect by way of QUANTUM MECHANICAL processes. That’s when you get yourself into trouble. That’s when you start confusing cause and effect.
As if I haven’t already discussed it at length …
See if you can figure it out for yourself, barry. Based on this simple analogy (I’ve given it before):
Imagine you have your hand stretched out with the open palm facing up. In your palm lie two dimes. A person is standing right in front of your outstretched hand, holding a single dime. In this situation, you represent the surface, the person in front of you represents the atmosphere, and the dimes represent photons.
Now here’s what happens: The person holding the single dime places it in your palm with his one hand at the very same moment as he grabs the two dimes that were there already with the other, removing them from your hand. That is, he performs these two separate operations simultaneously.
The question then becomes: Did you ever have THREE dimes in your hand during this exchange?
The answer is of course “No”. First you had TWO. Then you had ONE. And that’s it. The first of the original two was simply exchanged with another one, while the second was lost.
Most people, however, tend to analyse the exchange above by looking at each operation (‘event’) IN ISOLATION from the other one, in fact from everything else. They estimate its effect AS IF the other (opposing) one didn’t happen at the exact same time. First they only regard the photon a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n and “forget” or “ignore” the simultaneous (and larger) photon emission. Then they switch and regard only the photon emission and “forget” or “ignore” the simultaneous photon a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n.
This is a MICROscopic approach to the problem.
But such a narrow scope doesn’t work if you want to discuss THERMODYNAMIC effects. Then you will only fool yourself into thinking that we’re dealing with two SEPARATE thermodynamic processes in one. We’re not. There arent. There is just the one. The one instantaneous exchange.
All the events happen at the same time. And so, thermodynamically, MACROscopically, only the total exchange (all the individual events in ONE) ‘exists’.
Did the atmosphere ADD energy equivalent to the energy of a single photon to the surface during the exchange? No. It added one PARTICULAR photon, yes, but it removed two OTHER photons at the exact same time. From the very same surface. Your hand.
So what ACTUALLY happened? The energy associated with one of the two photons/dimes that you held in your hand originally was simply EXCHANGED with the energy associated with the one photon/dime originally held by the ‘atmosphere’ person in front of you. The other one was lost (removed by the ‘atmosphere’ person), without compensation.
And so the total, the NET effect – the THERMODYNAMIC (macroscopic) effect – of the thermal radiative exchange between sfc and atm is that the atmosphere doesn’t add ANY energy at all to the surface (zero dimes), while the surface gives IT some energy (one dime), but LESS energy than it would’ve handed to space in the same situation (two dimes).
Here is a request I had for Kristian upthread:
“As for your dime analogy. Present it as a continuous process, rather than a singular event. (Im guessing you will refuse.)”
Will he or won’t he? Place your bets.
In any event, I agree with Kristian’s analogy. It does a decent (but half baked) job of explaining how backradiation contributes to Earth’s surface temperature.
Ehm, it IS a continuous process, Snape. THAT’S what I’m saying. That’s the MACROscopic view. The ‘discrete event’ perspective is the MICROscopic one.
So I’m afraid I’m not sure what new and revolutionary idea you think you’ve come up with now …
Your analogy only presents a singular event at the microscopic level. What happens next?
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 12, 2017 at 11:49 AM:
No, it presents THREE singular events, Snape. One a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n event and two emission events.
Ever heard of statistical mechanics, Snape?
Figure it out!
Stop hedging, Kristian. What happens next?
Will the other person (the atmosphere) continue to hand you photons or was it just a one time thing?
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 12, 2017 at 12:31 PM:
Why do you keep asking these inane questions, Snape? It’s an analogy. Not reality itself. Nothing happens “next”. In the analogy. The REAL process is continuous, because both the surface and the atmosphere have temperatures and thus also create and maintain photon clouds.
You NEEED to read some basic physics, Snape. Because your contributions here indicate quite an appalling level of ignorance …
“Nothing happens next in the analogy.” Isn’t that what I’ve been complaining about?
Come up with an analogy that represents the continuous, real world process, rather than only three events.
Kristian
Regardless, your analogy is still useful: for every two dimes handed to the atmosphere, only one is removed – the greenhouse affect in a nutshell!
The other is exchanged (not removed).
Answered you just below, Kristian.
What has to be watched is overall sea surface temperatures to see if stage one of the cooling is indeed taking place. +.289c as of today.
Kristian,
All I can see you doing is forbidding discussion at the MICRO level by saying thermodynamics forbids it. Thermodynamics may, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be discussed at all.
When you agree, as you have, that a warmer object can absorb the radiation of a cooler object, you are in the realm of the MICRO.
So you can and have spoken about the MICRO.
Your refusal to discuss at the MICRO level how the warmer object gets even warmer with the introduction of a cooler object goes way beyond rigour and reasonableness.
The 3-dime chat only repeats what I already said. Processes at the MICRO level are occurring instantaneously – one cannot add a dime without taking one away.
But I saw one dime given and two taken away. I can speak about those two actions while at the same time noting that they occurred instantaneously. The MICRO and MACRO complement each other.
You had no trouble explaining the MICRO in the dime situation, but you have some weird block when doing it with radiation.
Here’s what happens. This is what, for some reason, I think you do not want to say.
In purely radiative system:
The (heated) warmer object does indeed receive radiation from the cooler object it is warming with its own radiation, and therefore radiates more to compensate. IMMEDIATELY. The cooler object receives more radiation, and radiates more (IMMEDIATELY), which is received by the warmer object and so on. Immediately and continuously until… Both warm up enough to achieve equilibrium with the heat source.
The NET activity is of more radiation going from the warmer object to the cooler – always. But, just as you can describe 1-dime and 2-dime happening at the same time, you can describe radiant energy passing from each object to the other, no matter their energy state at any given moment.
I’ve done my best on your behalf to articulate to others errors in language – don’t say ‘flux’, don’t call radiation ‘heat’, don’t use ‘flow’ – or you are using language that automatically belongs in realm of thermodynamics (NET flows). Will you come forward a little, knowing that I will argue on your side regarding these and just agree that there is changing activity at the MICRO level as well? That the radiation from the cooler object DOES have an impact on the warmer one?
This does not mean that I will mistake the cooler object for an active heat source (like a sun). This does not mean that I suddenly forget that the warmer object is always radiating more than it receives. This does not mean that I forget that the NET flow is hot to cold. And this certainly does not mean that the laws of thermodynamics are broken. Just that we are not discussing the matter through the formality of that paradigm.
barry says, November 12, 2017 at 7:11 PM:
But I AM discussing it, barry. At length. I’m not even sure what you’re getting at. All I’m pointing out is that you can’t extrapolate from the quantum effect of what a photon is doing to a thermo effect of what a flux of energy is doing. That’s all. And you seem to agree with this point. So what is your problem?
Why so hung up on the MICRO business? Yes, photons from the atmosphere are absorbed by the surface, but a radiative flux of energy ISN’T. There is no thermodynamic (macroscopic) transfer of energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface. It seems even you, barry, have a hard time accepting this circumstance. To me, THAT’S dogma.
Kristian says:
“Yes, photons from the atmosphere are absorbed by the surface, but a radiative flux of energy ISNT.”
OMG this is so stupid.
What do you think a “radiative flux” is, if not a bunch of photons?????
Kristian wimps out on replying.
That’s what the crackpots always do.
Kristian says:
“A warmer object will NOT absorb radiation in the form of a W/m^2 flux, a macroscopic transfer of radiative energy, from a cooler object.”
Ha.
Show just one experimental result that demonstrates this.
Just one.
I dare you.
I’m not hung up on the MICRO business, just curious why you seem to have a block about discussing it specific to the case I mentioned.
Let’s not use “MICRO” as a proxy for a single photon when discussing exchange of energy between hotter and colder objects.
But I AM discussing it, barry. At length.
I don’t think you’ve discussed what I’m talking about here, or only inasmuch as to forbid it.
All Im pointing out is that you cant extrapolate from the quantum effect of what a photon is doing to a thermo effect of what a flux of energy is doing.
“All I’m pointing… at length.” Yes, and I agree with you. But I’m asking you to step outside the thermodynamic paradigm to comment on the MICRO exchanges. Just as you have already done (and again in your reply) to agree that warm objects absorb radiation from cooler ones.
I’ll repeat what I wrote – what I think you’ve never specifically said and what you seem unwilling to say.
In a purely radiative system:
“The (heated) warmer object does indeed receive radiation from the cooler object it is warming with its own radiation, and therefore radiates more to compensate. IMMEDIATELY. The cooler object receives more radiation, and radiates more (IMMEDIATELY), which is received by the warmer object and so on. Immediately and continuously until… Both warm up enough to achieve equilibrium with the heat source.”
That’s not the language of formal thermodynamics, but it’s not wrong either. Can’t you forego the thermodynamic paradigm for this set-up and say that this way of expressing it is ok?
If you’ve done so already, I’ve missed it.
barry says, November 12, 2017 at 7:11 PM:
Only if by “radiation” you mean “photons”, that is, discrete packets of EM energy.
A warmer object will NOT absorb radiation in the form of a W/m^2 flux, a macroscopic transfer of radiative energy, from a cooler object.
Ok …?
Indeed.
Of course. That’s not the problem at all. I’m amazed you still don’t get it.
Do I? How so? I really don’t know what you’re talking about.
It seems YOU’RE the one with the mental block. You apparently cannot envision a photon gas as a … ‘gas’. You somehow HAVE TO see it still as a collection of individual photons bundled up into separate macroscopic ‘flows’. You’re unable to free yourself from the microscopic perspective. From the idea that there are somehow two opposite ‘flows’ of photons moving through the radiation field.
You should read some statistical mechanics, barry.
This is precisely what I’m talking about. You cannot free yourself from the microscopic perspective. You do actually think that the surface and the atmosphere are somehow akin to two IR lamps beaming at each other, that there are two separate ‘flows’ of photons moving through each other.
You need to understand the fundamental distinction between the MICRO and the MACRO realm to get this, barry. And you also need to understand how an actual radiation field really works and is described. You still obviously don’t. Because this whole two-way idea engrosses you so completely. Whether you like it or not, whether you’re ready to admit it or not.
The warmer object DOES NOT receive radiative energy from the cooler object, barry. Microscopically, yes. Macroscopically, no. There is no spontaneous transfer of thermal energy from cool to warm. There is but one macroscopic MOVEMENT OF RADIATIVE ENERGY. The net of ALL individual microscopic movements. From warm to cool.
As I’ve been telling you now probably dozens of times: You can’t invoke an inherently QUANTUM MECHANICAL process to explain a distinctly THERMODYNAMIC effect.
And still, that’s exactly what you’re doing above. As always.
But then you’re once again using the MICRO perspective in your effort to explain a MACRO effect. Won’t work. It will fail every time. You will end up confused as to cause and effect, plus in direct conflict with the Laws of Thermodynamics.
This is WHY we have statistical mechanics. To bridge the gap. It says: If you want to explain THERMODYNAMIC properties or effects, you will have to use statistics. In order to find the probabilistic average (the NET) of ALL microscopic behaviours. Nothing else works. It doesn’t say that there aren’t microscopic behaviours. It says that ONLY the average of them ALL will produce a THERMODYNAMIC result.
I really don’t know why this is so hard to come to terms with.
Sorry, barry. It is not the radiation from the cooler object that has an impact on the warmer one. The cooler object’s radiation is a mere effect (an ‘expression’) of its temperature, not a cause of anything. The TEMPERATURE of the cooler object has an impact on the warmer one.
For the umpteenth time: This is a THERMODYNAMIC problem, not a quantum mechanical one. There is no radiation in the macroscopic (thermodynamic) sense moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface.
I know perfectly well what you’re trying to say. That there are more photons coming down to the surface if the atmosphere is warmer. But I’m afraid that is once again a confused way of seeing the exchange. It doesn’t happen like that. The atmosphere and the surface are NOT two lasers shooting photons at each other in collimated beams across a vacuum. There’s a thermal photon gas, occupying the very same space as the surface and the atmosphere. The surface and the atmosphere maintain an internal temperature gradient. The coinciding and directly associated photon gas, created and sustained BY the temperatures of the surface and atmosphere, thus has its own equivalent gradient, one of radiative density and intensity.
When the photon gas is contained within a cavity and the walls around the cavity are all at the same temperature, there is no movement of radiant energy inside the cavity. No matter how hot or cold the walls are. Yet there is STILL photons flying everywhere, photons being absorbed and emitted by the walls at all times:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-1.png
It is NOT like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-2.png
Two opposite macroscopic fluxes (W/m^2) of radiative energy that just happen to be of equal intensity.
You can say so mathematically. But it’s not a real feature of the photon gas inside the cavity itself.
I think you understand this simple concept, barry. If you only dared admitting it to yourself.
Kristian
Back to the photon cloud!
Did you ever answer this: if there was an object on one wall of the cavity with a slightly different temperature than it’s neighboring wall surface, and a thermal imaging device pointed at it from the opposite side of the cavity, how could you see the object through the photon cloud?
And remind me, how does the photon cloud know which direction is warm or cold? Thermometers?
barry, Sir Isaac: Dr. Spencer once admonished Kristian for simply twisting word meanings into pretzels, thus you will always get this sort of twisted response from Kristian as words are so malleable. Kristian offers no concrete testing or cites to any testing. Kristian must therefore know that testing runs against his physics explanations.
For example, 1 photon absorbed into the surface is obviously a radiative flux of energy. So is 345 W/m^2 worth of those same photons a radiative flux of energy absorbed into the surface, the number of photons is immaterial.
For example, Kristian twists: Yes, a radiative flux of energy from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface, but a radiative flux of energy ISN’T (absorbed by the surface).
into: “Yes, photons from the atmosphere are absorbed by the surface, but a radiative flux of energy ISN’T.” to make his mealleable words seem at least somewhat logical to the unwary.
Kristian avoids like the plague looking up the basic experiments referenced by Planck p. 199 that prove his atm. radiative physics statement wrong: “There is no spontaneous transfer of thermal energy from cool to warm.”
Also because incoherent photons do not interact with each other in any experiments his statement is also twisted: “You do actually think that the surface and the atmosphere are somehow akin to two IR lamps beaming at each other, that there are two separate ‘flows’ of photons moving through each other.”
This really is actually the way to think about incoherent atm. radiative EMR/photon physics as that is what is found in countless experiments not a one referenced by Kristian.
Ball4
Kristian will refuse to answer questions like the two I posed above.
That’s a tell tale sign of confirmation bias.
Oh, and dimes are not photons. And photons are not KE.
When a dime masquerading as a photon enters the hand, that dime is transformed into something else. Kristian doesn’t notice this piece of the puzzle in his analogy. Kristian would be better off explaining real physics to avoid analogies and employ or cite real world testing to support his statements on radiative physics.
Ball4
Thanks for the post. I have also asked Kristian to verify his assertions. He only links to his blog with little cartoons he has found on the web or drew himself.
I am trying to find out what a photon cloud is and how it works but interference with google searches destroy the effort. I guess photon cloud is used in gaming and that is mostly what google comes up with.
I have found photon gas which exists in a closed cavity, the photons have no direction in this setup.
With any surface you do not get such a photon gas. The photons direction is always away from the emitting surface.
If you can find links to photon cloud as described by Kristian I would like to read up on it.
Sir Isaac Snapelton
I am stating Kristian’s dime analogy. He gets the process wrong.
Kristian: “Imagine you have your hand stretched out with the open palm facing up. In your palm lie two dimes. A person is standing right in front of your outstretched hand, holding a single dime. In this situation, you represent the surface, the person in front of you represents the atmosphere, and the dimes represent photons.
Now heres what happens: The person holding the single dime places it in your palm with his one hand at the very same moment as he grabs the two dimes that were there already with the other, removing them from your hand. That is, he performs these two separate operations simultaneously.”
He wrongly believes emission and Abs are one simultaneous process. In established science (the real stuff) the processes are not the same and not even related. They are the products of different processes. They occur independently of each other.
If I used a dime analogy I would state it more like this (more correctly with current understanding of how IR is created and destroyed).
There is a bin of dimes on a scale. The weight of the scale represents the temperature, the dimes are joules so they can be kinetic energy of the object or IR moving into and out of the object.
You have two distinct and separate processes going on. In one (emission) dimes are tossed out based only upon the weight of the bin. The rate of dimes being ejected is based only upon the weight and has nothing at all to do with the other process.
The other process is dimes being added to the bin. These dimes only depend upon the weight of another bin and are ejected from that bin toward the first one.
The rate dimes are added has nothing to do with the rate the dimes are leaving. You can have 200 dimes leaving at a continuous basis, but you can have 10, 20, 100, 200 dimes being added to the bin. The rate of addition is not related to the rate of loss.
I think Kristian makes up his own physics like Gordon Robertson does.
You can even look at the links of the two figures he posted. They are photons in a cavity that is kept at a constant temperature.
In this isolated case you have his photon cloud and there is no direction of energy motion.
If, however, you opened his cavity and made it a flat plate (still warmed as before) all the photons would be moving away from the plate in a hemispherical fashion of equal energy distribution. You have a one way flux away and no photon gas. If you put a m^2 plate above this surface it would be influenced by a macroscopic flux of energy (Watts/m^2).
I think you are totally correct about Kristian. I think he is wrong on some very fundamental levels.
Cold objects emit IR. It moves away from its surface and will be absorbed by objects colder or hotter than it.
IR does not couple and merge into one unit. The photons do not interact with each other at all, bosons move through each other without exchanging energy or changing direction. They do not behave as solid particles. Kristian maybe never studied this reality. Ball4 has.
Norman
You’re probably right. Kristian seems to think emission/absorbshun is one process, rather than two independent processes with one result. One nitpick is that these two separate actions do infact happen simultaneously (at the same time).
I think the main thing he was trying to point out with his dime analogy is a little different. The atmosphere takes two dimes but only gives the surface one in return. So from the surfaces perspective, one dime is removed and the other is simply exchanged. Nothing is added.
IMO this is a perfectly fine way of looking at the situation, but it’s only 1/2 the story!
“If you can find links to photon cloud as described by Kristian…”
Dunno or care how Kristian describes a photon cloud as Kristian cites/does no testing. Any good, beginning atm. radiation text that ref.s the hard won testing results should be a start to read up on the subject.
Because matter continuously emits radiation, any opaque container with walls so thick that no photons leak from it will fill with a gas of photons. The container is held at a fixed temperature T. At equilibrium the photons in the container, like gas molecules, do not all have the same energy (equivalently, frequency) but are distributed about a most probable value.
At equilibrium, the radiation field is isotropic (and unpolarized), so regardless of how a plane surface inside is oriented, considering a hemisphere of directions, the same amount of radiant energy crosses unit area in unit time. The energy distribution function is the Planck distribution or Planck function.
One striking difference between a gas of molecules and a gas of photons is that the number of molecules in a sealed container is conserved (barring chemical reactions, of course) whereas the number of photons is not. As the temperature of the container, which is the source and sink of the photons, increases, the number of photons within it increases.
Another striking difference, unlike molecules in the gas container banging into one another (equilibrium M-B distribution of ideal gas constituent velocities), photons in the gas do not interact with each other, so the equilibrium distribution of energies in a photon gas can come about only because of interactions of photons with the walls of the container.
A decent ref. for these points is F. E. Irons, 2004: “Reappraising Einstein’s 1909 application of fluctuation theory to Planckian radiation”. American Journal of Physics, Vol. 72, pp. 105967.
…pp. 1059-67.
Ball4
Interesting. Thanks for that.
Maybe you could help with a question I have? The air around us has trillions of photons flying around. But they are not alone. There are also trillions of molecules….nitrogen, oxygen, Co2, etc. all sharing the same “cloud”. The photons don’t interfere with one another, but they do interact with these other constituents.
So how is it possible for a flux of photons, emitted by an object at one location to remain mostly intact as it makes its way through this “soup” to a distant location? How do these photons avoid getting absorbed/reemitted or reflected on route?
norman…”I think Kristian makes up his own physics like Gordon Robertson does”.
Problem is Norman, I have been applying this theory for decades in the fields of electronics and the electrical field. Have you?
If I made it up, I could not apply it. I learned atomic theory initially as an adjunct to electronics theory. You cannot make this stuff up.
I am not fooled by oblique reference to molecules, like the CO2 molecule, as if something magical is going on to produce heat in a molecule. I KNOW a molecule is two or more atom nucleii bonded together by electrons directly or by electron charges indirectly. The nucleus has a positive charge and the electrons have a negative charge.
That is all basic electronic theory. Speaking of molecules as if they have some magical property disassociated from electrons and protons is sheer nonsense.
When heat is transferred via radiation there has to be an explanation at the atomic level of the electron. You don’t seem to understand that but I do. It makes perfect sense to me that an electron is involved in the conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy.
I know as well that electrons transfer electrical charge electron to electron and they transfer heat electron to electron.
If you understood atomic theory the way I do you’d have no problem getting why heat cannot be transferred cold to hot by it’s own means. It makes no sense that a body at a higher temperature than another should both transmit and receive heat simultaneously. Electrons don’t operate that way.
ball4…”One striking difference between a gas of molecules and a gas of photons is that the number of molecules in a sealed container is conserved (barring chemical reactions, of course) whereas the number of photons is not”.
Another striking difference is that you can demonstrate a gas of molecules but you cannot demonstrate a photon cloud. It is an entirely hypothetical construct which can exist only in the sci-fi of quantum theory.
“you can demonstrate a gas of molecules but you cannot demonstrate a photon cloud. It is an entirely hypothetical construct which can exist only in the sci-fi of quantum theory.”
Gordon, Planck ref.s the experiments complete with the apparatus pictorial setups that demonstrate a photon cloud exists in nature on p. 199 in his 1912 Treatise. The photon cloud is an entirely practical, physical entity upon which the bulk of his radiation work is based & resulting in the Planck distribution.
“When heat is transferred via radiation there has to be an explanation at the atomic level of the electron. You dont seem to understand that but I do. It makes perfect sense to me that an electron is involved in the conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy.”
Only in high enough temperatures that Gordon works at. In meteorology, with important temperatures around 288K, there is not enough collisional energy among atm. constituent particles to excite an electron from base level up 1 quantum level to an excited state so that electronic transition can emit a photon on returning to base state.
But there is plenty of atm. collisional energy to excite the rotational and vibrational states of constituent molecules up a quantum level & emit a photon by returning to base state. This just shows Gordon has not studied meteorology as he has been informed about this and where to find the experimental facts many times. You know, in a basic meteorology beginning text.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Another striking difference is that you can demonstrate a gas of molecules but you cannot demonstrate a photon cloud. It is an entirely hypothetical construct which can exist only in the sci-fi of quantum theory.”
{giggle}
“Calorimetry of a BoseEinstein-condensed photon gas,” Tobias Damm et al, Nature Communications 7, Article number: 11340 (2016)
doi:10.1038/ncomms11340
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11340
Gordon Robertson says:
“I know as well that electrons transfer electrical charge electron to electron….”
OMG, you are a complete moron, Gordon.
Electrons *do not* transfer charge!
In fact, they transfer photons.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Problem is Norman, I have been applying this theory for decades in the fields of electronics and the electrical field. Have you?”
{giggles}
“If you understood atomic theory the way I do youd have no problem getting why heat cannot be transferred cold to hot by its own means. It makes no sense that a body at a higher temperature than another should both transmit and receive heat simultaneously.”
You’re referring to heat transfer. (Good boy.) By what mechanism?
Where does the heat from a cooler body go when it encounters a warmer body? U-turn?
You’ll wimp out on answering, as always.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I am not fooled by oblique reference to molecules, like the CO2 molecule, as if something magical is going on to produce heat in a molecule.”
All this time, and YOU STILL do not understand how the greenhouse effect works.
You are dumb and hopeless.
Gordon Robertson
Yes you make up your own physics all the time and support none of it.
Electronics is a different branch of physics than heat transfer and they use different equations.
Mid-IR is not the result of electrons moving up and down energy levels. Electron “jumps” moving from higher to lower energy levels result in UV, Visible, and near IR EMR. With Mid-IR the entire atom with a slight charge moves, the electrons remain in their ground energy levels, they do not move up or down the potential. It is the charge of the entire atom in a molecule vibrating that produce the IR. Different parts of molecule have different charges because of the electron distribution. One region is more positive, another more negative. When the molecule vibrates with the charge imbalance it will produce IR (motion of electric field set up magnetic field).
Also you do correctly state that “heat” cannot transfer from a cold object to a warmer one. But heat flow is a NET flow of energy of a surface based upon its emission rate minus its rate of absorbing energy. I pointed it out in a post above with the astronaut suit. You should have looked at that, it was your you.
I was reading Claes Johnson blog and know where you get your ideas from.
Sir Isaac 3:08pm: The molecular mean free path is the average distance a molecule travels before encountering another molecule.
For photons the attenuation of a beam of light is much more difficult to visualize. We cannot determine what happens to a particular photon as photons are indistinguishable so the concept of a “particular photon” (aka a dime) is meaningless.
It is possible to determine what happens in a statistical sense to an ensemble of many photons. For example, ask what is the probability that a photon propagating along the x-axis beginning at x =0 is absorbed between x and x +∆x? The answer is well known by experiment for a long time (half a century or more) and computer codes have become good enough to be useful for many purposes in last few decades (LBLRTM codes).
Sir Isaac Snapelton
Maybe this will the rest of the story.
I have been presenting this empirical data to the hard-core skeptics. I do not think they are much interested. It totally goes against what they claim, that cold objects or surroundings cannot warm powered objects to higher equilibrium temperatures since heat is only a one way flow and there is no energy flow from the cold surroundings to the hotter ones. This experiment totally demolishes their fake science and shows why the GHE works and is valid science.
The Earth’s surface is a powered surface, it receives a constant energy input from the Sun, rotating as it does, half of the surface is continually receiving new energy from the solar flux.
Here is the experiment. See what you think. It collaborates all my thought experiments on the topic of how ice will make a powered object reach a higher equilibrium temperature than dry ice at much colder temperature.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/
This is the entire experiment.
Here is the table that shows that colder surroundings at different temperatures directly change the equilibrium temperature of the hotter powered items (what I have stated many times). This would strongly support the idea that the heated surface is absorbing energy from the colder environment.
Look for yourself and let me know what you think. This should end the multi-thousand posts on threads concerning the topic of heat transfer. It probably won’t but it will give you real data to counter the extreme skeptics, who make up their own physics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/table/Tab2/
Norman
Thanks for that. I will bookmark it for future arguments. Although, like you said, it probably won’t do any good.
Norman, youve already had your answer on it. What dont you understand?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272416
Tony
Did you even look at the links posted before sending me off to Gordon Robertson’s lame reply?
Look at the data. The room temperature (which would have both conduction and radiative effects) is colder in both cases. One the air is 20 C and another 26 C. Both air temperatures are much colder than the powered objects in the room that are mostly in the 30+ C range.
The air is colder than the objects in both cases but the equilibrium temperature of the powered objects goes up when the air temperature goes up. The objects are absorbing energy from the colder environment that is added to the energy that is being supplied. Think it through. Look at the data. If you do not accept my conclusion explain the data presented.
Yes, Norman. The powered objects are losing heat to the air molecules, through conduction. So the equilibrium temperature is lower when the surrounding air temperature is lower, because more heat is lost through conduction. As the air temperature warms, less heat is lost through conduction, so the equilibrium temperature is higher. If the air temperature was the same as the powered object, no heat would be lost through conduction.
No back radiation (or back conduction) was involved in this explanation.
Tony,
A very simple and superficial explanation you provided. Now add some depth. Why does the colder air temperatures (colder than the powered objects) change the rate of conduction and you are neglecting radiant energy exchange which is also going on.
Why does the rate of heat loss change between the 20 C room temp and the 26 C room temp? Even with conduction, why does the loss of heat from the powered objects go down as the room is warmed by 6 C even though it is still much cooler than the powered objects?
Tim Folkerts explained it well in one of his posts. What is yours?
Silly boy. Yes, you can substitute the word conduction for the word radiation, if you like. Just remember that the final line:
No back radiation (or back conduction) was involved in this explanation
still applies.
You ask:
Why does the rate of heat loss change between the 20 C room temp and the 26 C room temp?
Because the temperature gradient between the heated object and the surroundings has decreased. As you should have been able to work out from my last comment.
OK, so as long as you remember these things:
1) An object radiates EM radiation according to its temperature and emissivity.
2) The internal energy of an object doesnt decrease just because that object is emitting EM radiation. It only decreases when a transfer of heat, by EM radiation, occurs.
3) The internal energy of an object doesnt increase just because that object is receiving EM radiation. It only increases when a transfer of heat, by EM radiation, occurs.
4) Change in internal energy relates to a change in temperature of the object, as per the first law.
You should be fine. Youll work it out eventually. Chin up!
Oh, and obviously the internal energy of an object can increase and decrease through conduction, as well. I assumed that went without saying, but knowing you lot, I guess it has to be said.
Tony
It seems you do not understand what I am asking for you to provide.
I am not asking you to tell me that heat transfer rate is based upon a temperature gradient between objects. This is well known. What I am specifically asking is why does a temperature gradient affect the heat rate if the cold object is doing nothing to the hotter one. If you do not understand what I am asking, let me know I will try to phrase it in a way you will know what I am asking. Might take a while, my experience with heat transfer language is that many have their own defintions and meanings to words so if I use a word with a meaning I understand, you may not define it in the same way. Heat is one that seems very difficult to use and have everyone think of the same thing.
Also you are advocating the GHE with your explanation. An atmosphere with GHG will have radiant properties that will change the heat loss from the surface. With the same power input from the Sun, the surface temperature will reach a higher equilibrium temperature just as the powered lab items did, even if the atmosphere is colder than the surface, as long as the atmosphere is warmer than empty space which returns only tiny amount of energy.
No, your powered lab object example has nothing to do with the GHE. This is about powered objects coming to a warmer temperature because the surroundings are getting warmer. Also, the powered objects in this case do not have any thermostat. The sun, warming the Earths surface, does. Another thing to consider about surroundings is that its not that a vacuum is cold, in fact theres no sense in which it really possesses temperature – it lacks matter. Therefore there are no air molecules for objects to lose heat to, through either radiation or conduction. So your powered lab object example does not apply to any examples of heat exchange through a vacuum.
Finally, in answer to your question:
What I am specifically asking is why does a temperature gradient affect the heat rate if the cold object is doing nothing to the hotter one
There is no cold object in your example. Only colder surroundings. Those surroundings are absorbing heat from the powered object, cooling it, to a different extent based on their own temperature relative to the object. The cold surroundings are not supplying heat to the powered object, quite the opposite.
“There is no cold object in your example. Only colder surroundings. Those surroundings are absorbing heat from the powered object, cooling it, to a different extent based on their own temperature relative to the object.”
Adding a cold object to the surroundings lowers the average, so you agree it will cool the powered object.
Tony
You are still refusing to answer the question. Why do different temperatures of surroundings change the heat flow rate? If no energy (not HEAT please do not replace my words with yours…I say absorb energy and you make that into HEAT. Heat flow is the NET of energy exchanges).
You and Gordon seem to do this.
Here is what I stated: “The objects are absorbing energy from the colder environment that is added to the energy that is being supplied.”
Where do I put the colder objects (in this case surroundings which is composed of multiple objects and air) are adding heat to the powered objects?
YOU REPLY: “The cold surroundings are not supplying heat to the powered object, quite the opposite.”
Why do you do this? It makes communication with you more than impossible if you change the words I am using then claim I am incorrect.
The different temperatures of the surroundings are adding different amounts of ENERGY (NOT HEAT) to the powered objects changing the equilibrium temperatures of the powered objects in the lab. As the surrounding temperatures are increased they add more energy to the powered objects than colder surrounding which drives the equilibrium temperature upward.
You, like the others, do not understand the heat transfer equation at all. Heat Flow (Q) = (emissivity)(Sigma)(Energy emitted by a surface minus energy ABS by the same surface).
In this equation the second T is energy the surroundings are sending to the surface.
Surfaces cooling because of the addition of cooler things, and surfaces warming from THAT temperature because of the addition of less cool things, is not the GHE.
The GHE is: the Earths surface is warmed to the maximum amount that it can be, by the sun. Then, a colder atmosphere makes it warmer. As if the backradiation from the atmosphere were an ADDITIONAL source of heat.
Ive answered your questions, Norman.
Tony
No Sir, you did not answer my question at all. You state the obvious that a temperature gradient affects heat flow rate. I do not dispute this at all.
The question is WHY? Why does the heat gradient between Hot and Cold alter the RATE of heat flow? You have not answered this question at all. You state that such a reality takes place, but you have not offered an explanation as to WHY such a thing takes place.
I have offered you my solution, you have not offered anything to date.
I state that energy is absorbed by a hot surface from colder surrounding. The rate energy is absorbed depends upon the surroundings temperature. Established science says exactly this same thing. You have not explained at all why changing the temperature gradient changes the Heat Flow rate, you state it does, but offer no reason it should.
What about this:
There is no cold object in your example. Only colder surroundings. Those surroundings are absorbing heat from the powered object, cooling it, to a different extent based on their own temperature relative to the object.
Was so difficult to understand!?
If a powered object (which would come to a certain temperature without a cooling influence, due to its power supply) is cooled, it will come to a lower temperature than that certain temperature. If it isnt cooled as much, it comes to a higher temperature. Why? Because it isnt being cooled as much, and its internal power supply hadnt gone anywhere, so will be warming it up! Its not the energy from the surroundings Norman its the POWER SUPPLY TO THE OBJECT.
We are in agreement on that Tony!
Tony
It seems you have your physics wrong.
I am reading through your post and you don’t quite understand heat transfer. You understand conduction okay but radiant physics not so much.
In your Post you state: “Those surroundings are absorbing heat from the powered object, cooling it, to a different extent based on their own temperature relative to the object.”
In radiant heat transfer the surroundings are not cooling the powered object by absorbing heat from it. Not at all how it works and if you take the time to read textbook physics on the topic you will see that you do not understand it at all, not even a little.
In radiant physics an object with no surroundings will radiate heat away at the maximum rate based upon its surface temperature and emissivity plus surface area. The NET energy flow is just Q(heat flow) = (emissivity)(Surface Area)(sigma)(Temperature Kelvin to the 4th power).
The surroundings are not what is cooling a powered object via radiation (conduction yes, radiant energy NO). The surroundings actually radiate energy back to the object if they have some temperature and actually act to lower the maximum amount of heat loss.
It is established physics. So if you have a powered surface (like the Earth’s) and have an atmosphere with GHG and temperature, the maximum rate of heat loss is reduced and the surface temperature goes up. With the Earth surface the actual temperature is more complex because you have other heat transfer processes going on besides radiant energy. With the current GHE, it you changed nothing else (same amount of water vapor in air) but covered all the oceans with glass so there was not evaporation the surface would be much hotter than it currently is. The Earth’s surface temperature could get as warm as 30 C rather than the 15 C it is now.
Your very funny, Norman. You now start to parrot back to me, my own comments, as if they contradict what Ive said. You say:
In radiant physics an object with no surroundings will radiate heat away at the maximum rate based upon its surface temperature and emissivity plus surface area. The NET energy flow is just Q(heat flow) = (emissivity)(Surface Area)(sigma)(Temperature Kelvin to the 4th power).
I said to you earlier:
1) An object radiates EM radiation according to its temperature and emissivity.
Next you say:
The surroundings are not what is cooling a powered object via radiation (conduction yes, radiant energy NO). The surroundings actually radiate energy back to the object if they have some temperature and actually act to lower the maximum amount of heat loss.
If there are objects (including molecules of the atmosphere) around the powered surface at a lower temperature, then the powered object will lose heat to those objects through radiation, and cool. So the maximum temperature the object could be, would be in a vacuum. Where it wouldnt be cooled via losing energy to its surroundings by conduction, or radiation (although radiative flux does decrease with distance from the object).
You are desperate to relate your powered object example to the GHE, but Im afraid there is just no comparison. You will continue to reply. I will continue to laugh at your twists and turns.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 13, 2017 at 12:42 PM:
Indeed. How is Mr. Ignorant doing today?
Never heard of it …? No idea what it is or what it might be …?
https://tinyurl.com/k6jfexl
“One way of understanding blackbody [thermal] radiation is as a description of the maximum amount of radiation that an ordinary body of a particular temperature will emit solely as an attempt to cool. The total radiation emitted by a cooling body is not correctly described merely as the sum of all the individual emission processes, as the particles can also absorb radiation. In the end, the statistics of a large number of emission AND a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n events determine the resultant radiation.
To start with, consider that the amount of radiation emitted by a hot body must depend on the number of particles in the hot body – the more particles the hot body contains, the more photons that can be emitted in each second. But having a large number of particles also increases the likelihood that some of the emitted photons will be absorbed by other particles in the body. Therefore, as more and more photons are created, there starts to be an exchange of energy from the photons back to the particles. This is the key issue – that the photons and particles have numerous interactions involving exchanges of energy. If the condition of numerous interactions is not met, then the resulting radiation will be quite different. We can think of the large number of photons, which are created in the body, as a second body of particles, so that there are two bodies present: the radiating matter (i.e., the atoms, molecules, or electrons) and a cloud of photons, both of which occupy the same volume. The particles in each body interact with those in the other, exchanging energy back and forth. The cloud of photons, though, is created by the matter particles and if more photons are created, then more energy is contained within the photon cloud. Now recall the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. The body of matter particles wants to cool by giving energy to the photon cloud (which will, in turn, carry the energy away into space). But, a hot body cannot heat another body to a temperature higher than itself. Therefore, the hottest the photon cloud can get is when it has the same temperature as the radiating body. In other words, if there are enough particles in the radiating body to produce a very large number of photons and photon-matter interactions, then the radiating body and the cloud of photons will achieve thermal equilibrium. The resultant radiation emitted from the body, then, is a cloud of photons at the same temperature as the body itself.
(…) when the photons have been thermalized, statistics can describe the distribution of energies of the photons, that is, the relative number of photons carrying each small range of energy. In other words, with blackbody radiation, the photons have achieved a THERMAL DISTRIBUTION of energies. The gas molecules of the air in your room, for example, have an assortment of energies; because of collisions, their energies are randomized. Over a large number of collisions, the fraction of particles with energy falling in each small energy range can be described by a statistical function. For gas molecules, one uses the Maxwell-Boltzmann function. Likewise, for thermalized photons, the Bose-Einstein function describes the number of photons in each small energy range. The main point here is that the numerous interactions that the photons experience with the particles in the opaque medium accomplishes this. The photons and the radiating particles achieve THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM, meaning that they both have thermal energy distributions, which we can write as N(E) (representing the number of particles as a function of their energy), that are described by the same temperature.”
Kristian
I’ve always envisioned the microscopic world around us as a cloud of molecules, photons, etc.
As an example, here is a question I recently asked Ball4:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/?replytocom=272502#respond
The link doesn’t seem to work. I’ll try again.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/?replytocom=272502#respond
LOL! Funny how their tune changes …
Kristian,
It’s amazing.
Every time I ask you to consider the MICRO on one specific question, you tell me to consider the MCARO. I have done. Gone to great lengths to spell it out. You’ve quoted me doing it.
Every time you say the MICRO cannot be discussed, the rebuttal is that you can’t do so to describe a thermodynamic situation. I have said precisely this dozens of times now.
You raise the straw men of lamps. I’ve already said one object is a passive emitter. Not a heat ‘source’.
You raise the straw man of photon lasers – as if I’ve not clarified that radiation is multidirectional, and we’re interested in isolating the action between two objects. You even accepted that as a simplification upthread.
barry: Bi-directional exchanges of energy is a simplified way of looking at this 3 body issue. That energy is absorbed/emitted from/to all directions is not rejected, only given over for simplification of the main features of radiative exchange.
Kristian: Thats perfectly fine. As long as people know how to use this way of describing the exchange.
To my description of what is happening at the quantum level, regarding just the energy exchange between a hotter and colder object, you continually evoke the MACRO.
I don’t think it is me who has a problem.
The radiation from the cooler object absorbed by the warmer one does have an impact on the warmer one. No, not if you’re talking in the language of thermo (NET), but I continually ask you to move beyond that paradigm and you continually do not – on this specific mater.
You reply it’s their temperature that matters – which is you moving the description back into the realm of the MACRO. You don’t want to stick to a description based on statistical mechanics.
The radiation is an effect of temperature, but it also has an effect. You don’t, for some reason, want to discuss the latter, swerving consistently to the MACRO and complaining I don’t give it the proper heed. I have done, multiple times. So that you. Can. Move. On. and discuss the MICRO.
You haven’t said that my description is wrong, only that it is wrong within the paradigm of formal thermodynamics.
Can’t we just agree that this is so and move on?
Why can we not talk about the 2 plate system in space, Eli’s set-up, as a function statistical mechanics? Why do you swerve to formal thermodynamics all the time? Thermo is “all that maters” is not a rebuttal, it’s a refusal to step outside that paradigm.
Are you concerned I’ll make the same errors in thought has other people? How many different ways can I agree with you about the errors on conflation, of the improper use of language?
Agreeing that – at the (statistical) MICRO level, the radiative energy absorbed by a warmer body from a cooler has an impact on the warmer body – will not kill you. All you have to do is stop recoiling into the thermodynamic realm out of suspicion that I’m going to start believing the cool object is an active emitter or some such.
Just agree. Then I’ll move on. You don’t have to keep telling me this is not how it is described in thermo. I already know.
barry says, November 13, 2017 at 3:30 PM:
It IS amazing. You’re still insisting on not getting it. And to me it seems now that you simply don’t want to.
The way you perceive how these things work is flawed on a fundamental level, barry. You are NOT getting what I’m saying. You ignore what I’m telling you. Instead you’re patting yourself on the back for something you THINK you’ve understood, and for thinking you’ve somehow made my argument ‘clearer’, even though you’ve said nothing that I haven’t already consistently pointed out for a couple of years at least.
You say: “Agreeing that – at the (statistical) MICRO level, the radiative energy absorbed by a warmer body from a cooler has an impact on the warmer body – will not kill you.
What is the “statistical micro” level, barry? Isn’t that just the two-way perspective? That there are in fact two opposite (hemi)fluxes, macroscopic in one sense (W/m^2), but made up of a whole bunch of individual photons flying in the same general direction, so in another sense still actually MICROscopic …?
I mean, it’s so bloody stupid.
All you’re doing here is wildly fishing for a concession of the argument that QUANTUM events will somehow produce a THERMO effect.
And that we should therefore be allowed to say that a warmer body will have its U and T increased as a direct result of absorbing energy transferred to it from a cooler body, as long as we’re careful not to CALL this process “heating” (because it’s still in a sense MICRO, right? it’s just a bunch of photons, after all), even though that’s EXACTLY what such a process would be called in the macroscopic realm of THERMODYNAMICS.
You simply do not get it, barry.
Again, the thermal PHOTONS of the surrounding photon gas is NOT what’s affecting the U and T of the warmer body. The TEMPERATURE of the surroundings is.
Ask Kristian, ” how does the surrounding temperature affect the warmer object?
He will rightly point to the 2LOT
But ask him, “what is the physical mechanism that explains the 2LOT?”
You will get either gibberish or no answer at all.
Or similarly (as I asked above),
Kristian, “how does the photon cloud know the temperature of it’s surroundings, and how do the surroundings know the temperature of the photon cloud?”
No response or “it just does”.
“Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
November 13, 2017 at 7:31 PM
Or similarly (as I asked above),
Kristian, how does the photon cloud know the temperature of its surroundings, and how do the surroundings know the temperature of the photon cloud?
No response or it just does.”
Photon cloud is cavity in vacuum.
100 meter cube put 10 meter “empty” in middle cube.
If cube is 5 C, cavity has 5 C blackbody spectrum in equilibrium- photon cloud. If put something in it cooler or warmer, you don’t have equilibrium and don’t have blackbody spectrum- and to degree it’s not in equilibrium is degree it’s not a photon cloud.
Though at “MICRO level” everything is a vacuum. Or a solid rock has a lot empty space in it.
But if have cavity with air in it, you have the air temperature, and in vacuum you don’t have air temperature.
barry 3:30pm, Kristian 5:59pm: First one to point out a proper experiment with data supporting one of your opposing assertions, wins.
gbaikie…”But if have cavity with air in it, you have the air temperature, and in vacuum you dont have air temperature”.
That could have something to do with the fact that a vacuum is a space free of mass (matter). That’s why I claim that heat cannot be transferred through space by radiation. Heat required mass since it is the kinetic energy of atoms. No matter, no heat.
However, EM can apparently travel through a vacuum. We don’t know yet whether that apparently empty space is really empty, or teeming with sub-atomic particles like neutrinos. Nonetheless, heat can be transferred through a vacuum after conversion to EM.
Heat is not transferred through space, it is lost at the transmitter when thermal energy is converted to EM and gained at the receiver when EM is converted back to thermal energy. That is, of course based on heat transfer from hot to cold.
Gordon 10:05pm, “Heat is not transferred…based on heat transfer.”
Say what? I see Gordon still can not keep his stories straight.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat is not transferred through space, it is lost at the transmitter when thermal energy is converted to EM and gained at the receiver when EM is converted back to thermal energy.”
So you think heat isn’t conserved….?
All you are doing is renaming some energy as heat and other energy as not heat.
It’s wholly unscientific and accomplishes nothing whatsoever.
Kristian: And how is this temperature communicated to its surroundings?
Answer for once, and stop wimping out.
“All youre doing here is wildly fishing for a concession of the argument that QUANTUM events will somehow produce a THERMO effect”
Yes – the greenhouse effect is a macroscopic phenomenon of quantum mechanics.
The greenhouse effect is a macroscopic phenomenon of quantum mechanics
No, its currently a (perhaps deliberate) misapplication of quantum mechanics in order to get around the problem that cold doesnt heat hot. Kind of like making up a theory about gravitons in order to justify an idea that objects fall upwards, into space.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM:
Hehe, just because YOU don’t understand the answer, Snape, doesn’t mean it’s gibberish.
The physical mechanism has been given countless times.
Read some physics.
Kristian: “The physical mechanism has been given countless times”
Of course it has, but never by you.
“You will get either gibberish or no answer at all.”
Looks like you’ve chosen the latter.
gbalkie – as usual, I have no idea what your reply means.
Are you writing here to be understood, or to show how smart you think you are?
Tony says:
November 14, 2017 at 4:39 AM
>> The greenhouse effect is a macroscopic phenomenon of quantum mechanics <<
"No, its currently a (perhaps deliberate) misapplication of quantum mechanics in order to get around the problem that cold doesnt heat hot."
You failed to provide any reasoning whatsoever.
"Kind of like making up a theory about gravitons in order to justify an idea that objects fall upwards, into space."
Also, you don't understand gravity, either.
You missed the point? What a surprise.
All youre doing here is wildly fishing for a concession of the argument that QUANTUM events will somehow produce a THERMO effect
No!
I want to talk for the moment ONLY about what happens at the quantum level. IGNORE thermo effects, FFS.
If you can’t do that, then simply state categorically that:
“The radiation coming from a colder object and being absorbed by the warmer object will have NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the warmer object. Not on ANY level.”
Just say that outright and I will move on. We will agree to disagree.
Or if you don’t agree, explain why not openly.
But if you dodge that simple statement with yet another repetition about which sodding paradigm we should use to talk about the PHYSICAL MECHANICS operating here, then I’ll conclude once and for all that you have a block that goes way beyond rigour and unrelenting pedanticism.
barry says, November 13, 2017 at 9:41 PM:
Yes, you are, barry.
You absolutely will not see the flaw in your approach to this problem. Above you write:
You simply appear to not have a clue about what you’re actually saying here.
This is you referring to “radiation” and describing it strictly within a MICRO framework (in the form of individual photons), but at the same time presenting it as if it were still somehow a bulk (MACRO) phenomenon (“statistical micro”?), a separate ‘FLUX’ of radiative energy from cool to warm, directly – upon a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n – CAUSING the temperature of the warmer object to rise (“… therefore radiates more to compensate”; it can only do this by first gaining a higher U and T, barry).
In thermodynamics, such a thermal transfer of energy to a system causing such a direct effect on that system’s U and T, is called HEATING; nothing more, nothing less.
And you just can’t see it. You have taken the ONE net radiative exchange and turned it into TWO separate radiative heat transfers, in your head, by choice, just as if your “back radiation flux” were exactly equivalent to the SOLAR heat flux. Schematically, it looks like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/drivhuseffekten.png
The ‘atmospheric insulating (indirect warming) effect’ on the solar-heated surface of the Earth is NOT what’s violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, barry. Only the silly “back radiation” EXPLANATION of it – endorsed both by the IPCC and NASA – is. And it is because it specifically resorts to a distinctly MICROscopic (quantum) phenomenon to explain an intrinsically MACROscopic (thermal) effect.
Just like you do above.
YOU JUST CAN’T EXPLAIN IT LIKE THIS, barry!
You can’t talk about “radiation” in the sense of individual thermal photons and MEAN “radiation” in the sense of a directional thermal flux. The two concepts are incompatible, irreconcilable. UNLESS you’re talking about the NET flux.
I’ve already explained above how this really works. You seem to’ve ignored it, or at least brushed it off:
“It is not theradiationfrom the cooler object that has an impact on the warmer one. The cooler object’s radiation is a mere effect (an ‘expression’) of its temperature, not a cause of anything. The TEMPERATURE of the cooler object has an impact on the warmer one.
For the umpteenth time: This is a THERMODYNAMIC problem, not a quantum mechanical one. There is no radiation in the macroscopic (thermodynamic) sense moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface.
I know perfectly well what you’re trying to say. That there are more photons coming down to the surface if the atmosphere is warmer. But I’m afraid that is once again a confused way of seeing the exchange. It doesn’t happen like that. The atmosphere and the surface are NOT two lasers shooting photons at each other in collimated beams across a vacuum. There’s a thermal photon gas, occupying the very same space as the surface and the atmosphere. The surface and the atmosphere maintain an internal temperature gradient. The coinciding and directly associated photon gas, created and sustained BY the temperatures of the surface and atmosphere, thus has its own equivalent gradient, one of radiative density and intensity.
When the photon gas is contained within a cavity and the walls around the cavity are all at the same temperature, there is no movement of radiant energy inside the cavity. No matter how hot or cold the walls are. Yet there is STILL photons flying everywhere, photons being absorbed and emitted by the walls at all times:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-1.png
It is NOT like this:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-2.png
Two opposite macroscopic fluxes (W/m^2) of radiative energy that just happen to be of equal intensity.
You can say somathematically. But it’s not a real feature of the photon gas inside the cavity itself.”
Is this what you are saying?
The radiation coming from a colder object and being absorbed by the warmer object will have NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the warmer object. Not on ANY level.
barry says, November 15, 2017 at 3:01 PM:
Three things:
1) What “impact” are you referring to? A thermal one? (If not, why are you so obsessed with it?)
2) There IS no radiation coming from a colder object being absorbed by the warmer. Not if thermal impacts (effects) are what you’re looking for.
3) There is only a continuous, integrated photon gas/cloud stretching from below the surface of the warmer object through the medium separating it from the colder object to below the surface of the colder object, with a certain gradient of radiative energy density and intensity from warm (high) to cold (low), equivalent to (and directly associated with) a corresponding temperature gradient.
The MOVEMENT of radiative energy through the photon gas/cloud goes only one way – down that gradient.
The TEMPERATURE of a colder object is what will have an impact on the warmer one, because it will affect the steepness of that gradient. The radiative (photonic) energy of the gas/cloud is just there. The temps create and maintain the photon gas/cloud, and the temp gradient dictates the gradient of radiative energy density and intensity through the photon gas/cloud.
As usual, you did not answer the question, just steered back to the thermo paradigm.
I’ve asked you 20 times to set aside the thermo paradigm and just talk about the PHYSICAL MECHANICS. I’m not interested in how the equations of heat transfer operate, just the PHYSICAL MECHANICS. You are unable to discuss this. You have an unreasonable block here.
When I ask you to verify or reject,
“The radiation coming from a colder object and being absorbed by the warmer object will have NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the warmer object. Not on ANY level”
I don’t need to specify more than that. If there is absolutely no impact ON ANY LEVEL, then you can just say yes or no, and if no, I’d want you to elaborate.
What I’ve asked you repeatedly not to do is bend it back to a thermodynamic question. This is impossible to do – you simply refuse to do it.
Furthermore, I’ve been talking in the context of the 2 plate set-up, and have said so. You’ve side-stepped that, too, to speak of the atmosphere and cavities in thermal equilibrium.
I think you’re evading.
Typo:
This is not impossible to do you simply refuse to do it.
barry says, November 15, 2017 at 6:12 PM:
Yup, that’s because your “question” is disingenuous and loaded, barry. You know by now – because I’ve been continually explaining it to you during this exchange – that it doesn’t relate or pertain to what actually happens in the real world, that is, how energy transfer through a radiation field really works.
It’s basically of the type: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” You know already what answer you want, and you’re trying everything you can to get there, even if that means ignoring what the person you ask actually tells you …
Not my kind of discussion.
Yes, and I have asked you 20 times ‘WHY’? Why are you so obsessed with – when discussing thermal effects – just talking about, not the ‘physical mechanics’, but the MICRO perspective? What are you trying to accomplish!? In what direction are you trying to lead the discussion? And why?
Not at all. I find it overly strange (and ironic) that you should think that I have some kind of block. I talk about the ‘physical mechanics’ (the MICRO perspective) all the time. You KNOW this. The dime analogy being the prime example. I just happen to know how – and when – to distinguish between the MICRO and the MACRO perspectives. While you keep wanting to merge them into one. You either don’t know how to distinguish the two, or you don’t want to. You claim you’re not interested in the ‘thermo paradigm’, as you call it, and still you write stuff like this: “The (heated) warmer object does indeed receive radiation from the cooler object it is warming with its own radiation, and therefore radiates more to compensate.” That’s you claiming a quantum mechanical phenomenon as the direct cause of a thermal effect. Again, if the warmer object emits more photons after having absorbed more photons from its cooler surroundings, it means it has WARMED. It’s U and T have risen. That’s a THERMAL effect, barry. “Thermo paradigm.”
And I’ve now been telling you that it WON’T. Several times even. While at the same time explicitly offering an explanation as to WHY.
So what is you problem? Is it about the reading itself …?
This must be one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever seen coming from you, barry. YOU want to argue that radiation from a cooler to a warmer object DOES affect the warmer object. Ok, how? In what way? By causing it to emit more photons itself. As compensation. For the extra a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n.
How is this NOT a thermodynamic question? Are you specifically asking how the discrete a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n of a photon affects the molecule absorbing it? Sure doesn’t look like it. Or are you rather asking how a flux of radiative energy transferred TO a surface/object would affect that surface/object. One is rooted in the MICRO (quantum) perspective, the other one in the MACRO (thermo) perspective. I know you’ve proffered this hybrid entity, a sort of MICRO-MACRO transfer of energy that you call “statistical MICRO”, which – I assume – works like a real flux (a macroscopic transfer/movement of energy) without actually ‘being’ one, since it’s still to be considered just a bunch of photons and their individual quantum effects conceptually bundled up into one wide beam. After all. However, I’m afraid this hybrid perspective is – still – utterly confused.
You can’t start by looking at ONE individual photon inside a real thermal radiation field (photon gas/cloud), then from this begin to simply add separate photons together – as if extrapolating the behaviour/effect of the ONE – until you finally cross the “thermodynamic limit”, and thereby somehow end up with TWO (!!!) macroscopic fluxes (W/m^2) moving in opposite directions through the field, barry:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-2.png
It doesn’t work like that. Only within a CONCEPTUAL (mathematical) model it does. Not in the real world.
Once you move from the chaos and disorder of the quantum world to the order and consistent patterns of the macro world, the photons themselves no longer matter, only the macroscopic movement (flow) of energy through the field. The photonic energy is then simply experienced as a static content of internal radiative energy, the thermal photon gas/cloud. As long as the temperature or temperature gradient inside and/or across the field is constant, this static content (and distribution) of internal radiative energy remains the same and in place. The specific photons making up the photon gas/cloud are exchanged all the time; they’re never the same from one instant to the next. Individually, they pass through the field, and/or are scattered, absorbed and emitted by the medium itself and/or by the surfaces on either side of it. Constantly and continuously. But the total radiative energy associated with them always stays unchanged. And the MOVEMENT of radiative energy – not the content, the movement – always flows one way only, from where the energy density and radiative intensity is higher to where it’s lower. Or – put differently – from higher to lower temperatures.
Will you please try to acknowledge this logical and physically consistent description of reality?
Hehe, no, barry. You’ve got it all wrong. The 2 plate set-up thing is a discussion you’re having with OTHER people, not with me. I’ve never been part of that discussion. As you might’ve noticed. Frankly, I don’t even fully know what it’s about. Because I haven’t really read what any of you have written on it. I just know that it’s there. I don’t care about it and therefore don’t care to be part of it.
So if you want to discuss the 2 plate set-up, you need to go do that with you 2 plate set-up friends. I’m here to discuss the one issue that I find relevant here, the surface/atmosphere problem. Is there in fact a RADIATIVE “greenhouse effect” or not? Is the atmosphere forcing the surface to be warmer on average than it would’ve been without one by adding extra energy to it via “back radiation”, or isn’t it?
You should be a politician:
https://tinyurl.com/hgtj6v5
Svante says, November 16, 2017 at 2:31 PM:
Or rather: barry should be a lawyer.
Re my question on radiation from a cooler object and whether it has any impact on a warmer object you say:
And Ive now been telling you that it WONT. Several times even. While at the same time explicitly offering an explanation as to WHY.
Here is what you’ve said:
2) There IS no radiation coming from a colder object being absorbed by the warmer. Not if thermal impacts (effects) are what youre looking for.
I. AM. NOT. “LOOKING FOR”. THERMAL. IMPACTS.
Here again, you pretend to have discussed the physical mechanics with a get-out-of-talking-about-physical-mechanics card.
I’ve come along with you to agree that there is only one direction of flow in formal thermodynamics. Return the favour.
So if we’re not “looking for thermal effects,” does the radiation emitted by a cooler object that is absorbed by a warmer one have any effect whatsoever on the warmer one? Let’s speak in the language of physical mechanics, of statistical mechanics.
What are the physical mechanics at play re the blue plate (not the flamin’ thermo effects) when the green plate is brought into the 3 body set up? Does the radiation from the green plate have any impact whatsoever on the green plate at the quantum, level? Not just a single photon, the total radiative emissions from the green plate to the blue.
I’m guessing you won’t answer this directly because you think the others will claim triumph and be emboldened to misuse/conflate the thermal paradigm. That should not matter if truth is what we seek. Everything else you’ve said will remain true.
We all agree that the green plate reduces the rate at which the blue plate loses energy to space. I’m asking – how? The physical mechanics, not the thermodynamic explanation.
barry says, November 16, 2017 at 4:24 PM:
Yes, I’m perfectly aware that this is what you’re asking, barry. But I’m telling you there’s no scientific answer to that question. Because by asking it you show that you don’t understand the science. And you’re not in the least willing to listen when I try to relay this particular piece of information to you.
You say: “(…) the green plate reduces the rate at which the blue plate loses energy to space.”
That statement right there, barry, specifically articulates a THERMO problem. What you’re describing is the HEAT LOSS of the blue plate.
AND YOU CAN’T HAVE A QUANTUM MECHANICAL ANSWER TO A THERMO PROBLEM. The two address different aspects of reality.
You appear unable (or unwilling) to see the fundamental distinction between the QUANTUM aspect of reality and the THERMO aspect of reality, the very reason we need the application of statistical mechanics in the first place. You simply can’t seem to find a way to keep them apart, as distinct descriptions of different things, inherently different physical phenomena.
g*e*r*a*n is absolutely right. You stubbornly cling to certain beliefs that you refuse to disavow. You firmly believe that photons somehow exist also in the MACRO world, and that transferring one of them is like transferring a tiny radiative flux. The effect (the impact) should be the same, right? You may shout No! once again, but this belief is precisely what your question above conveys. You cannot rid yourself of the idea that a single photon is somehow an independent protagonist, itself an active agent of energy transfer, ALSO in the macroscopic (thermo) realm.
Take the dime analogy. It is actually PURELY micro. Why? Because you SEE all the photons. You can track them all separately at will. You can freely choose which one to follow, which one to focus on and which ones to ignore. You can thus get (or play up) any effect (impact) that you want. It’s all up to you.
If it were purely MACRO, however, then it wouldn’t be. Then you could only see ONE thing. ONE exchange. ONE result. ONE effect. ONE impact:
First you had two dimes. Then you had one. From one instant to the next. You lost one. And THAT’S IT. There’s nothing else! THAT’S the impact. If what you want to see isn’t the impact of EACH INDIVIDUAL quantum event, in isolation from all the others …!
Then, of course, you might say that THAT’S the impact you’re after. THAT’S the impact of the ‘cool’ radiation on the warm object. The warm surface (your hand) loses just one dime to the cool atmosphere (the other person). It would’ve lost TWO dimes, however, to cold space. The difference is there because of the one dime provided by the atmosphere person. Its RADIATION.
No. The difference is NOT there because of the radiation. The difference stems from the fact that the atmosphere has MASS (is made up of matter) and thus is able to be HEATED by the surface. It is ABLE TO WARM. Space isn’t. It has no real temperature. The atmosphere does. This is why, as a result (a byproduct) of this temperature, the atmosphere will hand you a dime, while space won’t.
I’ve explained the ‘physical mechanics’ here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272652
and here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272746
Radiative physics often invoke 2-way (or multi) directional vectors of energy. Planck’s book begins with these sentences on page 1:
“Radiation of heat, however, is in itself entirely independent of the temperature of the medium through which it passes…
… the state of the radiation at a given instant and at a given point of the medium cannot be represented, as can the flow of heat by conduction, by a single vector (that is, a single directed quantity)…
All heat rays which at a given instant pass through the medium at the same point are perfectly independent of one another, and in order to specify completely the state of the radiation the intensity of radiation must be known in all directions, infinite in number, which pass through the point in question; for this purpose two opposite directions must be considered as distinct, because the radiation in one of them is quite independent of the radiation in the other.
http://tinyurl.com/y98xg4dl
If the grandfather of quantum physics can talk about it, what is stopping you?
I’ve been looking at plenty of papers that examine the quantum effects of radiation – typically referring to the 2 plates in a vacuum set up or similar, as in Eli’s green plate experiment.
EG,
http://tinyurl.com/yaty3w8k
Other physicists have no trouble speaking in microscopic terms of the energy exchanges between two bodies. Only you (and Claes Johnson it seems) have a problem with quantum mechanics, seeming to pit all understanding on the state of the science in 1920.
Of course there is physical activity at the micro scale, and of course these interactions have impacts on all bodies regardless of their temperature, but right at the point you could simply admit this, you have to tie things up in thermodynamic knots.
“No, no we can’t discuss this any more because you used a trigger word and now the God of Thermo has been invoked and will punish heresy!” “Though you pretend to speak the thermo bible, I know you are really a heretic, and therefore we may only speak in the language of the book!”
I guess I can thank your obstinacy for getting me to do my own reading.
I also think you’ve got it the wrong way around. It’s the real world that experiences radiative energy impacts from hot to cold and cold to hot and T1 = T2, but your bible is only interested in thermal equations, not quantum mechanics.
barry,
We’ve obviously reached an impasse. We’re talking past each other, and so will never agree on the approach to this problem. I can’t get you to acknowledge my perspective, and you can’t get me to acknowledge yours. We’re wearing different glasses.
However, we have actually reached the heart of the matter – people’s perception of CAUSE and EFFECT in the “greenhouse” discussion.
If you’ve paid any attention at all to what I’ve been writing on this issue for the last couple of years, you might’ve noticed that my problem with the idea of the “GHE” is NOT its two-way approach to radiative transfer per se. It is rather directly related to how its approach allows people to confuse cause and effect. It takes an apparent EFFECT of something and presents it rather as somehow the CAUSE of that something. It simply flips reality on its head.
Be both agree, barry, that the presence of the atmosphere on top of the surface of the Earth clearly forces the average sfc T at dynamic equilibrium to be higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there. It simply INSULATES the constantly solar-heated surface.
The question is: What CAUSES this effect?
We’re looking, then, for the distinctive physical atmospheric attribute or quality ultimately responsible for the higher T_s, not just a tool applied on the way there, as some kind of means to an end; the puppeteer, not his strings, the wielder himself, not the implement facilitating his work.
That root cause is the atmosphere’s (thermal) MASS. The internal (thermal) radiation is but a connecting device, and an effect of temperature. Necessary, indeed. But not itself the CAUSE of anything.
A note on the incessant bickering about whether it’s all just a matter of semantics or not.
When it comes to scientific discourse, semantics is everything! The words you use and the way you define them shape your understanding of what you observe and try to analyse. They dictate the way you think about it, the way you see it. If you disagree on semantics (terminology, definitions), you disagree on the very nature of what you’re studying. How to describe it, how to explain it.
This is why, barry, that I won’t play along with your question about radiation and its alleged impact. Not because I’m somehow “afraid” of discussing it. No. Because it’s based on a flawed premise, the premise that “back radiation” is somehow itself a CAUSE of temperature. Again, here is what you wrote:
“The (heated) warmer object does indeed receive radiation from the cooler object it is warming with its own radiation, and therefore radiates more to compensate.”
You refuse to admit that your actual claim (implication) here is that the “back radiation” will have a direct THERMAL impact on the warmer object. You can’t get away from this fact. It’s for all to see.
Semantics and the peculiar way in which the “GHE” is explained through the action (impact) of atmospheric “back radiation” on the surface have got you utterly confused as to cause and effect …
Comparing 2017 (year to date) with other years in the UAH record…
It ranks the fourth highest anomaly.
It ranks the highest non-el Nino year anomaly.
2017 is currently at 0.30C.
The most recent non-el Nino warmest year was 2014 at 0.18.
(As the lower trop lags el Nino by several months, el Nino years were those with at least two months of extended el Nino conditions at the beginning. 2014 is rejected as an el Nino year, as only the last 2 months were el Nino
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php )
Divided by 11 (this month) instead of 10. I also shifted to the UAH data page that gives anomalies in the thousandth of a degree. Amending:
2017 to date av anomaly is 0.372
Currently the 3rd highest anomaly in the record (with 2 months to go before the year is out).
Here are the rankings for the top 10 years:
2016: 0.512 [Nino]
1998: 0.484 [Nino]
2017: 0.372 [Neut] (year-to-date)
2010: 0.335 [Nino]
2015: 0.266 [Nino]
2002: 0.217 [Nino]
2005: 0.199 [Nino]
2003: 0.186 [Nino]
2014: 0.178 [Neut]
2007: 0.160 [Nino/Nina]
2013: 0.136 [Neut]
Once again, due to the lag of several months betwen Nino and LT respnse, those years that had at least 2 months of Nino at the beginning were counted as Nino years, while those years with a couple Nino months at the end of the year were not counted as Nino years.
This is the index I used to reckon Nino years.
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
There are other indices which give slightly different results (MEI, JMA, BoM).
Interesting data Barry. Useful data
barry, you have to be careful with trying to link UAH temperatures to El Nino. An El Nino may be “finished”, based on sea temps, but the released heat energy remains in the atmosphere for some time. Same with the start of an El Nino.
Also, just because the ENSO waters do not get to exactly “official” El Nino values, they are still releasing some heat energy. For example, 0.4C anomaly in ENSO 3.4 releases almost as much as 0.5C.
From the data at your link, the first two months of 2014 were 0.4C and 0.3C. The last three months were 0.4C, 0.6C, and 0.7C.
For 2017, May, June, and July had 0.3C, 0.4C, and 0.4C respectively. (And, of course a very active hurricane season.)
IOW, I wouldn’t exactly call 2014 and 2017 “neutral”.
Plenty of other years had ENSO values like 2017, and 2017 followed immediately on from a la Nina (which lags to the following months in the lower trop temperature). 23017 also had negative values at the beginning and currently. Definitely not an el Nino year. If the current la Nina conditions stick (Sept/Oct), 2017 may yet be a la Nina year. For now, it’s safe to classify as neutral.
you have to be careful with trying to link UAH temperatures to El Nino. An El Nino may be “finished”, based on sea temps, but the released heat energy remains in the atmosphere for some time. Same with the start of an El Nino.
Yep, that’s why I allowed for lag.
Also, just because the ENSO waters do not get to exactly “official” El Nino values, they are still releasing some heat energy. For example, 0.4C anomaly in ENSO 3.4 releases almost as much as 0.5C.
Global temps do not correlate well with near-ENSO conditions. It’s only for major events that there is a clearly perceptible correlation. An ENSO event must sustain over many months to have an impact.
IOW, tropical Pacific anomalies do not determine global temp month by month, but do have a global impact for major events.
muffle
you have to be careful with trying to link UAH temperatures to El Nino. An El Nino may be “finished”, based on sea temps, but the released heat energy remains in the atmosphere for some time. Same with the start of an El Nino.
Yep, that’s why I allowed for lag.
Also, just because the ENSO waters do not get to exactly “official” El Nino values, they are still releasing some heat energy. For example, 0.4C anomaly in ENSO 3.4 releases almost as much as 0.5C.
Global temps do not correlate well with near-Enso conditions. It’s only for major events that there is a clearly perceptible correlation (as long as volcanoes don’t muffle the el Nino effect).
IOW, tropical Pacific anomalies do not determine global temp month by month, but do have a global impact for major events.
3rd quarter ocean heat loss probably explains some of the recent records in the troposphere:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/11/3rd-quarter-ocean-heat-content-data-has.html
Which I have been saying.
In the meantime overall oceanic temperatures are +.261 c as of nov.14, down .1c from 3 months go or so.
Not completely. UAH went up from Sept, RSS went down. Processing methods have some impact. We’ll get a little more clarity when the surface results for Oct roll in. Shouldn’t be long now for GISS, then NOAA. Met Office by early next month.
RSS LT was a record for its month for Aug, Sept, Oct. UAH LT for Sept and Oct.
Without looking, what do you expect SSTs for those months were in the surface records, and what do you think Oct SST anomaly will be?
Rather – which direction do you think SSTs were/are headed in the surface records?
barry…”Well get a little more clarity when the surface results for Oct roll in. Shouldnt be long now for GISS, then NOAA. Met Office by early next month”.
What’s taking so long, I guess NOAA is having trouble massaging the results to give the expected output?
NOAA doesn’t get the data from weather stations all over the world until the 8th of each month. Some roll in a little later, even months later. Dunno how long it takes for sea surface data to come in.
2017 will lose its 3rd place (and become 4th) if the average of the next 2 months anomalies is less than 0.148 C.
With a cursory look, I can’t find any part of the record that dropped so precipitously over 2 months, so it seems virtually certain that ENSO-neutral (or la Nina) 2017 will wind up at 3rd place in the annual rankings.
— Kristian says:
November 13, 2017 at 5:46 AM
SkepticGoneWild says, November 13, 2017 at 1:13 AM:
In one ear and out the other. It would not be fair or kind to continue this discussion with someone who has an obvious mental defect.
Hahaha! Why so angry? You know the two of us are on the same side of this discussion. You know I dont agree with Norman. You know that I know there is no RADIATIVE GHE. You know that I know that there is therefore also no AGW and that more CO2 in the atmosphere cannot and will not make the surface any warmer.–
What increase the surface and air surface temperature is the energy from sunlight.
There numerous factors which reduce the energy loss from the surface and I think greenhouse gases are factor of reducing the energy loss from the surface.
CO2 isn’t magic that can have a large effect. Lacking any CO2 doesn’t cause global temperature to become -18 C.
Lacking any CO2 might lower average temperature by 1 C- of course lacking any CO2 would kill all plants on Earth- life needs CO2.
Lacking any H2O vapor [and resulting in no clouds of H20] would have much larger effect on global temperature. Likewise without water vapor, all land life dies [they would dry up and become dust]. But if restrict or isolate only the radiant effect of H20 gas, it’s lack of existence would lower average global temperature by about 2 C or more.
So if this correct, and all the CO2 does warm earth by 1 C- that’s pretty big effect. Though not big effect in terms being able to measure it. Since can’t measure it, I have uncertainly of it’s effect, it could be .5 to 4 C, but I believe it’s been proven it can’t cause more than 4 C. Or it’s proven that doubling can’t cause more than about 1 C increase in global temperature- Which is unfortunate, because we live in an icebox climate- it’s too cold.
gbaikie says:
“You know that I know there is no RADIATIVE GHE.”
Bald-faced raw stupidity.
Do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation? Or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?
DA…”Do you think CO2 doesnt absorb infrared radiation? Or do you think the Earth doesnt emit any?”
Can you give me figures on how much IR is radiated from every nook and cranny on the surface, plus the oceans, and how much is absorbed by CO2?
What happens to the rest, the vast majority of the IR, which is not absorbed?
gbaikie says:
You know that I know there is no RADIATIVE GHE.
Kristian says, it.
I sometimes make effort to quote things, but it seems
– and – doesn’t convey this.
gbaikie says:
“So if this correct, and all the CO2 does warm earth by 1 C- thats pretty big effect. Though not big effect in terms being able to measure it”
We can easily measure it — and are.
ben santer claimed he found the fingerprint.
gbaikie…”ben santer claimed he found the fingerprint.”
ben santer is a legend, in his own mind.
DA…”We can easily measure it and are”.
Where are the citations? I don’t even care if they’re peer reviewed, just show me proof that CO2 is warming the planet.
Third quarter ocean heat loss probably explains some of the recent records in the troposphere:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/11/3rd-quarter-ocean-heat-content-data-has.html
David Appell…”From Clausius, On the nature of the motion which we call heat (1857):
By means of a mathematical investigation given at the end of the present memoir, it may be proved that the vis viva of the translatory motion alone is too small to represent the whole heat present in the gas; so that without entering into the probability of the same, we are thus compelled to assume one or more motions of another kind.
https://web.lemoyne.edu/giunta/CLAUSIUS57.html
Thanks for link. You should get right into what Clausius is talking about here. This is heady stuff for 1857, some 4 decades before electrons were discovered. How he knew all this stuff amazes me. He knew molecules were an amalgamation of atoms but he could not possibly know the role played by electrons, which is major. Without electrons, there can be no molecular bonds.
There is nothing unusual from the quote you provide. Please note that Clausius begins with this statement: “On the nature of the motion which we call heat (1857)”.
Like I said, Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy (vis-viva) of atoms in motion. Motions is any motion, whether translational, rotational, or any kind of vibration.
In the quote, he is alluding to the fact that heat in a gas is more than the straight translational energy (rectilinear motion). Collisions produce rotational energy as well, and likely more kinds of oscillations. In essence, he is stating the obvious, that the total kinetic energy making up heat is more than the straight translational energy.
DA…with regard to your question about what modern scientists think of heat, as opposed to Clausius, does it matter if they are wrong?
Many modern scientists have tried to redefine heat as energy in transit. They have forgotten that heat is a separate phenomenon and the statement should read: heat ‘transfer’ is energy in transit.
PS – get over Clausius. He is an old man now and you are ignoring all of 20th century physics. Which just makes you look stupid.
DA…”PS get over Clausius. He is an old man now and you are ignoring all of 20th century physics. Which just makes you look stupid”.
Until Clausius is PROVED wrong I am sticking with him. Any 20th century physicist who claims heat is other than Clausius described it is wrong. Plain and simple.
If heat is energy in transit, then radiation is heat.
Thanks.
David Appell
I might disagree with your definition of heat based upon the definitions used in physics. Heat has different definitions in the nonscientific realm, in physics it is specific.
I think heat itself is defined as just the amount of energy total that transfers and is in units of joules. I was corrected on this on another thread. Heat flow is in watts and is not just radiation. It is specific to the NET radiation a surface encounters. It can have more than one input, in equations with more than two objects the equations get more complex. Radiation alone would be an energy flow but not a heat flow. A heat flow is a specific concept dealing with NET radiant flows.
“A heat flow is a specific concept..”
Yes, heat is only a defined concept in your thoughts, heat does not exist in nature. Instruments can not measure your thoughts.
Energy (U,Q,W) in various forms does exist in nature and can be measured by instruments.
ball4…”Yes, heat is only a defined concept in your thoughts, heat does not exist in nature. Instruments can not measure your thoughts”.
Good grief, what does a thermometer measure? Ask 99.99% of people and they will claim thermometers measure heat. Even 99.99% of scientists will give that reply.
On a hot summer’s day when temperatures soar, what do people talk about…heat.
What do you think thermometers measure? And when the thermometer indicated a temperature of 100 C for water, would that not be hot water? If you stuck your finger in it would it not burn you?
Better still, bring your finger close to an electric stove ring glowing cherry red. What’s that stuff you feel? Now touch it. What’s that stuff causing your skin to turn black?
In the electrical/electronics field, much time is spent in heat dissipation research. Heat is not good for electrical/electronics devices but not enough heat is counterproductive as well. According to you, researchers are wasting their time since heat is simply a thought, an idea.
Gordon 4:31pm: “Good grief, what does a thermometer measure?”
Not heat. A mercury thermometer for example measures how much a pool of mercury expands or contracts from the avg. KE of the object being measured constituent particles banging against that little silver bulb on the bottom.
“Even 99.99% of scientists will give that reply.”
Physics is not a political voting machine Gordon, physics depends on meaningful, proper experimental proof.
“According to you, researchers are wasting their time since heat is simply a thought, an idea.”
Not according to me Gordon. Heat actually is a simple thought, an idea of measurement as expressed by Clausius no one including you has proved otherwise.
According to me Gordon cannot keep straight all his stories about heat. You and all your 99.99% would be better off communicating with actual stuff that exists in nature. No object contains heat.
Ball4
It’s taken me awhile to get the hang of it. The monkey wrench was “heat transfer”. Maybe a remnant of when heat was used in place of internal energy?
“Internal energy transfer” makes more sense.
ball4…”Not heat. A mercury thermometer for example measures how much a pool of mercury expands or contracts from the avg. KE of the object being measured constituent particles banging against that little silver bulb on the bottom”.
You have just defined heat. Heat is the average KE of the gas molecules.
Kinetic energy is a generic term that describes ALL energy in motion no matter what energy is referenced. We have names for the particular energy in each case. If the KE involves the movement of electrons, we call it electrical energy. If the KE involves movement within a gravitational field we call it gravitational energy.
If the KE involves movements of particles at the atomic level we call it thermal energy.
Think about it. If you inject heat into the system, the particles move faster and the temperature rises. We describe the gas as becoming hotter. It has more heat (thermal energy). A thermometer may measure the relative levels of KE but it also measures relative levels of heat.
Please don’t refer to Wikipedia, they have some really strange notions on there. Think it out for yourself. I think Wiki may be the source of this notion of heat as an abstraction.
Think about it Gordon 3:54pm, if you write inject (the avg. KE of the gas molecules) into the system then you make no sense.
Keep your stories straight Gordon. Heat is best and accurately defined as a measure of the average KE of the constituent molecules banging against the mercury thermometer bulb.
Use heat that way consistently and your writing will make physical sense. Or better yet drop the heat term and don’t agonize over heat defn. There is never ever any need to use heat term.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat is the average KE of the gas molecules.”
So what is the heat of a photon gas?
Of a plasma?
Of EM radiation? (If there’s no heat there, you must think you can stick your hand into a laser beam and not suffer a burn.)
Gordon, if sunlight isn’t heat, how does it cause a sunburn?
Gordon, how does the Sun heat the Earth?
Your refusal to answer this basic question shows what a fake you are.
DA, if there is heat in EMR, please explain how it is possible to concentrate the SW solar rays to a focus by passing them through a converging lens of ice which remains at a constant temperature of 0C i.e. not melting, and those rays then ignite a flammable object.
If the heat in a laser beam can melt steel, why does the heat in the beam not melt the laser body?
The earth is warmed by the sun once the sun’s energy reaches the earth by radiation. A sunburn is not caused by heat contrary to your assertion.
— Norman says:
November 14, 2017 at 8:49 AM
David Appell
I might disagree with your definition of heat based upon the definitions used in physics. Heat has different definitions in the nonscientific realm, in physics it is specific.–
And specifically in physics, dictionary definition:
“Physics: Heat seen as a form of energy arising from the random motion of the molecules of bodies, which may be transferred by conduction, convection, or radiation.”
Is there a more specific one, you like better?
gbaikie says:
“Physics: Heat seen as a form of energy arising from the random motion of the molecules of bodies, which may be transferred by conduction, convection, or radiation.”
“Transferred by radiation.”
QED
–David Appell says:
November 15, 2017 at 6:20 PM
gbaikie says:
Physics: Heat seen as a form of energy arising from the random motion of the molecules of bodies, which may be transferred by conduction, convection, or radiation.
Transferred by radiation.
QED–
The radiant energy can be absorbed by a body- once the radiant energy is absorbed by a body, the energy can transferred as heat or it can radiated [dependent on the surface temperature of a body]
A molecule isn’t a body [no surface and no temperature], but it’s considered that radiant energy can be absorbed by a molecule. And the kinetic collisions of gases is also heat. Or gas molecules as group transfers heat.
Or I would say any single atom or molecule, can not absorb radiant energy [can not change radiant energy into heat energy]. But a photon has momentum and can transfer this energy- a photon can transfer kinetic energy to a single atom or molecule. And average velocity of molecules a volume of gas has a temperature [and let’s say, something similar to a surface]
norman…”I think heat itself is defined as just the amount of energy total that transfers and is in units of joules”.
What kind of energy is being transferred? Is it not thermal energy?
A joule is defined in electrical terms as the amount of heat generated when 1 amp of current passes through a resistance of 1 ohm. That is referred to in the electrical field as Joule heating. You can feel it by bringing your hand close to it. On quite a few occasions I have actually burned a finger touching a hot resistor.
” A heat flow is a specific concept dealing with NET radiant flows”.
No heat flows physically during radiative heat transfer. As I claimed before, the transfer is an apparent transfer, not a real transfer.
When you have a hotter body close to a cooler body, heat transfer refers to the reduction of heat in the hotter body and an increase of heat in the cooler body. A heat transfer ‘appears’ to have taken place but heat is not transferred physically.
What happens is the heat is converted to EM in the hotter body and the EM is converted back to heat in the cooler body. That process is NOT reversible.
If you want to talk Net anything, you must apply your summation in the proper context. When talking heat, sum heats, when talking EM, sum EM quantities. You cannot sum EM quantities and claim them as a heat transfer.
Gordon Robertson says:
“What kind of energy is being transferred? Is it not thermal energy?”
No — there is more to this world than your naive interpretation of heat as only the kinetic energy of atoms or molecules.
This is heat in EM radiation. There is latent heat. There is heat from nuclear fission and fusion. And so on.
“What happens is the heat is converted to EM in the hotter body and the EM is converted back to heat in the cooler body. That process is NOT reversible.”
why isn’t it reversible?
you are merely labeling some things as heat and other things as not heat, totally arbitrarily and without reasons.
Sunlight is certainly heat — it heats the Earth and the other planets in the solar system.
DA…”If heat is energy in transit, then radiation is heat”.
Sorry, that would be electromagnetic radiation and you have already agreed that heat is not a property of EM. EM is a transverse wave with an electric field in one plane and a magnetic field in the other. EM has intensity and a frequency, but no heat. It must be converted to heat when absorbed by matter.
Never agreed to that — and you can’t link to anywhere that I did. You’re just lying again.
Heat is energy. An EM wave carries energy. Ergo, an EM wave carries heat.
How do you think the Sun heats the Earth? (You’ve ignored this question since forever.)
GR wrote:
“Like I said, Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy (vis-viva) of atoms in motion.”
You completely, utterly, purposely ignored the quote of Clausius I gave.
Are you actually TRYING to look stupid? I simply cannot come to any other conclusion, because no one who has the slightest familiarity with science could be as stupid as you portray yourself.
DA…”You completely, utterly, purposely ignored the quote of Clausius I gave”.
It would help if you got off your high horse and participated in an intelligent conversation. You are obviously trying to bait me into giving answers you want to hear and equally obviously I am too intelligent to be drawn into your alarmist games.
You are the idiot here.
I did not ignore the quote of Clausius you supplied, totally out of context. I put it back in the context Clausius clearly intended, which was NOT to claim translational energy of molecules was not enough to describe heat. He claimed their were other forms of energy involved due to collisions. That’s damned obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of gases.
If you are too stupid to get that there’s no point in me playing your stupid, pseudo-science games.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I put it back in the context Clausius clearly intended, which was NOT to claim translational energy of molecules was not enough to describe heat. He claimed their were other forms of energy involved due to collisions”
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong, as always for GR.
Clausius said molecules can have energy in rotational and vibrational motions as well as translational motion.
Do you know what “translational” motion is, Gordon? If so, what?
Why do you consider Clausius the last word on anything? He died in 1888….
DA…”Why do you consider Clausius the last word on anything? He died in 1888.”
Same reason I credit Planck with quantum level theory, Einstein with relativity theory, and Newton with f = ma. Newton died in 1727.
You can go on and on. How about Ohm’s Law, Kircheoff’s Law, Faraday, who discovered the magnetic field around a current carrying conductor. There is Dalton, Gay Lussac, Boyle and so on. Most of the equations we apply in science today came from the 19th century and earlier.
How about Maxwell from around the same time as Clasuius, or even Boltzmann?
Clausius was a particularly brilliant scientist who could explain his theories subjectively. You should try to follow some of his reasoning in his works, especially his development of the theory of internal energy, without having the evidence of internal atomic forces.
It was Clausius who equated heat with work and internal energy to produce the 1st law of thermodynamics. He also produced the theory of entropy at the same time he developed the 2nd law.
Fundamentally, none of this theory has changed. All that’s changed is some modern scientists incorrectly interpreting what Clausius said without proving it.
He even taught math in his works. Absolutely brilliant, yet down to Earth.
Clausius had no knowledge of quantum theory. He even lived before the electron was discovered.
Why are you quoting someone who lived before very important parts of physics were discovered?
Wow, Clausius taught math.
Who didn’t?
You like to avoid vast areas of physics because you don’t understan it and think electrical circuit was the end of physics. This makes you look very, very silly.
Back radiation, new attempt.
1. Yes, back radiataions have an effect, the first principle must be respected.
2. No, back radiations can not be added to the solar flux. Back radiations are in output of the thermodynamic calculation and not in input. Back radiations depend on the temperature gradient which is itself an output of the thermodynamic calculation.
All this confusion comes from the hypothesis on the fixity of the temperature gradient (before feedbacks) in the quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect.
phi 2:38am, in 1. you write the 1st principle must be respected then you immediately disrespect the 1st principle: “back radiations can not be added to the solar flux.”
Back this 2. disrespectful assertion up with an experiment please. Show us how that can work in nature & thus is not disrespectful of the 1st principle.
Despair!
Heating is a given, an entry of the problem. Back radiation an output, a result.
If you do not understand that, I can not do anything for you.
I see phi concedes without contributing an experiment supporting his 2. Since phi disrespects the 1st principle in 2., there actually is no experiment that can back phi’s physics.
Too funny.
You are like climatologists, you solve a problem starting from his answer.
Goodbye Ball4.
I solve problems with experiments. Still no phi experiment. Phi retreats from doing actual science.
Sure, as usual, phignoramus dodges, when his idiocy ( here two self contradictory propositions ) is pointed out.
Of course he never was and never will be able to provide any experiment or even the least physical argument supporting his nonsense.
Instead, when hard-pressed he cowardly says “goodbye”.
And insanely sooner or later he is going to try again and again his drivel hoping that the outcome will be any different with a forthcoming interlocutor.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
phi says:
“2. No, back radiations can not be added to the solar flux. Back radiations are in output of the thermodynamic calculation and not in input.”
Backradiation (=radiation from the atmosphere) carries energy. This energy is real, and it ultimately strikes the surface.
DA…”Backradiation (=radiation from the atmosphere) carries energy. This energy is real, and it ultimately strikes the surface”.
It’s recycled energy that was generated initially by the surface with losses. There were more losses when the GHG molecule radiated isotropically.
On top of that, it was the solar energy that supplied the heat initially. You cannot recycle solar energy in that manner to raise the surface temperature beyond what it is heated by solar energy alone. Recycling solar energy to increase its warming effect would be perpetual motion.
GR claimed:
“Its recycled energy that was generated initially by the surface with losses.”
It’s energy directed towards the surface that would otherwise escape to space.
Hence the surface warms.
“On top of that, it was the solar energy that supplied the heat initially. You cannot recycle solar energy in that manner to raise the surface temperature beyond what it is heated by solar energy alone.”
False.
How does the blanket you sleep under at night warm you?
GR says,
On top of that, it was the solar energy that supplied the heat initially. You cannot recycle solar energy in that manner to raise the surface temperature beyond what it is heated by solar energy alone.
How does insulation in your house keep it warmer?
Don’t be a wimp — answer this.
David Appell
Your series of posts makes logical sense whereas it seems Gordon is doing what Gordon does, make up stuff and see if it sticks.
Will he respond? I am not sure where he comes up with his ideas from.
David Appell,
“How does insulation in your house keep it warmer?”
Do you have a single example of an insulation calculation using the notion of backconduction?
No, you will not find any. Conductive forcing and radiative forcing are thermodynamic heresies.
Nobody ever talked, talks or will talk about “back conduction”. That’s ridiculous meaningless bullshit that doesn’t exist in physics nor in climate science. Just a made up thing by phignoramus.
Provide a single example where this concept appears in GHE theory or shut up.
What one talks about is back radiation not “back conduction” that is just a flux of energy ( not heat !) from cold to hot. And this is a perfectly valid and ubiquitous concept in modern physics and statistical mechanics. Of course it is absent in classical 19 th century classical thermodynamics since this is a early very limited macroscopic theory, the atomic hypothesis being not yet established or accepted.
Ordinary insulation and thus thermal conduction of course involves a quite similar flux from cold to hot at microscopic level as opposed to a similar larger flux from hot to cold and the macroscopic thermodynamic heat flow is (as well as for radiation transfer) systematically the net result of two counter flowing fluxes at microscopic level.
As already pointed out, it is standard teaching even at undergraduate level. Feynman states it very clearly in his lectures (my emphasis in paragraph 43 6 on thermal conductivity calculation in a gas):
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_43.html
So first you now must stop lying and claim erroneously that back radiation and counter flowing energy at microscopic level is nowhere made use of except in GHE theory.
And second you now have to back up your view that this use would in any respect, according the obscure and ridiculous phignoramus who never made any contribution to physics, be at at odds with classical thermodynamics.
Show us why you disagree with standard physics and Feynman, Nobel laureate of physics, or shut up.
If you dodge once more as a miserable coward you’ll get nothing more than a last scornful smile from me.
gammacrux,
You do not respond to any points and, of course, Feynman does not talk about radiative forcing.
Only noise.
Pitiful.
gamma, phi: Both of you should enter backconduction into a google search box.
Ball4,
Yes, well seen. There is no difference in principle between conduction and radiation from the point of view of one or two flows.
… and yet no one calculates insulation using a two-stream model.
Because back conduction as back radiation depends on the temperature profile which is itself an output and not an input of the thermodynamic calculation.
Maybe in limited principle, phi, as radiative energy transfer is a far more complicated phenomenon than conductive energy transfer which can be represented by a single directed quantity.
Photons (EM waves if you prefer) however are emitted in a hemisphere of directions from a plane surface each quite independent of the other; for this purpose radiative transfer between two bodies means the two opposite directions must be considered as distinct. The 1st principle must be respected.
Ball4,
“The 1st principle must be respected.”
Insufficient. The second must also be respected. By far the safest way to do this is to limit oneself to net flows.
But again, the essential question is not there. The essential question is that back-radiations are not known a priori. Except in the quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect where the notion of radiative forcing does not respect the second principle.
“..the greenhouse effect where the notion of radiative forcing does not respect the second principle.”
Notion of RF is immaterial. The “newly born” photons emitted by the atm. (at various temperatures) incident on the planet surface in the process of being absorbed by that surface increase universe entropy thus the 2nd principle is respected as well as the 1st principle.
Ball4,
No.
The notion of radiative forcing is based on the assumption of a fixed gradient. This hypothesis implies the non-differentiation between back radiations and solar flux. it is therefore by definition that radiative forcing is deprived of the possibility of repecting the second principle.
“The notion of radiative forcing is based on the assumption of a fixed gradient.”
There is no such fixed gradient assumption phi, the gradient (I think you mean lapse) is free to equilibrate in the system naturally consistent with 1,2 LOT.
As I just explained, the atm. gives birth independently to photons (EM waves) some of which are incident on the planet surface and are absorbed (and some inexplicably reflected) respecting both 1st (conservation of their energy) and 2nd (universe entropy increased) principles.
Ball4,
“the gradient (I think you mean lapse) is free to equilibrate in the system naturally consistent with 1,2 LOT.”
No, before feedbacks, the thermal gradient is assumed to be fixed.
“universe entropy increased”
So what ? We are not trying to calculate the temperature of the universe but that of the surface.
And I add that the thermal gradient is not free to evolve according to the laws of thermodynamics in GCM because it is parametrized on the basis of empirical values. There is no thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect anywhere.
Ball
Nope.
“Back conduction” as coined by phignoramus for the flow of energy from cold to hot in thermal conduction is unknown in physics. Conduction deals with the macroscopic phenomenon of heat flow ( or electric charge flow) that describes the net heat (or electric charge) current.
“Back conduction”, whenever in use, is a quite different thing that has nothing to do with what we talk about here.
To tell that in spite of phi’s ridiculous claims the 2 LoT is respected Ball says:
which is of course (except for physics illiterate as phi) nothing else that just an other way of stating that “the 2 LoT is respected”
And guess what this idiot of phignoramus replies ?
Hilarious.
“”Back conduction as coined …”
gamma, back conduction was coined long before phi et. al. used it and you can find many physics papers using the term simply by googling. Now, I have learned and observe phi may not use the term correctly according to experiment and observation of common atm. physics processes, but that is another matter.
phi: “So what ?”
Your reply indicates your level of physics accomplishment is not high enough to effectively apply the 2nd principle to atm. processes phi. Reading me will not add to your understanding, try simple experiments, observations and reading about the thermo. grandmaster’s experiments in the hard fought battles to come up with the 2nd principle.
View entropy as a virus that has escaped from the physics lab and come into everyday use by people who think they know physics but do not. Energy is a meaningful physical quantity that is constant in an isolated system; entropy is a measurable physical quantity that can only increase in a real, isolated system.
There is no hope for your pet theory if it does not respect 1st, 2nd principles.
Ball4,
I made a stupid answer for your idiotic argument. It is not because the entropy of the universe increases that the maximization of the entropy of the climate system is guaranteed.
There is no maximization of entropy of the climate system phi, the system entropy continuously increases as the climate system is part of the universe.
Ball4,
“The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system’s entropy never decreases. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy.”
[Wikipedia]
And now, I summarize:
1. You have no more than David an example of insulation calculation by means of backconduction.
2. You have not demonstrated how your two independant flux model can respect the second principle.
3. You did not understand that the concept of radiative forcing could not verify the second principle.
4. You do not know that the notion of radiative forcing is based on the hypothesis of the fixity of the thermal gradient.
5. You do not understand that back radiations are in output and not in input of thermodynamic computation.
6. You think back radiation can be added to the solar flux.
But you say:
1. “Your reply indicates your level of physics accomplishment is not high enough to effectively apply the 2nd principle to atm.”
2. “There is no hope for your pet theory if it does not respect 1st, 2nd principles.”
I do not claim at a particular level in physics and I have no personal theory.
But that, you do not understand either.
And now, I summarize:
1. You have no more than David an example of insulation calculation by means of backconduction.
I never wrote I did, only that conduction is represented by a single directed quantity.
2. You have not demonstrated how your two independant flux model can respect the second principle.
I have done so by experiment as has Dr. Spencer.
3. You did not understand that the concept of radiative forcing could not verify the second principle.
RF is immaterial for the atm. discussion you invoke, however RF is fully consistent with 2nd principle.
4. You do not know that the notion of radiative forcing is based on the hypothesis of the fixity of the thermal gradient.
There is no hypothesis of the fixity of the thermal gradient, the gradient naturally equilibrates with ambient by conduction, convection and radiation,
5. You do not understand that back radiations are in output and not in input of thermodynamic computation.
Backradiation is part of the equilibrated climate system which can get unbalanced by RF but returns to steady state equilibrium over time.
6. You think back radiation can be added to the solar flux.
The 1st principle demands this under conservation of energy, your theory has no hope of being real without conserving energy and having constant entropy. The climate system is not an isolated system, the universe is the isolated system (so far as we know).
Read up on atm. thermo. texts phi, you have a lot to learn.
The climate system is a system that is far from thermodynamic equilibrium. As such there is continuous entropy production and energy dissipation. The same occurs in living creatures.
That’s why “dissipative structure” was coined by Prigogine to describe such systems and distinguish them from equilibrium and near equilibrium ordinary thermodynamic systems.
In such systems there is no known established extremum or variational principles such as entropy maximization for equilibrium of isolated systems or entropy production for near equilibrium systems such as ordinary linear conduction.
I told patiently phignoramus about his ignorance in this respect years ago…
In vain, he stubbornly ignores it, insults his interlocutors pointing it out and claims arrogantly he knows better than professional scientists.
Hilarious example of Dunning Krge effectr at work.
gamma, back conduction was coined long before phi et. al. used it and you can find many physics papers using the term
Ball
Well as far as I can see “coined” in applied physics and technology ! An example of the use of “back conduction” is for instance in this paper
It’s technology, not theoretical physics and again has absolutely nothing to do with the one way energy flux from cold to hot in the mechanism of thermal conductivity or radiative transfer invoked by phi.
It’s just ordinary heat flow and conduction from hot to cold here in a thermoelectric refrigerator. The device transports actively heat from cold to hot and of course simultaneously heat flows spontaneously back by conduction through the device itself.
Ball4,
But no, there is no alteration of the gradient before feedbacks. The theory is like that.
Otherwise, thank you for completing my summary.
Finally :
The applicability of a second law of thermodynamics is limited to systems which are near or in equilibrium state. At the same time, laws governing systems which are far from equilibrium are still debatable. One of the guiding principles for such systems is the maximum entropy production principle. It claims that non-equilibrium systems evolve such as to maximize its entropy production.
[Wikipedia]
Now, good night.
Ball4,
I will briefly take each point.
1. “conduction is represented by a single directed quantity.”
As is the radiation. As thermodynamic phenomena, there is no difference on this point.
2. “I have done so by experiment as has Dr. Spencer.”
Dr. Spencer did no such thing. By definition, independent back-radiation can not verify the second principle.
3. “RF is fully consistent with 2nd principle.”
No. The notion of radiative forcing is based on the non-distinction between backradiations and solar flux, which in itself constitutes a violation of the second principle.
4. “There is no hypothesis of the fixity of the thermal gradient, the gradient naturally equilibrates with ambient by conduction, convection and radiation”
No, and you should have understood it now. I remind you of the general hypothesis basing the quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect: The thermal gradient is independent of radiative exchanges.
5. et 6. your answers show that you do not know what a thermodynamic calculation is.
I paraphrase you: “Read up on atm. thermo. texts Ball4, you have a lot to learn.”
I wish you good reading and send you my best regards.
“As is the radiation.”
No phi your reading and testing is non-existent as you display/cite none ex-wiki, radiation is emitted in a hemisphere of directions (vectors) from a plane surface, conduction in only one vector. Planck 1912 Treatise: “in order to specify completely the state of the radiation the intensity of radiation must be known in all the directions, infinite in number”.
Dr. Spencer’s experiments providing ample direct evidence of effects of radiation from atm. to ground are here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
and my simple test:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272175
Clausius 2nd principle ninth memoir p. 365: 2. The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
The thermal gradient is NOT independent of radiative exchanges and also includes convection called atm. radiative convective equilibrium see Manabe Strickler 1964, Manabe Wetherald 1967 which also discuss RF from LW and SW and for phi: thermodynamic calculations. Also, many papers in the 1990s developing the LBLRTM (for example Clough Iacano 1995) showing the non-fixity of the thermal gradient.
I wish phi good treading as phi has cited nothing but wiki to read, a sometimes laughable, unreliable, no testing, no author source of thermodynamics reading. However, the wiki is cited at the bottom which phi will want to read up on also.
Now, good day phi.
Backyard non-peer reviewed unpublished experiments don’t count. So sad.
David Appell,
Back radiations are a consequence and not a cause of heat flow, so they can not be added to the solar flux. Once again, the confusion comes from the quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect which does not contain a thermodynamic calculation but poses the hypothesis of a fixed gradient (before feedback).
And finally. The general hypothesis that bases the quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect is as follows:
The thermal gradient is independent of radiative exchange.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272473
I was discussing difference between the warming of 100 meter cube vs 100 diameter sphere.
If made cube taller, a solid rectangle 100 by 100 and 200 meter tall. And had 100 by 100 meter side facing the sun, it would have lower average temperature as compared to 100 meter cube. And if made cube “shorter” so say rectangle 100 by 100 and 50 meter “short” and 100 by 100 side facing the sun,
the shorter rectangle would have higher average temperature as
compared to 100 meter cube.
What would the temperature of 100 by 100 meter slab of copper
10 meter thick if 100 by 100 side faces the sun.
Or 1 meter square sheet of copper with blackbody coating which is 10 cm thick?
gbaikie…”What would the temperature of 100 by 100 meter slab of copper 10 meter thick if 100 by 100 side faces the sun”.
maybe I’m missing something here g. How are you ever going to verify the result? Even if you have a 100 x 100 metre slab, if you set it up in our atmosphere with our convection, it would depend largely on where you place the slab. And it would depend on the prevailing winds and how convection affected it as the heat of the slab was drawn off by conduction directly to the atmosphere.
I won’t get into other issues like the surface quickly turning green as it was oxidized by the atmosphere.
Whereas you could likely guesstimate the temperature there is no way for you to verify it.
I don’t know why we are veering off into thought experiments.
Gordon Robertson…”maybe Im missing something here g. How are you ever going to verify the result?”
Normal way, have a hypothesis, test it.
But it does seem to me that you are missing something.
Cube [or slab] in space environment, at earth distance from the sun, what’s it’s temperature.
General thing known, different surfaces in space environment have different temperatures. As simple example, white paint cooler than black paint. And coolest surface I know of is what called quartz over silver [OSR}, Ie:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Gp-2B7AUPVUC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=space+quartz+over+silver&source=bl&ots=1JKB0bSDIb&sig=KJr4HAjtboLSWebYbjjlNoSNiQw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP_NCU9sDXAhUX5mMKHbI1B0sQ6AEISDAL#v=onepage&q=space%20quartz%20over%20silver&f=false
But that’s not what I am really talking, instead my question is what is warmer a solid cube or a solid sphere.
It’s called a Gedankenexperiment.
gbaikie
You: “I was discussing difference between the warming of 100 meter cube vs 100 diameter sphere.”
Me: Despite David Appell’s objections, I am still think the cube would recieve more light than the sphere. If you cut a sphere in half, the flat surface is smaller than one side of the cube.
I don’t know enough about copper to comment on that part of the question.
gbaikie
If one side of a 100 meter high cube received 1 w/m2 from the sun, the cube would recieve 10,000 watts.
A 100 meter high sphere, only 7854 watts
The horizontal component of the two objects is parallel to the incoming light, so is irrelevant. That just leaves the perpendicular element……the area of a square vs. a circle.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
“If one side of a 100 meter high cube received 1 w/m2 from the sun, the cube would recieve 10,000 watts.”
So?
A rotating sphere receives S/4 of the Sun’s irradiance (S).
A cube receive only S/6 over its entire area.
PS: This includes the cosine factor. (Of course.)
David
A 100 meter high square has a lot more surface area than a 100 meter high circle, so it would recieve more energy from the sun.
You want to compare a rotating cube vs. a rotating sphere? How does that affect the irradiance?
I do think a rotating object would have a higher temperature than a stationary one because the rotating object would continuously present a cooler surface (maintaining a greater temperature gradient), but that has nothing to do with irradiance.
David
I’ve approached this problem mostly as a brain teaser. Could you send a link explaining how rotation affects irradiance?
As said here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272347
BUT Earth does have ocean and ocean is transparent to
sunlight, and per cubic meter it has 4,184,000 joules of per K degree. Whereas copper is 385 joules per kg
and cubic meter is 8960 kg:
8960 times is 385 is 3,449,600 joules per K degree.
So water and copper are similar in terms of volume.
[Iron/steel closer than copper but its less conductive of heat.]
And for example heat transfer explained here:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html
In particular the link it gives:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/conductive-heat-transfer-d_428.html
Example there:
A plane wall is constructed of solid iron with thermal conductivity 70 W/moC. Thickness of the wall is 50 mm and surface length and width is 1 m by 1 m. The temperature is 150 oC on one side of the surface and 80 oC on the other.
The conductive heat transfer through the wall can be calculated
q = (70 W/m oC) (1 m) (1 m) ((150 oC) – (80 oC)) / (0.05 m)
= 98000 (W)
= 98 (kW)
And it has calculator at that page
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
“Me: Despite David Appells objections, I am still think the cube would recieve more light than the sphere. If you cut a sphere in half, the flat surface is smaller than one side of the cube.”
What is the length of the cube’s side compared to the radius of the sphere?
David
Both objects are 100 meters high. One side of cube is 100 meters. Radius of sphere is 50 meters
In that case the sphere and the cube don’t have the same surface area.
snape…the surface area of the hemisphere facing the Sun is 15,707.95 square metres. The surface area of the cube face is 10,000 metres.
It seems the sphere has a surface area 1.5 times the area of the cube face.
That’s based on A = 0.5(4pi.r^r) for the hemisphere.
Makes sense. As you said, if you shave off the corners of the cube till it’s a hemisphere, the surface area exposed to the Sun will increase.
Gordon
“Makes sense. As you said, if you shave off the corners of the cube till its a hemisphere, the surface area exposed to the Sun will increase.”
I’m not sure if we’re on the same page.
Yes, the surface area exposed to the sun will increase, but the total energy recieved will be less.
If the cube recieves a total of 10,000 watts from the sun, a sphere with same height only gets 7854 watts. That’s 1/2 the surface area of the hemisphere exposed to sunlight.
This lesser amount can be explained by considering angle of incidence (as you mentioned earlier).
For me, though, it’s easier to disregard the irrelevant dimension, and simply think about a circle vs. a square…..the square is obviously larger. Either way, the result is the same.
snape…”its easier to disregard the irrelevant dimension, and simply think about a circle vs. a square”
Then it would not be a sphere but a planar surface like the cube face in the form of a circle. In that case I’d agree with you.
The hemisphere facing the sun is actually an infinite number of circles, in ever-increasing, circumference from a dot to the full circle you describe. The outside edge of each circle forms the surface area of the sphere and that area is 1.5 times the area of the cube face.
As you say, the angle of incidence comes into it but if the sphere was positioned like the cube I don’t think that would have nearly the impact we experience here on Earth when our pumpkin is at a lesser angle.
Gordon
Yes! That’s how I see it too and the math seems to work.
Angle of incidence seems to be the same idea:
“Angle of incidence is a measure of deviation of something from “straight on”
The vertical dimension (perpendicular to oncoming vector) gets all the force/energy. The “flat” dimension gets nothing. As the angle deviates away from 90 degrees the percentage of vertical decreases and the percentage of flat increases. If the angle is 0 or 180 degrees, the flat dimension is all that’s left. There is no surface left for a force to be applied.
(Disclaimer: I’ve never actually studied angle of incidence. Don’t quote me!)
snape…”I am still think the cube would recieve more light than the sphere…”
It’s the surface area of the sphere you are interested in compared to the face of the cube oriented toward the Sun.
However, you are also concerned with the angle of incidence with which the solar rays strike the sphere’s surface. It’s not a trivial solution.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Its the surface area of the sphere you are interested in compared to the face of the cube oriented toward the Sun.”
No – you also have to take into account the rotation of the sphere, which gives another factor of S/2.
GR, how does the Sun heat the Earth?
DA…”GR, how does the Sun heat the Earth?”
Elementary, DA, always glad to teach you alarmists.
At the Sun end, electrons in a super-heated plasma convert internal solar energy to EM. The EM travels through space and is intercepted by the Earth’s surface. The surface absorbs the EM and electrons in the surface convert the EM back to heat.
No heat travels through space. As you may know, the Sun is gradually cooling as it emits EM and eventually it will cool to a Red Giant.
Hope that helps.
“Eventually cool to a Red Giant”
Not gonna happen
Stars do not cool to the Red Giant phase.
They are bigger and hotter and more luminous, although since they are so large their surface temperature is a little lower.
Git thee to a libury
bob…”Eventually cool to a Red Giant
Not gonna happen
Stars do not cool to the Red Giant phase.”
Maybe you could take your own advice re getting to a library. I remember my studies in astrophysics quite well from university.
A star’s internal explosions push out the way to oppose the inclination for it’s own gravity to collapse it. As the star’s fuel (hydrogen) runs out, it’s gravity also gets lower allowing it to expand outwardly. It will cool as well and it’s light output will move into the infrared hence the term red giant.
From the red giant phase, the star can explode in a supernova, or collapse into a very dense neutron star. Some astronomers claim it can collapse into a black hole but I think they have been hanging around with too many mathematicians.
BTW…you cannot believe everything you read in a wiki. Some of the explanations in there are serious sci-fi. No one has seen a red giant form but the conversion from a star in equilibrium between it’s fuel and gravity to one like a red giant, where the fule is running out, makes good sense.
Gordon
I think it’s really simple. A sphere has 3 dimensions, but the dimension moving directly away from the sun’s rays is irrelevant. That leaves two dimensions….a circle.
Same with a cube. The square that faces the sun receives light. The dimension moving away recieves nada.
Gordon
Here’s a different way of thinking about the problem:
Pretend you’re the sun staring directly at one side of a cube. All you would see is a big square. Now shave off the corners until the square becomes a sphere. Still think the sphere would receive greater irradiance?
Sorry, “until the CUBE becomes a sphere”.
snape…”Still think the sphere would receive greater irradiance?”
Yes. I showed mathematically elsewhere that the sphere has 1.5 times the surface area as one cube face.
The question for me is how much more irradiation the sphere would receive. We know from our experience on Earth that the Equator receives the strongest irradiation with irradiation dropping off toward the poles. It does not drop off a whole lot in the Northern Hemisphere summer but it does drop off.
The cube would receive maximal irradiation across it’s face but would the greater surface area of the sphere absorb more?
Assume a blackbody surface which is insulated on back and sides is 120 C at earth distance from the Sun.
So 100 by 100 meter slab of copper 10 meter thick if insulated
on back and side is 120 C at the surface and since insulated
eventually the entire slab is 120 C.
Now you remove the insulation from the back and leave it on the sides. So back will radiate 1367 watts.
It will continue radiate 120 C if the heat from the front can conduct through the 10 meters of copper at a rate of 1367 watts per square meter.
In simple terms the formula requires a temperature difference- no heat will conduct if temperature are the same.
At 125 C copper has Thermal Conductivity of 400:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
If temperature of 120 at top and temperature at bottom is 100 C then 8 million watts can be transfer by 10,000 square meter
or 800 watts per square meter.
800 watts is not 100 C.
How much can be conducted thru 1/2 of 10 meters- 5 meter?
16 million watts or 1600 watts
If difference is 120 to 105 C thru 5 meter it’s 12 million watts or 1200 watts per square meter
And difference is 105 C to 90 C thru 5 meter it’s 12 million watts- 1200 watts per square.
Or copper has a heat gradient [of course it does].
Or when take insulation off the bottom, middle of slab does not get heat transfer to it from top until cools, but there is lots of heat available from the bottom part of slab.
1200 watts per square meter blackbody is 381 K [108 C].
I will assume the bottom is about 90 C or there is heat gradient of 3 C per meter. If copper were better heat conductor is would be less than 3 K per meter and worse more than 3 K per meter. Carbon Steel has 51 rather than 400 at 125 C
120 C to 105 C thru 5 meter of steel is:
1.53 million watts or 153 watts per square meter.
Now lets go back with it being insulated and remove insulation from bottom and one side which 10 by 100 meters.
Very roughly speaking, that side will have heat gradient from 120 to 90 C, it will have average temperature higher than bottom because the less distance of metal, but as rule
let’s say to never get heat conduction from copper more than 10 meter from it, from top it’s 10th of area- a 1000 square meters of sun lit area and vertically one has 1000 square area which has heat gradient caused by bottom side which 120 to 90 C.
Or started with all the areas insulated and just removed one side, one wouldn’t had heat gradient and it would be 120 C.
and side has 1/10th area of bottom the side would be much warmer than bottom only wasn’t insulated. Or side starts off once insulation is removed at 120 C and would stay somewhere near 110 C after cooling, and part of side furthest from top would cooler than the part of side nearest the top- highest part near 120 and lowest part of side about 100 C.
And when you remove all insulation from sides and bottom, you get same pattern- the sides warmer near top and edge near bottom being the coolest- cooler than middle of bottom.
Or roughly one has sphere within the “box” which warmer than 5 sides. Or Sphere with 8 corners and bottom four corners the coolest. And four corners of top cooler the top middle part of 100 meter square and warmer than sides and bottom 100 meter square.
And could say it’s the warmer top corners which makes Cube or rectangle and warmer than sphere. And could also say the “insulative effect” of cooler lower four corner also make it warmer than a sphere.
I would say if cut sphere in half- so have hemispheric dome shape, and have base or flat part face sunlight, it’s warmer than cube. Same goes a four sided pyramid with one of it’s bases facing the sun.
But a spinning sphere is more complicated, but I would say spinning sphere is warmer than non spinning sphere.
And I think or guess that a spinning sphere is warmer than ideal thermally conductive blackbody. Or according to rules of ideal thermally conductive blackbody- it’s should not matter if the sphere spins or not.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
this is what I am watching trend is lower of late.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM
“The over all trend for year 2017 is down and Sep. will not be as warm as Aug.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-261192
DA…”Salvatore Del Prete says:
September 5, 2017 at 8:27 AM
The over all trend for year 2017 is down and Sep. will not be as warm as Aug.”
I applaud Salvatore for his courage in going out on a limb and making predictions. A stark contrast to you weak-kneed alarmists who cannot offer a definite prediction and who waffle when asked to provide proof that CO2 has any affect on temperatures whatsoever.
Rather, you and your heroes at NOAA and NASA GISS have resorted to rewriting the historical temperature record retroactively. When the record shows no warming in real time, go back and ‘adjust’ it retroactively. To establish record warming years, drop the confidence level to as low as 35% to make it happen.
Scientific fraud!!
Gordon Robertson
As a person who willfully and intentionally posts incorrect physics (quite often I might add) why are you standing in judgement of NOAA and accusing them of fraud? Shouldn’t you clean up your own act and do your best to present real truthful science instead of your made up version based upon the whims of your imagination?
If you posted credible, real science, and when an error you made was pointed out to you and you corrected it then your post might have a little substance. As it stands you are more of a fraud then the agencies you are accusing of such.
When you clean up your own act and seek the truth maybe I will pay attention to your blusters pompous posts. Take care and do better. Your intentional dishonest science is not of value. Post real science and we can all learn something from it.
norman…”As a person who willfully and intentionally posts incorrect physics (quite often I might add) why are you standing in judgement of NOAA and accusing them of fraud?”
For one, my understanding of physics as you evaluate it is based on your personal understanding of physics which you have proved to be minimal, even abysmally wrong.
NOAA has admitted to slashing over 75% of it’s real data from global surface stations then entering less than 25% of the data into a climate model to synthesize the data it slashed. That is scientific fraud and NOAA is currently under investigation by a US senate committee for such fraud.
When you throw out real data then replace it with synthesized data, what would you call it? When their synthesized data leads to record global temperatures, when the actual data does not show those records, what would you call it? When NOAA reduces confidence levels as much as 50% to make a year (2014) a record, what would call it?
norman…”If you posted credible, real science, and when an error you made was pointed out to you and you corrected it then your post might have a little substance…”
Again, I have applied much of the atomic theory I espouse over decades in the fields of electronics and electrical. How much physics have you applied? The nonsense you put out here about two way heat transfers that are impossible to verify experimentally is sheer pseudo-science.
The shame is that you cannot even see the error in your reasoning, nor can your fellow alarmists. Not one of you understands basic atomic theory, that bonds in molecules are due to electrons, and that all EM in the atmosphere is generated by electrons.
Until you understand the relationship of EM and the electrons that generate it, you will never understand why heat cannot be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
Gordon
“The nonsense you put out here about two way heat transfers……..”
Why do you keep saying this? Norman doesn’t believe in a two way heat transfer. Neither does Ball4. Neither does Barry, Tim Folkerts or myself. Yet you are forever claiming otherwise.
We all agree heat only flows one way, from hot to cold.
“..and that all EM in the atmosphere is generated by electrons.”
This is wrong. Practically NONE of the EM in the atm. is generated from constituent molecule electronic transitions Gordon, you have yet to learn there is not enough energy for that transition (order of 100x too small). The EM in the troposphere is mainly “generated” from rotational and vibrational transitions from molecular excited to base state for which there is plenty of energy.
Perhaps in Gordon’s work molecular electronic transitions from excited to base state dominate, but not in the lower atm. See Bohren 1998 Chapters 2,3.
Gordon Robertson says
” all EM in the atmosphere is generated by electrons. ”
Um, Nope
bob…”Gordon Robertson says
all EM in the atmosphere is generated by electrons.
Um, Nope”
Show me what else does emit EM and how electrons are not involved. Put another way, what else is there in an atom capable of emitting electromagnetic energy?
ball4…”The EM in the troposphere is mainly generated from rotational and vibrational transitions from molecular excited to base state for which there is plenty of energy”.
According to your theory, molecules are nucleii bound together with duct tape. What the heck do you think causes atoms to bind together to form molecules?
There are two charges in an atom, the positive charge of the proton which is bound to the nucleus and the negative charge on the electron, which is free to orbit the atom or even leave it. Furthermore, only the electron can change energy states, absorb-ing and emitting EM as it does.
It is the interaction of the electron’s -ve charge and the proton’s +ve charge that holds atoms together. The -ve/+ve interaction pulls the electrons and proton together and that bond vibrates around a centre. When two or more atoms bond into a molecule, the molecule itself has different polarities based on the type of electron bond.
Molecules can rotate following a collision and they can vibrate due to the electron-proton bond described above, but all radiation is due to the electron.
EM is produces by the electric charge on the electron which carries a magnetic field due to its electric charge. When the electron drops from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, it radiates EM that has the intensity of the difference in energy levels the electron dropped plus a frequency related to the overall intensity.
There is no doubt that the electric and magnetic fields in EM are generated by the electric and magnetic fields in the electron.
Forget molecules, they are nothing more than an extended arrangement of electrons and protons. There is nothing mysterious in a molecule, it is the electron in the bond that produces EM.
snape…”Why do you keep saying this? Norman doesnt believe in a two way heat transfer. Neither does Ball4. Neither does Barry, Tim Folkerts or myself. Yet you are forever claiming otherwise”.
Because you all justify the transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that provided the heat. You justify that being OK since the fictitious NET energy flow is positive.
In Rabbet’s stupid experiment, most of you are justifying heat being transferred from the green plate to the blue plate, causing a warming in the blue plate. Until you get it that radiation from that green plate does absolutely nothing to the blue plate, you are in essence claiming that heat can be transferred from the cooler green plate to the warmer blue plate at the same time heat is transferred from the warmer blue plate to the cooler green plate.
Gordon
Gordon
“Because you all justify the transfer of heat from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface…..”
We have said no such thing. Pay attention!
Energy can move in opposing directions, but heat transfer is always from warm to cold (surface to atmosphere).
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “EM is produces by the electric charge on the electron which carries a magnetic field due to its electric charge. When the electron drops from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, it radiates EM that has the intensity of the difference in energy levels the electron dropped plus a frequency related to the overall intensity.”
Yes this is true for UV, visible and near IR EMR. It is not at all correct with Mid-IR. Your Chemistry knowledge is very lacking. This is the subject I studied and you show little understanding of what is going on.
With Mid-IR the individual atoms in the molecule have some polarization. In water the Oxygen atom pulls the electrons closer to it making the O of water negative and the two Hydrogen molecules have a little positive charge. It is the bulk charges that is responsible for the lower energy IR emissions. The lowest energy levels for electron’s moving up and down orbitals in Hydrogen atom are the Pfund Series. The electron transition will give you an IR photon of around 4.5 microns. CO2 mid-range IR is at 15 microns, much less energy than the very weakest of electron transitions.
The bulk charge of the atoms are involved in bending, stretching. The electrons do not make transitions in energy levels for these EMR emissions. They stay in their same energy levels and move along with the entire atom.
Gordon 7:05pm on “duct tape”: when any excited molecule drops from a higher rotational energy state to a lower rotational energy state (possibly the base state), it radiates an EM wave (a photon if you will) that has the energy (alternatively freq.) of difference in quantum energy levels the molecule dropped. Line broadening in a gas blurs this line a bit in a few different ways.
Rotational and vibrational molecular states are quantized too Gordon and you remain oblivious to this process in the atm. Your work in electronics must have never encountered a need to study these other quantized effects.
In the atm. around 288K quantized rotational and vibrational lines are observed heavily populated, the electronic levels lines are found nil populated. cf. Bohren 1998 Chapters 2,3.
Gordon needs to take after barry and do some reading on subjects with which Gordon is unaware.
We are expecting a fall due to La Nina conditions. If you consider three months to be a “trend” this explains your continual “ICE AGE” … “OOPS” … “ICE AGE” … “OOPS” … “ICE AGE” … “OOPS” ….
GISS Oct global anomaly is in. Like UAH, it’s up from last month.
Jul: 0.81
Aug: 0.87
Sep: 0.80
Oct: 0.90
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Warning: numerology ahead
This brings GISS warming from 1880 to exactly 1.00 C (+/- of course).
That’s in the model total warming = (total trend)*(total interval).
Using a quadratic fit, the acceleration comes to +0.016 C/dec^2.
Projecting the linear fit to 2100 gives an anomaly then of 1.6 C. Projecting the quadratic fit gives a 2100 anomaly of 2.9 C.
(The science says warming will accelerate from here, under business as usual, but that will not continue in the latter decades of this century.)
Course description for a physics course at the University of New South Wales.
PHYS3113 THERMAL PHYSICS AND STATISTICAL MECHANICS
Thermal physics and statistical mechanics is concerned with the study of macroscopic and mesoscopic systems. Both aim to understand the properties of systems and processes that occur in such systems. Statistical mechanics links mesoscopic and macroscopic properties of systems of matter and radiation with the fundamental microscopic physics (classical and quantum mechanics). It puts the concepts of thermodynamics on a firm foundation of mechanics.
——————————————————
https://www.physics.unsw.edu.au/courses/phys3113-thermal-physics-and-statistical-mechanics
As far as I can tell, Kristian would tell this uni that they’re doing it wrong. I wonder what it takes to get him to discuss mesoscopic interactions.
barry, “mesoscopic”? Seriously?
You are really desperate.
“Mesoscopic” deals with the fact that at near-particle levels, matter is no longer the same. Atoms are individuals. The electron shells have varying electrical fields. The potentials between valence electrons also vary. All of this must be taken into account, in design work. That is why dust control is so important in the manufacture of semi-conductors. Just one foreign molecule can affect the characteristics of a p-n junction. But, even at quantum levels, you can not create energy. The laws of physics still apply. Sorry.
You’re barking up the wrong tree. You found a “link” that you believe will allow you to violate the laws of physics! Nope. Sorry.
The cold green plate can not raise the temperature of the hotter blue plate–except in pseudoscience.
No anger 6:02am, the cold green plate CAN raise the temperature of the hotter blue plate as shown by testing.
Yes indeedy,
Experimental evidence shows that the addition of the green plate raises the temperature of the blue plate, all other conditions remaining constant.
So what do the Gods of science say when experimental evidence goes against your theory?
Its an easy experiment, I did it myself, confirming the rabbet’s hypothesis.
So the hypothesis that a cold object cannot cause a warmer object to get warmer is falsified.
“So the hypothesis that a cold object cannot cause a warmer object to get warmer is falsified.”
Blatant pseudoscience, but it’s funny.
anger, YOUR comment has been “blatantly” falsified. By experiment. Hilarious! More laughs pseudo-please.
Obviously trick, you were doing your “experiment” in the dark, with only the light from your glowing cabbages.
That’s quite a trick.
Consequently, when the other party finally devolves to insults and false accusations, I know I’ve won – op. cit. anger 10/27
trick, I didn’t insult you. I just held you accountable for your own nonsense.
But, if you need to feel you won something, by all means, go for it.
Bob does a home experiment and thinks he is doing science. LMAO.
g*e*r*a*n, why do you not repeat the experiment that Ball4 did?
Hi bob,
You too think that cold can warm hot?
Do you also accept Ball’s erroneous coclusion that because a warmed apple beside a cool beer has a higher temp than when its beside a cold bowl of ice this somehoe means the beer is adding energy to the apple?
The reason for the higher temp is the same for a higher temp of a heated instrment in a room at 70 degrees vs a room at 50 degrees..
If i asked you to tell me why the difference on an exam and you answered more or less energy from the room was being added to the heated instrument i would fail you.
If you get the silly notion that cold can warm hot out of your head , the reason for the difference becomes obvious..
Heres another example to help you figure out the correct reason for the temp change..
If i take a heated instrument thats sitting in a 70 degree room and place it in a 70 degree pool of water… Its temp will decrease…. (And not because the water adds less energy than the air)
First one that can give me the correct reason why the temp changes gets a gold star
Svante, for some reason, I cannot find cabbages that glow in the dark.
Why don’t you do the “experiment”?
(Or better yet, learn some actual science?)
“The reason for the higher temp is the same for a higher temp of a heated instrment in a room at 70 degrees vs a room at 50 degrees..”
No. The apple at 60 degrees had stabilized in T in the room temp. next to the ice water. Even though the room was at 68F because the ice water at 32F was blocking the radiation from the 68F stuff.
The colder mug of beer than the warmer apple replacing the ice water caused the apple to stabilize at a higher temperature +3F at 63F, same physics as Dr. Spencer demonstrated.
Easily replicated experiment, try it. Report your data.
Fail
Anybody else ?
trick rambles: “same physics as Dr. Spencer demonstrated.”
trick, there you go again, trying to cling to Dr. Roy. If you are so convinced “cold” can warm “hot”, and you have your “experiment” to prove it, why not submit for a Nobel Prize?
Email Dr. Roy, and see if he would join you in the effort.
PhilJ
YOU: “If i take a heated instrument thats sitting in a 70 degree room and place it in a 70 degree pool of water Its temp will decrease. (And not because the water adds less energy than the air)
First one that can give me the correct reason why the temp changes gets a gold star”
I would like the gold star
https://www.extron.com/technology/img/thermalmgt1_ts_2.jpg
Water conducts energy about 24 times as much as air. The heated object will conduct away energy in water at a much faster rate than in air.
Yep you get the gold star!
Iikewise colder air conducts at a faster rate than warmer air 😉
PhilJ
Now to get your Gold Star.
Yes indeed colder air will conduct heat away form a hot object faster than warmer air.
Now can you provide a rational explanation of why the colder the air is the faster it conducts heat away?
I have one, I would like to see how you explain it.
Sure,
The colder the air is the higher its density and thus more molecules are coming in contact with the heated surface.. More molecules means less KE/ molecule is needed to cool the heated object and the temp drops
anger 6:44pm: “..why not submit for a Nobel Prize?”
While my data and results from actual testing may be new and novel to anger, the data are not new and novel to physics.
PhilJ
I do not think your answer as to why colder air conducts heat away from a hot object faster than warmer air is correct.
You chose this density approach. I think this is the incorrect path. You could do your same test in water which has very little density change over temperature ranges.
I think it has more to do with the energy distribution of the particles than the change in collisions. Also, a warmer gas would have more collisions with the surface than a colder gas and have more probability of energy exchange.
This page has good graphics showing the effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
They show equal mass blocks in different collisions and the effects.
When a block is moving and hits a stationary one all the energy is transferred to the stationary one (cold in atomic sense)
They show what happens when two equal speed objects collide. No net energy transfer takes place, they both bounce off with the same energy.
With cold air you have many more slow moving low energy particles that the higher vibrating molecules can transfer large amounts of energy to. As the air warms it contains a greater population of higher energy molecules so in each collision with the surface, less energy is transferred to the higher energy molecules.
Yes i guess my answer was incomplete because of course each collision can transfer more energy when the air is cooler..
I still maintain though that the increase in number of molecules due to their increased density is a factor.
Water is a much better conducter because it is so much denser than air …
Just to clarify , the heat lost through conduction will depend on the number of molecules colliding with the surface and the amount of KE transferred per collision .. The less collisions the greater amount of KE transferred per collision will be required to equal the power input to the heated object
g*e*r*a*n says:
November 17, 2017 at 6:02 AM
Haha, I thought the exact same thing. Is this guy for real!?
He just found a word and immediately thinks it has him covered. He hasn’t even bothered to find out what it actually applies to, what it’s actually about. He’s just like Norman!
https://tinyurl.com/yawbg6tv
“Mesoscopic physics
We are used to dividing nature into a macroscopic and a microscopic world. The macroscopic world contains the things we can see with our eyes. The microscopic world contains the building blocks of matter, the atoms and molecules. We know they are there, but we can’t see them directly. The mesoscopic world is in between the microscopic and the macroscopic world. The boundaries are not sharp, but can be roughly indicated. Mesoscopic and macroscopic objects have in common that they both contain a large number of atoms. A first difference is that the macroscopic object can be well described by the average properties of the material from which it is made. The mesoscopic object, in contrast, is so small that fluctuations around the average become important. A second difference is that the macroscopic object obeys (to a good approximation) the laws of classical mechanics, whereas the mesoscopic object is so small that these laws no longer hold. Mesoscopic and microscopic systems both belong to the wonderful world of quantum mechanics.
Mesoscopic physics addresses fundamental physical problems which occur when a macroscopic object is miniaturized. The field originated some ten years ago, motivated largely by the electronics industry.”
This doesn’t pertain AT ALL to what we’re discussing, whether you can just add up photons in a radiation field and end up with TWO separate and oppositely directed macroscopic fluxes or not. Such “hemifluxes” would not be “mesoscopic” in any sense of the word. They would be just as macroscopic as the one-way heat flux; simply ‘half’ heat fluxes.
barry, like all the “Norman” types out there, simply cannot fathom the fact that the PHYSICAL REALITY of a purely one-way flux is simply being MATHEMATICALLY CONCEPTUALISED (by mentally splitting the radiation field into two directional hemispheres; you look one way, then you look the other) into a two-way transfer. The two-way macroscopic transfer is NOT a real thing. It is not a feature of the radiation field itself. The very notion is completely illogical and defies the whole purpose of statistical mechanics. It is a concept, a simplifying model description only. It works. MATHEMATICALLY. CONCEPTUALLY.
No, the “radiation” (photons) from a cooler place to a warmer place does NOT have an “impact” on that warmer place. That is, the a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n of each single photon certainly has a QUANTUM impact on the molecule that experiences it, but the quantum impacts do not add up to a THERMAL impact on the warmer place. Why? Because once we’re talking about thermal properties and effects, we have thoroughly crossed the “thermodynamic limit”, and the photons and their individual effects are a non-factor. They simply do not exist in this aspect of reality. All we have is a radiative FLUX, statistically the probabilistic average of ALL the photons inside the thermal radiation field, a macroscopic movement of radiative energy away from the warmer place and towards the cooler place. Yes, so what happens when the cooler place becomes warmer? Then the temperature difference between the cooler and the warmer place decreases. And what does this lead to? It leads to a change in the photon gas/cloud stretching from below the surface of the warmer object, through the medium separating it from the cooler object, and to below the surface of the cooler object. What happens is simply that the gradient in radiative energy density and intensity through the photon gas/cloud grows gentler than before as you move from the warmer to the cooler object. This reduces the measurable MOVEMENT (‘transport’) of radiative energy through the radiation field, the radiative FLUX.
For the nth time:
It is not the thermal radiation from the cooler object that has a thermal impact on the warmer object. It’s its TEMPERATURE. The temperatures of the objects (and of the medium in between) are what generates and sustains the photon cloud. The very existence of a thermal (blackbody) photon gas or cloud, plus all subsequent changes to it, originate in the temperatures (and temperature changes) of matter. It is not itself an “impactor”, a ’cause’ or a ‘driver’ of change. A change in thermal radiation is merely an effect, an expression, of a change in temperature and/or temperature distribution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_temperature#The_diffusion_of_thermal_energy:_Black-body_radiation
“Thermal radiation is a byproduct of the collisions arising from various vibrational motions of atoms. These collisions cause the electrons of the atoms to emit thermal photons (known as black-body radiation). Photons are emitted anytime an electric charge is accelerated (as happens when electron clouds of two atoms collide).”
https://tinyurl.com/k6jfexl
“We can think of the large number of photons, which are created in the body, as a second body of particles, so that there are two bodies present: the radiating matter (i.e., the atoms, molecules, or electrons) and a cloud of photons, both of which occupy the same volume. The particles in each body interact with those in the other, exchanging energy back and forth. The cloud of photons, though, is created by the matter particles and if more photons are created, then more energy is contained within the photon cloud.”
Kristian says: “Hes just like Norman!”
He’s becoming more like Norman. I had higher hopes for him. He writes in a professional manner, and typically tries to avoid insults, unlike the Con-man. But, he clings to beliefs that he refuses to disavow. He doesn’t understand that pseudoscience is NOT reality. He’ll likely continue to search for “proof” that the laws of physics don’t really apply! At least it’s entertaining.
I read up a paper on “Mesoscopic Description of Radiative Heat Transfer at the Nanoscale,” which included energy exchange between two thermal reservoirs across a vacuum. But it seems Kristian has a new word to play with instead of answering my question.
What tosh. In your own words, what is that paper actually saying? Is it in support of your own private idea about how the term “mesoscopic” applies to thermally emitted photons and thermal radiative fluxes? If so, in what way?
You look at the title alone and think you’ve found what you’re looking for. That’s what Norman does, barry. Please don’t be Norman.
I’m sorry, the word is YOUR new plaything, not mine.
The paper is formulating equations to derive the combined result of the nano-scale emissivities of two surfaces, mirroring meso-scale work done for electron conductance along a wire.
…the conduction through a constriction or nanowire can be described by a scattering matrix that connects the incoming channels to the outgoing channels. It follows that the charge transport can be described by means of a sum over all the modes…
To derive such a formulation for the RHT [radiative heat transfer] case, we consider a situation where the two temperatures are close enough so that T1 = T + ∆T and T2 = T assuming that ∆T << T . Then, we can write the flux as…
For propagating modes, [result notation] is the two interfaces transmission factor (TF) and takes values in the interval [0, 1].
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.2364.pdf
The more I research, the more I see papers and books and physics courses and text books considering two-way energy exchange. Apparently you see all this stuff as “they’re doing it wrong.”
Here’s yet another paper discussing 2-way energy exchange between 2 plates in a vacuum:
http://tinyurl.com/yaty3w8k
See figure 1 in the intro.
I’m seeing radiative transfer equations, descriptions of two-way energy transfer all over the net. How many links would you like?
I can go and have gone elsewhere to find answers. Just not to you, because you are shackled to a particular paradigm that only sees NET flow.
For your consideration:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/103103032/module7/lec31/1.html
And from our host:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
That’s a drop in the ocean. I guess they’re all wrong and you know how to interpret the bible properly.
barry: “The more I research, the more I see papers and books and physics courses and text books considering two-way energy exchange. Apparently you (Kristian) see all this stuff as “they’re doing it wrong.””
+1
This is root cause Kristian self cites & does not cite physics texts or perform experiments. Many have come to your same conclusion independently.
Kristian will cite a web page which means the reader then has to do the work figure out if that web page author cites to experiment and proper physics text.
the a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n of each single photon certainly has a QUANTUM impact on the molecule that experiences it, but the quantum impacts do not add up to a THERMAL impact on the warmer place. Why? Because once were talking about thermal properties and effects, we have thoroughly crossed the “thermodynamic limit”
So the photons absorbed by the warmer object do have an impact, but not if we speak in terms of thermodynamics.
Inch by inch we are prising your fingers loose.
What impact do these photons have at the quantum level? What happens to the object when the photon is absorbed? No need to repeat that you have nothing to say about thermal effects. So avoid that and just talk about the mechanics at play here.
barry…”So the photons absorbed by the warmer object do have an impact, but not if we speak in terms of thermodynamics”.
You are still hung up on the notion that all radiation must be absorbed. Why? What’s the basis of your belief?
Since heat can only be transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body according to the 2nd law, it seems obvious that radiation from the cooler body is not absorbed by the warmer body.
Furthermore, if the energy was absorbed by the warmer body, it should warm. Why doesn’t it?
There is another conundrum. If the hotter body heats the cooler body, (raises it’s temperature) and the cooler body in turn heats the warmer body to raise it’s temperature, can you not see something fundamentally wrong there? The two will continually raise the temperature of each other. Perpetual motion!!
Perpetual motion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Gordon
If you put on a sweater, both the temperature of your body and the sweater will increase. As the sweater warms, it will lose energy at a faster and faster rate. This is what prevents personal motion, as you put it.
When rate of loss equals what your body is generating, both you and the sweater will be at a stable temperature. This same idea applies to all sorts of insulation.
Perpetual, not personal….lol.
“You are still hung up on the notion that all radiation must be absorbed. Why? What’s the basis of your belief?”
Experiment. No Gordon, some incident radiation is reflected, some is absorbed and if not opaque some incident radiation is transmitted.
ball4…”some incident radiation is reflected, some is absorbed…”
What’s the criteria for absorp-tion? Why must any of it be absorbed? I have explained my take using electron energy levels and potential energy, let’s hear your take.
Not trying to set you up for anything, simply curious.
Gordon Robertson
YOU MAKE UP MORE PHYSICS: “Since heat can only be transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body according to the 2nd law, it seems obvious that radiation from the cooler body is not absorbed by the warmer body.”
This is complete made up and actually quite opposite of what any textbook on heat transfer claims.
Your limited knowledge of physics and made up science leads you to totally incorrect conclusions.
YOU CONCLUDE INCORRECTLY AND WITHOUT LOGICAL BASIS: “There is another conundrum. If the hotter body heats the cooler body, (raises its temperature) and the cooler body in turn heats the warmer body to raise its temperature, can you not see something fundamentally wrong there? The two will continually raise the temperature of each other. Perpetual motion!!”
Not even good logic. Why do you think absorbing energy would lead to raising the temperature of a hotter body?
YOU ASK A QUESTION that has been answered several times! “Furthermore, if the energy was absorbed by the warmer body, it should warm. Why doesnt it?”
The amount of energy the hot body is absorbing from the colder body is less than what it is emitting. It is really simple math.
Hot object emits 400 W/m^2. It is absorbing 300 W/m^2 from the colder object. It is still losing 100 W/m^2. Why would you ever conclude that the hot object would have to get warmer by absorbing energy from a colder body?? Where does this insane physics come from? It is not logical or rational.
Now if the hotter object is powered by some energy source so it is receiving a constant input of energy than the amount of energy it absorbs will change its equilibrium temperature.
If you have no surroundings the powered object will have a lower temperature than if you have any other surroundings with some temperature. As the surrounding temperature goes up, then so to will the temperature of the powered object.
You are still hung up on the notion that all radiation must be absorbed.
Wrong, therefore the rest that follows is wrong.
Gordon 6:43pm: “Why must any of (incident light) be absorbed?”
Gordon, understanding what happens when an electromagnetic wave is incident from air on the smooth surface of glass, say, is not especially difficult if one uses the wave language. The incident wave excites molecules in the glass to radiate secondary waves that combine to form (approximately) a net reflected wave given by the law of reflection and a net transmitted wave given by the law of refraction. There is no such thing as a smooth surface, so what is meant is smooth on the scale of the wavelength.
Measurements since time began show incident photons are both reflected and absorbed at every temperature and freq. (and transmitted/refracted if not opaque) so since photons are indistinguishable the reasons for the selection are not well understood afaik.
A mirror illuminated by an incident beam gives rise to a reflected beam. To determine if reflected photons are the same as incident photons would require being able to identify individual photons. But photons are indistinguishable. Cannot tag a photon and follow its progress.
If you want to believe that reflected photons are the same ones as incident photons, you may do so. No one can prove you wrong. But you cannot prove you are right. When faced with an undecidable proposition, you may believe whatever you wish.
Note that in the wave language you are less likely to even ask if the reflected wave (at least partially) is the same as the incident wave. Antenna engineers deal with this all the time.
g*r…”Atoms are individuals. The electron shells have varying electrical fields. The potentials between valence electrons also vary. All of this must be taken into account, in design work”.
Good stuff, g*r….you need to write more. I have been trying to convey basic atomic theory but I am only scratching the surface. I did learn a lot of it through basic electronics theory but norman thinks I’m making it up.
Photon theory is so far above Norm’s head, he would have to rent a Lear Jet just to say he was somewhat close!
He’s hilarious, especially when he attempts his impotent insults.
Gordon Robertson
You are making up your physics. G*e*r*a*n is not a viable source of anything. He is not knows very little physics. He throws out a couple words here and there but can’t understand any of the concepts.
g*e*r*a*n’s only ability seems to be low quality attempts at humor. I already linked to his classic video. He thinks he is so funny, he has to hold back on his humor or we might all die laughing. If you notice this poster rarely talks about physics. Mostly he insults and belittles people and tries to get a response so he can get a few laughs.
Here is a video that fits g*e*r*a*n very well. You might enjoy it. Hope you take a look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z8ZQ3kTSK0
Poor Norm, silly videos are where he also gets his physics “education”. He’s hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
I thought you were the one who got the crowd laughing.
Actually I get the physics from textbook material. The video I linked to was just a quick way to demonstrate heat transfer.
I have linked you to textbooks on more than one occasion. Sorry that you have to be wrong again. It is okay, being incorrect does not seem to bother you. You are wrong about so many concepts and you understand very few and so are not able to correct your flaws even when they are clearly demonstrated.
Con-man, your memory is as lacking as is your knowledge of physics. You don’t seem to recall all the times you’ve been wrong. And, every time you believe I’m wrong it is just due to your inability to understand.
But, keep pounding on that keyboard. Obviously you enjoy fooling yourself.
g*e*r*a*n
When I am wrong I will correct the errors and continue to learn.
I am not sure you know what science is about. Science is seeking the truth about the natural world based upon empirical testing, logic and rational thought process. Mistakes and errors will always come up along the way. Great scientists have been wrong about how they thought nature worked. They learned, grew and were made better for it.
Your errors are not about my lack of understanding. They are completely made up physics. You make claims that a hot object cannot absorb energy from a cooler object. That is made up physics and not a lack on my part. The only problem is you do not adapt and revise your flaws but are actually proud of how ignorant you are. I think you are proud to be uneducated and unlearned.
There is no law against making up your own physics. You make up your own stuff and make fun of the people who know the real deal. Whatever makes you happy I guess.
The con-man demonstrates his lack of understanding: “You make claims that a hot object cannot absorb energy from a cooler object.”
A basic 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.”
I’m quoting a physics course. Here’s another quote.
Both mesoscopic and macroscopic objects contain a large number of atoms. Whereas average properties derived from its constituent materials describe macroscopic objects, as they usually obey the laws of classical mechanics, a mesoscopic object, by contrast, is affected by fluctuations around the average, and is subject to quantum mechanics.
What you’re talking about is the microscopic scale – individual atoms/photons.
This is the bit that Kristian seems to deny is a valid pursuit.
Statistical mechanics links mesoscopic and macroscopic properties of systems of matter and radiation with the fundamental microscopic physics (classical and quantum mechanics). It puts the concepts of thermodynamics on a firm foundation of mechanics.
I don’t know what it takes to get him to describe the 2 plate set up in terms of statistical mechanics, what it takes to prise his frozen fingers off classical thermodynamic formulations. I chanced upon this physics course description as I was searching for something else, that bridges the three scales. He must think the Uni of New South Wales is doing it wrong. He doesn’t believe there IS a bridge. He doesn’t believe that anything happens at the micro/meso scale in the 2 plate set up, only at the macro scale.
You found a “link” that you believe will allow you to violate the laws of physics!
What tosh. Teaching physics at these different scales in one course is not breaking any laws of physics.
“Teaching physics at these different scales in one course is not breaking any laws of physics.”
Agreed, but twisting that teaching IS breaking the laws of physics.
barry, it will always come back to “cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
If you learn that, it will keep you away from pseudoscience.
A Brit with average IQ moving from Australia to the USA increases the average IQ of both Australia and the USA.
See if you can grasp the analogy.
des = desperation.
See if you can grasp the analogy.
One day you might try to engage with arguments instead of offering up fluff.
I was responding to your fluff.
You thought that was fluff?? So you didn’t get the analogy then – as expected.
g*e*r*a*n
But different levels of cold can alter a powered objects equilibrium temperature. Above Tony even stated such.
As he stated, if you have two different surrounding temperatures (say 20 C and 26 C) and the same powered objects in each environment, the powered objects in the warmer surroundings will reach higher temperatures than they will in the room with the colder temperature because the rate of heat loss is determined by the temperature gradient. The less the gradient the lower the heat loss, but with the same energy input the objects will be at a higher temperature.
Here is Tony’s explanation in his own words: “If a powered object (which would come to a certain temperature without a cooling influence, due to its power supply) is cooled, it will come to a lower temperature than that certain temperature. If it isnt cooled as much, it comes to a higher temperature. Why? Because it isnt being cooled as much, and its internal power supply hadnt gone anywhere, so will be warming it up! Its not the energy from the surroundings Norman its the POWER SUPPLY TO THE OBJECT.”
Which isnt cold heating hot. Its an object being cooled to two different extents. Heat flowing from hot to cold in both cases.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272730
Tony
You seem reasonable and intelligent. Good qualities.
Let me see if this post makes sense to you.
In a vacuum, so the only heat flow is radiant energy, you have a powered object with a 1 m^2 surface area and a 400 Watt power input.
With a high emissivity, the surrounding environment is space with a 3 K temperature. This object will reach an equilibrium temperature of around 290 K. This is the lowest temperature it will reach with radiant heat transfer, it is the maximum heat flow loss from its surface. If you add temperature to the surroundings this same object will reach higher temperatures. The surroundings can still be much colder than the powered object but the object will reach higher equilibrium temperatures as you increase the temperature of the surroundings. The cold surroundings are not heating the object but the heat transfer continues to go down as the surrounding temperature goes up.
If your surroundings are 200 K your object will increase in temperature from 290 K to 305 K. No heat flows from the 200 K surroundings to the powered object, but less heat will flow from the object to the surroundings forcing the temperature to rise until a new equilibrium is established.
In the case of cold air conduction. I do agree with with you that the cold air is removing energy from the object. In the case of a powered object in cold air you can have a colder temperature than the equilibrium temperature of a vacuum condition.
If you add -100 K air to the vacuum temperature at reasonable pressure the equilibrium temperature it was at, 290 K, will go down until it reaches a new equilibrium with conduction heat loss.
As you add warmer air the heat flow loss decreases and the powered object can reach higher temperatures.
In a room with 20 C air some powered objects reach an equilibrium with conduction and radiant losses of 34 C. You add 26 C air and the objects increase in temperature. In both cases the air is still considerably colder than the heated objects but the objects can have different equilibrium temperatures. The Earth’s surface is a powered surface, if you change the energy loss rate of the surface it will either get warmer or cooler. Colder surroundings can lead to relatively higher temperatures than other still colder surroundings when it comes to powered surfaces.
With a 400 watt input, in a vacuum, the MAXIMUM temperature the object will reach is around 290 K. Not minimum.
Tony
What you describe is why your physics is wrong and evidence you do not understand radiative physics and maybe should brush up on some. I think you somehow are crossing conduction mechanisms with radiative. Whereas a colder gas will remove energy from a hotter body. A colder surrounding wall will not remove any energy at all from a hot object. I hope you can mentally get over your thought barrier.
What you state is not established science.
The 290 is the minimum, it won’t get any colder but will get warmer when energy from the surroundings limits the amount of heat energy it can get rid off.
What possible physics are you using to declare that 290 K would be the maximum temperature for an object with a 400 watt input and surface area of 1 m^2?
Tony
Please take some time to read this material. The concepts you see in this link are the same as you will find in any heat transfer textbook.
The equations are validated since heat transfer is beyond hypothetical. It is used in real world applications all around the globe. The equations are valid, they work.
If you read this you will understand how you have your physics messed up a bit. Nothing you cannot correct with good input information.
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/112108149/pdf/M9/Student_Slides_M9.pdf
The maximum for 400 W is 290 K. Go lecture yourself.
Tony
So says Tony without a shred of evidence and in violation of established physics.
“The maximum for 400 W is 290 K. Go lecture yourself.”
But you should know, just because you falsely think something to be true does not make it true. All it does is make you delusional.
Would you at least give some science evidence to support you made up statement or will you just push it through based upon the strength of your beliefs that you are right?
You havent explained in any way how theres a violation of established physics by stating that 290 K is the maximum temperature for the object. But please dont let that stop you hyperventilating and waving your arms. If 400 watts input made the object warmer than 290 K, its output would then be higher than its input. The output of an object at 290 K (emissivity = 1) is 400 W/m2. So, like you say, with a surface area of 1 metre squared, the object is emitting 400 Watts.
Input = 400 W
Output = 400 W
As I said, if that input of 400 W made it any temperature above 290 K, the output would be higher than 400 W.
So the maximum temperature for the object is 290 K.
Tony
Thanks for the reply.
I do think we are having a semantic difference. It may not be conceptual.
I think you missed part of my conversation.
I can explain again. The 290 K is the minimum temperature an powered object can attain in a vacuum, it could be the maximum when no surroundings are present. I clearly stated that it is the minimum with no surroundings. It is also the maximum with no surroundings so you are correct with that point.
Will you still be correct with surroundings? The object can still be in a vacuum enclosed by walls. Vacuum does not mean nothing else exists, just the absence of air.
Here: “vac‧u‧um1 /ˈvkjuəm, -kjʊm/ ●●○ noun
1 [countable] a space that is completely empty of all gas, especially one from which all the air has been taken away”
From this link:
https://www.ldoceonline.com/Physics-topic/vacuum_1
If you define vacuum as meaning devoid of anything than the object then the discussion goes to semantic interpretation of words.
An object 400 watts with a surface area of 1 m^2 and emissivity of around 1 in a vacuum (area devoid of any air to eliminate conduction or convection heat transfer) that is surrounded by walls will reach higher temperatures than 290 K if the walls also have temperature. The warmer the walls the higher the equilibrium temperature will rise.
Tony is right. The con-man is wrong.
Nothing new.
g*e*r*a*n
Jump in with your made up physics. You have nothing to support your opinion that my statement is wrong but I have a vast amount of established science saying it is correct. Someday maybe you will open a physics textbook on heat transfer and read it. We can only hope!
All you have is your twisted distortions of reality.
You still can’t understand the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. They apply, in the real world.
As soon as there is any matter introcuced, at a cooler temperature (than 290 K), the object is going to lose heat to it.
You need to start listening to g*e*r*a*n, and Gordon, and the other commenters who know what theyre talking about, time to stop being silly.
Tony
I would much rather listen to established science. Too bad you are so strongly influenced by the non-scientists and their fantasy physics. I linked you to established physics and suggested you read about it. You choose to ignore it and want to accept the unreal.
I am here as a voice of science. I do not mind a skeptical attitude and the questioning of uncertainty. I am really astonished so many of you accept made up physics and will not accept what is established.
YOU POSTED THIS: “As soon as there is any matter introcuced, at a cooler temperature (than 290 K), the object is going to lose heat to it”
You are incredibly clueless of radiant heat transfer and spout complete nonsense that goes completely against the established physics. It is made up, no support at all. Why do you think g*e*r*a*n and Gordon Robertson NEVER link to established science to support their make believe physics. It is exactly because there is no support for it.
With a radiating object it does not lose heat to anything. It radiates at its own rate regardless of the surroundings. The surroundings do not suck energy away from the powered object.
You have even stated this fact yourself. The surroundings do radiate however and this energy will be absorbed by the powered object and will lower the heat rate loss leading to higher temperatures.
If you post your statements I would request some support of them in established physics or will you go the way of the others. Make statements that go against established physics and not support them? I hope not. There are enough of these unscientific posters, we do not need another one.
g*e*r*a*n
I quite well understand both the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and the 2nd. You are the one with messed up views of them. Why don’t you learn what they mean from textbooks and not Postma’s blog, you will see he really knows much less than you give him credit for.
Norm claims: “I am here as a voice of science.”
It doesn’t get any funnier.
Norm washes dishes for a living. He has a pseudoscience degree (Bachelor of Arts), in “kitchen” chemistry, from an institution that no longer even offers that degree. His only introduction to physics is from “links”! He tries to teach physics here, but always gets it wrong (units of “Q”). He believes he can make up for his lack of education with insults.
He’s an affable climate clown.
I read what you linked to. It doesnt contradict what Im saying (obviously). You say:
With a radiating object it does not lose heat to anything. It radiates at its own rate regardless of the surroundings
You just embarrass yourself here. If a nearby object (or surroundings) present are at a lower temperature, of course the radiating object will lose heat to it. Heat flows from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object (or surroundings). In the case of the sun radiating to the planets surrounding it, the sun will lose heat to them, however the sun effectively has its own thermostat (so it will warm back up). So where you think I may have agreed with you that, as you state:
With a radiating object it does not lose heat to anything.
I think you are getting confused betwen a regular powered object (without a thermostat), to the situation with the sun, as being the radiating object.
g*e*r*a*n
Your insults are lame and boring, you have used them many times and they lose any impact you may be attempting. Now run along and make some more videos. I would rather discuss science with Tony then listen to you babble on about nothing of value.
Con-man, I don’t have to insult you. I just let your owns words do that for you.
Now pound on that keyboard for hours. It will make you appear much smarter.
Hilarious.
Tony
It is difficult for me to accept you read my link and can’t seem to grasp the conceptual nature of it. The author(s) are very clear in their wording.
“The net energy leaving a surface will be
the difference between the energy leaving
a surface and the energy received by a
surface:”
With no surroundings the energy received by the surface is zero watts. No energy added to the heated surface. It will be at its minimum temperature because it is losing heat at the highest rate possible for radiative heat transfer. Any surroundings will add energy to the object and it will not lose heat at a rate as great as with zero energy being added to it from the surroundings. Read the material again it says this in more than one place!!!
” 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″
Do some math. You are wrong and can’t see it.
Heat flow into the object is 400 Watts.
You post the heat flow out is 400 Watts.
You totally neglect the energy received by the surface.
I think the semantics is difficult with you and I am most certain we are not communicating on the same page. I am still hoping with a few more posts you may see what I am stating.
Here is some math.
You have an object with an input heat flow of 400 Watts.
You have the equation Heat Flow (Q) = (1m^2)(5.67×10^-8)(1 for emissivity)(Tob^4 – Tsur^4)
If you want to find the temperature of Tob^4 you arrange the equation to isolate this term.
400 Watts/(5.67×10^-8)=(Tob^4-Tsur^4)
400/(5.67×10^-8) + Tsur^4 = Tob^4
(400/(5.67×10^-8) + Tsur^4)^1/4 = Tob
So using this you can see how the surrounding temperature changes the Temperature of the object.
If the surroundings are at absolute zero the Tsur^4 term is zero so we calculate the object’s temperature (1 m^2 surface area)(emissivity of one)(heat flux added to the object is 400 watts).
400/5.67×10-8 = 7,054,673,721 Tob = 7,054,673,721^(1/4) =289.8
That is the lowest temperature this object will reach in vacuum conditions, it is what it will reach radiating to absolute zero.
Based upon the description clearly stated (more than once) in the lecture, “The heat flux will be the net radiant flow as (heat transfer equation)”
Now if the surrounding are 100 K they are radiating energy to the object. The object is radiating at the same rate (until it changes temperature).
With surroundings you have it gaining 400 Watts from external input
400 Watts input
400 Watts output
But now you have the surroundings radiating toward the object. A 100 K object will radiate 5.67 Watts.
So with surroundings with temperature you have two inputs
400 Watt input plus 5.67 Watts
400 Watts out until the temperature rises to radiate away the extra added watts.
Find the temp:
same equation as above.
(400/(5.67×10^-8) + Tsur^4)^1/4 = Tob
Instead of zero the Tsur^4 is at 100 K
(400/(5.67×10^-8) + 100^4)^1/4 = Tob = 290.8 K
The equilibrium temperature of the powered object will rise to get to a new equilibrium that equals the new input total.
The object will be a little warmer with 100 K surroundings than absolute zero.
Here is 200 K (surroundings) = 305.0 K
Now 250 K = 323.5 K
If the surroundings have the same temperature as the heated object would initially have.
Now 289.8 K = 344.6 K
You can see that the coldest temperature for a powered object in a vacuum is when it radiates to the coldest temperature possible, absolute zero where no energy is radiating toward it from the surroundings.
If you have surroundings 100 K warmer than the initial temperature the new equilibrium will be.
Now surroundings are 398.8 K = 424.0 K
Do the math yourself, use the established equation and try different surrounding temperatures to see how the heat flow is changed. You will find the maximum heat flow (the net energy flow between object and surroundings) takes place when the surroundings are the coldest possible.
It is not much different than objects being at higher equilibrium temperature in a 26 C room vs a 20 C room.
Hilarious.
Con-man, that may have been your longest ramble yet.
And, it’s all pseudoscience.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
I already know that you call established science pseudoscience and you think your made up version is real science.
I will make the same request Ball4 does with you. If your made up science is the truth (warm objects cannot absrob radiant IR from cooler objects) than do valid experiments and prove them true and correct.
Again you do not know what pseudoscience really is, it is a pet phrase you picked up from the crackpot Joseph Postma.
So you can see it clearly and use the term properly.
“Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.”
So you make claims with no evidence nor used the scientific method to verify them. You make statements with no supporting evidence and you believe them to be correct and true with no supporting evidence.
Your posts: You call “Pseudoscience” the established physics that works in real world application and is extensively used by engineers to design heat transfer systems.
You consider “Real Science” to be the made up statements by Joe Postma and Claes Johnson, you accept their word based upon your belief. You do not demand evidence from them to support their made up realities.
In your Orwellian reality science is pseudoscience and Joe’s words are not to be questioned, they are real science. Great! I am glad that Joe’s science works for you. Now go sing a song in joy and stare at the photo of Joe in your bedroom so you have sweet dreams tonight.
Con-man, almost every sentence you pounded out is wrong.
But, that’s why I call you a “con-man”.
More pounding, please.
I think the idea you have is to write so much that nobody can be bothered to reply. You essentially just repeat yourself over and over again, being sure to add in as many references to how the person youre talking to doesnt understand physics. Then you just slip in somewhere the idea that cooling an object will result in it being warmer than it was before. You provide no explanation of how this happens (you cant, since its impossible) but I think you hope that if youve simply written enough words, passers by who dont understand physics will be convinced that you must have said something important.
You are trying to sell me the idea that a powered object at its maximum temperature of 290 K in a vacuum, gets WARMER when you add surroundings of 100 K. Unimaginably cold surroundings. Colder than anything we could experience in any environment found on Earth. 173 C below zero.
Once you add this extremely cold matter to the equation, you will find that the powered object loses heat to it, through both conduction and radiation. The power supply to the object will be acting to warm the object back up towards 290 K, the surroundings at 100 K, will be acting to reduce the temperature. The equilibrium temperature of the object will therefore be found between the two. Increase the temperature of the surroundings, and up will go the equilibrium temperature of the object. This is confirmed by the experiment you linked to.
The powered object will not get above 290 K, unless you bring the surroundings to a higher temperature than that.
Norm,
You make no sense whatsoever. First of all you are abusing the radiative heat flow equation. Q” is the dependent variable, with T1 and T2 being independent variables. That’s how the equation works and reads. You are trying to use T2 as a dependent variable, and it’s not. Plus you are essentially transferring heat from cold to hot, in violation of the Second Law.
Your example is pointless anyway since it does not relate in any way to our sun-earth system, where we have a powered object, the sun, and a non-powered passive object, the earth.
Tony
I posted the long one with calculations so you could see the concept.
I can see you are not actually thinking of what I am saying but shouting over me with your opinion.
You are thinking 100 K is so cold. It is to our temperatures but is much warmer than 0 K. I know you are not following what I am saying, that is why I did he long post. Too long so it did not help.
In a vacuum with no surroundings the temperature of the surroundings is 0 K (in real world around 3 K) both are considerably colder than 100 K.
I think in your mind you are thinking that the 290 condition is achieved at room temperature. It is not. the 290 is the lowest temperature, the surroundings are at the lowest temperature.
Norman, what is the difference between surroundings of a vacuum, and very cold surroundings (i.e surroundings containing matter at low temperature)?
Ill give you a hint: its not the temperature.
You waffled on at length in an attempt to bamboozle those who dont know any better. The heat equation as applied between two infinite plane parallel surfaces of different temperature should not lead you to any conclusion that cooling something makes it warmer.
By the way, Im tired of trying to help you, and getting your attitude in return. You wont get another response from me. I am sure you will now just repeat yourself for the nth time. I will not even read it.
Tony
You are even agreeing in your response.
YOU: “Once you add this extremely cold matter to the equation, you will find that the powered object loses heat to it, through both conduction and radiation. The power supply to the object will be acting to warm the object back up towards 290 K, the surroundings at 100 K, will be acting to reduce the temperature. The equilibrium temperature of the object will therefore be found between the two. Increase the temperature of the surroundings, and up will go the equilibrium temperature of the object. This is confirmed by the experiment you linked to.
The powered object will not get above 290 K, unless you bring the surroundings to a higher temperature than that.”
It will not lose any heat through conduction since it is in a vacuum.
Your last point agrees completely with my long post.
The 290 K is the temperature the object will reach with an absolute zero surrounding (it will be about the same at 3 K).
At room temperature (25 C or 298 K) in a vacuum chamber an object 1 m^2 receiving 400 Watts would have an equilibrium temp of around 350 K. So you are correct that at 100 K it would be much cooler. It will not be 290 K at room temperature. That temperature is what it will be with no surroundings. Does that clear it up?
SkepticGoneWild
Once you have an established equation it gives a relationship among the variables. If you know one you can calculate the others.
Example. K.E. = mv^2
Velocity and mass are the independent variables and kinetic energy the dependent.
But you can use this equation to find velocity or mass if you know either of the other two.
v=(K.E./m)^1/2
or m=(K.E./v^2)
You still claim the calculations violate the 2nd Law. How so? You are transferring energy from the cold to hot (as exactly described in all established physics) not HEAT. Heat is the Net flow.
Hot object 400 Watts, Cold object radiates 200 Watts of energy to the Hot object. Net heat is the Hot object is losing 200 Watts. How does that violate the 2nd Law? The Cold object has a net heat flow to it of 200 Watts (400 in minus the 200 it is radiating away).
Heat is not moving from cold to hot. The rate of heat loss from the Hot object goes down as the surroundings warm up.
Norman: The difference between the 0 K and 100K surroundings is that the rate of cooling of 290K object is slower with the 100K surroundings. See Newtons law of cooling. Of course at any time during cooling the temperature of the object is Hijer in the presence of 100K surroundings but always lower than 290K
Q=S(Ts^4 – Ta^4) with condition Ts >= Ta.
The condition is an integral part of the formula.
Backradiation :
Qbr=S*Ta^4 with condition Ts >= Ta
Qbr, backradiation, therefore is not independent of the surface temperature.
There are no two opposite, independent flux.
Any expression that omits the dependency is at fault.
Tony says:
“Norman, what is the difference between surroundings of a vacuum, and very cold surroundings”.
Surroundings in a vacuum is everything you can see (aggregate
radiation balance in all directions).
esalil
I am not sure you have been following the whole long string debate.
The conditions are an object surrounded by walls inside a vacuum (vacuum is only to eliminate conduction). An object inside a vacuum chamber not touching the walls (eliminate conduction to the best degree possible).
If the walls are near absolute zero they radiate extremely small amounts of energy back to the object.
The object has a continuous source of 400 Watts of power supplied to it. Its surface area is one square meter. I am using one for emissivity for ease of calculations.
The temperature of such an object will warm up until it reaches a temperature that is emitting radiant energy at the same rate it is having this energy added. This is a powered object. Remember this fact.
If you use the heat transfer equation.
Heat flow must equal 400 watts to balance what is coming in.
(400/5.67×10-8)^1/4 = equilibrium temperature of object 289.8 K
It will not cool slower if you heat the walls, it will increase in temperature. It is already at its coldest point for this set-up. The heat flow is at the maximum. More heat cannot leave the surface of the object.
phi
You STATE: “Q=S(Ts^4 Ta^4) with condition Ts >= Ta.
The condition is an integral part of the formula.
Backradiation :
Qbr=S*Ta^4 with condition Ts >= Ta
Qbr, backradiation, therefore is not independent of the surface temperature.
There are no two opposite, independent flux.
Any expression that omits the dependency is at fault.”
What you post is not completely accurate. The surface you are looking at can be colder than the surrounding. If Ts < Ta it just means the heat flow is negative, this surface is gaining not losing energy.
Ta is independent from the surface temperature of Ts The equation is only used when you have surroundings (objects and such). If you have no surroundings the equation used is just the power equation
Q=S(Ts^4)
The equation deals with two separate items each with their own temperature and their own radiant emissions. Each emits and each absorbs energy from the other (always stated this way in textbooks, I can't help some make up their own physics, I will stick to established science unless a profound experiment can prove it wrong).
Norman: Indeed, I omitted the fact that the object has a continuous source of 400 Watts of power supplied to it.
In that case when the surroundings is 0K and the temperature of the object is 290K the temperature of the object might slightly increase when you introduce 100K to the surroundings. But it is not the 100K surroundings which raises the temperature of the object. It is the continuous power supply which heats the object and increase the temperature, since heat loss is now slightly less from the object. I anticipate that there is no thermostat in the object.
I havent bothered to read Normans latest replies as they will invariably be simply repeating the same nonsense. Just for whoever is interested…
…when I talk about surroundings I am talking about the space DIRECTLY adjacent to and SURROUNDING the object. Its as simple as that. Im not talking about any walls at some distance away from the object or anything like that (which Norman attempted to bring into the equation a little while ago, and I ignored, since its an obvious attempt to change the setup). When I talk about surroundings of 100 K, then, Im obviously talking about the object being surrounded by some sort of fluid at 100 K. Therefore, there is now going to be conduction taking place as well as radiation. The answer to my earlier question about the difference between surroundings of a vacuum and surroundings containing matter at low temperature was simply that the latter necessarily involves matter in contact with the object. Thus the object now loses heat through conduction as well. Thats the point I was trying to get across.
Norman,
“If Ts < Ta it just means the heat flow is negative, this surface is gaining not losing energy."
Q can not be negative. The reason for this is the subject of a science: thermodynamics.
This science is the most misunderstood of all.
phi
I think you might want to correct your thought on Q. It can be both negative or positive.
“Suppose we have a system of interest at temperature TS surrounded by an environment with temperature TE. If TS > TE heat flows from the system to the environment. If TS < TE heat flows from the environment into the system. Heat, presented by the symbol Q and unit Joule, is chosen to be positive when heat flows into the system, and negative if heat flows out of the system (see Figure 17.1). Heat flow is a results of a temperature difference between two bodies, and the flow of heat is zero if TS = TE."
From:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy121/lecturenotes/Chapter17/Chapter17.html
“It can be both negative or positive.”
Yes, but it is then only a convention that informs about the nature of the phenomenon and it is contextual. Aditionable magnitudes are strictly positive, either warming (signed positively) or cooling (signed negatively). Cooling is not a negative warming.
This is one of the reasons why the expression Q = S (Th ^ 4 – Tc ^ 4) should not be exploded (it’s the calculation of a difference in irradiance). If Q = STh ^ 4 – STc ^ 4 = Qh – Qc, Qc does not respect the convention. And if you write Q = Qh + Qc with Qc < 0, you do not respect the distinction between heating and cooling.
Phi,
1) I can add and subtract both positive and negative numbers.
2) For reasons of symmetry, you should get a positive result at one end, and a negative result at the opposite side.
3) Normans textbook has a negative Q on page one.
Svante,
The sign in Q is purely conventional and contextual. To forget it is very precisely what leads to confusion and lets you think that you can add backradiations to the solar flux.
Adopting this convention does not allow you to add negative Q to positive Q because they are different phenomena. Decreasing the amount of heat exiting the system does not equate increasing the amount of heat entering the system.
Again, in S(Th ^ 4 – Tc ^ 4) = Qh – Qc, Q is always strictly positive even though Qh and Qc are opposite. Formally, it is the condition Th >= Tc which must be strictly respected. If you wish, against logic, manipulate the notion of backradiation in thermodynamics, you must constantly accompany it with this condition.
Here’s another example of a negative result:
https://tinyurl.com/yauzn5f2
“As the surface in most regions on Earth is warmer than the atmosphere, Tsurf4 − Tatm4 in equation (1) is commonly positive; hence, the presence of the atmosphere reduces the TOA emission FTOA. Therefore, both the GHE and the instantaneous radiative forcing (−∂FTOA/∂εc) are usually positive. However, if the surface is colder than the atmosphere, the sign of the second term in equation (1) is negative. Consequently, the system loses more energy to space due to the presence of greenhouse gases. The GHE and the instantaneous radiative forcing turn negative. Furthermore, the energy loss to space FTOA then increases with increasing εatm.”
barry…”Statistical mechanics links mesoscopic and macroscopic properties of systems of matter and radiation with the fundamental microscopic physics (classical and quantum mechanics). It puts the concepts of thermodynamics on a firm foundation of mechanics”.
This statement is vague and far better people than me, like Feynman, claimed quantum theory works but no one knows why. Planck, in his 1913 book on heat, used statistical mechanics as its basis. He explained the goal was to relate entropy to probability theory and that the process could never be visualized.
I would hardly agree that SM puts thermodynamics on a firm foundation of mechanics if none of it can be visualized. In fact, some of it leaves the door open to a contravention of the second law. Some people are interpreting Stefan-Boltzmann, which is based on statistical mechanics, in a manner that allows heat transfer from a colder body to a warmer body. They are basing their claims on this fictitious net energy transfer that no one can prove.
SB is an attempt to verify the 2nd law and it failed. Stefan admitted the equation cannot be verified experimentally, so no one can prove by experiment that heat can be transferred cold to hot without compensation.
I am sure statistical mechanics has perfectly good uses in a laboratory/theoretical setting. and as Feynman claims, it’s underlying quantum theory works. However, some modernists are giving it far too much credit. Stefan-Boltzmann failed to explain the 2nd law using statistical mechanics yet some modernists are claiming the application of it’s theory satisfies the 2nd law to allow heat transfer from cold to hot.
As soon as you use the word “heat” you are describing macroscopic (or bulk) transfer. You are no longer in the realm of the microphysics.
No, I would never say that “heat” transfers from cold to hot. I would say that radiation is emitted from hot and cold surfaces and absorbed by both hot and cold surfaces. “Radiation” can refer to any scale.
“As soon as you use the word “heat” you are describing..” a measurment process that exists only in your thoughts.
Ball4
Is this person you?
http://scienceblogs.com/dotphysics/2008/08/26/heat-its-a-four-letter-word/
Ha no, that guy was on the right track, bandwagon way earlier, 2008. Others published on the misuse of heat term much earlier going way back to for example S.C. Brown 1950, American Journal of Physics, Vol. 12, 656-60, M. Tribus 1968, Intl. J. of Heat and Mass Transfer Vol 11, 9-14. There are many more.
Uncritically accepting heat as motion in modern times is a sure way to befuddlement as exposed in these long threads & @WUWT et. al. Many faithful to the dogma cite “The Nature of Motion which we call Heat” a translation of Clausius work but few quote Clausius beginning it with reference to a previous paper “in which heat is assumed to be a motion”.
Even those that admit heat does not exist in an object anymore, insist by a strange and subtle alchemy that which does not exist (heat) is transformed into that which does (motion). These folks reduce their comments to the state of confusion existing a century or two ago when the distinction between temperature and heat was vague at best. Providing ample fuel for anger’s hilarious! untested non-physical comments and supports a whole blog you can find simply by googling climate sophistry.
barry
Sorry to jump in. I have been reading some of your exchanges with Kristian. I do have a hard time understanding his claims or how they work.
I would completely agree that a photon cloud exists in the atmosphere as he describes. Photons moving all over, some absorbed, some emitted. No direction, not established pattern.
I do not see this same phenomena with a solid surface (the atmosphere has no surface). In his examples of a photon cloud and his rejection of a two-way flux of energy (Watts/area).
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-2.png
The surface of the cavity would always have the macroscopic two-way energy flux. Any area you wanted to choose would have an emission of energy and an ABS of energy, both these would be macroscopic energy flows and a change in either at any time would lead to a macroscopic temperature change.
There is no logical reason to believe an object’s surface emission would change because you brought in another radiating object, the emission rate is logically only based upon the temperature of the surface which makes sense at the microscopic level of what causes emissions.
I do not see how a photon cloud exists on a surface, IR can penetrate only a few microns, it is a very thin layer.
Also solid objects can be seen in IR. The details. This is not the behavior of a cloud of energy with no direction and random motion of photons.
I posted on another thread, if photons from a surface formed Kristian’s cloud it would be exactly like a cloud. All features of an object would be smeared into chaos after long enough beam length. Yet you can form clear and distinct IR images even at distance, this seems only possible with photons moving away from a surface in straight lines with macroscopic flow (to create a complete image of an object).
How are these images possible if a surface IR is a photon cloud?
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=IR+images&chips=q:IR+images,online_chips:thermal&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjtj5ql08TXAhXqrFQKHcx6C7QQ4lYIKigD&biw=1024&bih=690&dpr=1.25
Norman
Slightly OT: Kristian failed to understand that his dime analogy was demonstrating exactly what he rejects. That’s why I kept pestering him about it.
*no backradiation*
(Let’s start with some internal energy: the surface has 5 dimes, the atmosphere has 4)
So, the sun hands the surface 2 dimes. The surface simultaneously hands the atmosphere 2 dimes. The atmosphere hands space 2 dimes.
Nothing has changed.
*with backradiation*
(Same internal energy as before)
Again, the sun hands the surface 2 dimes. The surface hands the atmosphere 2 dimes. But now the atmosphere only hands one dime to space, the other is handed back to the atmosphere.
Kristian was absolutely right. The atmosphere REMOVED one dime from the surface and only EXCHANGED the other. It didn’t actually add anything at all. But what do we find after these events?
The surface has 6 dimes instead of 5.
Whoops
“But now the atmosphere only hands one dime to space, the other is handed back to the SURFACE”
To continue and elaborate this analogy, you could show how the atmosphere’s internal energy increases until it again gives two dimes to space, reaching equilibrium.
Except there’s no time delay. It all happens simultaneously.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 17, 2017 at 12:16 AM:
Haha, you are such a clown! When have I rejected the notion that photons from a cold place are absorbed by a warm place?!!
MICRO (photons) vs. MACRO (radiative flux), Snape. A radiative FLUX does not transfer from cold to hot, photons do. The ‘flux’ is the instantaneous, simultaneous exchange in its ENTIRETY, the ‘photons’ are just themselves, each individual dime. Will you please learn something!!? Anything!? At least show a will to do so …! From the link above that so baffled you:
“The total radiation emitted by a cooling body is not correctly described merely as the sum of all the individual emission processes, as the particles can also absorb radiation. In the end, the statistics of a large number of emission AND a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n events determine the resultant radiation.”
THAT’S the exchange in its entirety, Snape. As opposed to just each individual photon emission/a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n event.
Also (from the same source):
“We can think of the large number of photons, which are created in the body, as a second body of particles, so that there are two bodies present: the radiating matter (i.e., the atoms, molecules, or electrons) and a cloud of photons, both of which occupy the same volume. The particles in each body interact with those in the other, exchanging energy back and forth. The cloud of photons, though, is created by the matter particles and if more photons are created, then more energy is contained within the photon cloud.”
Will you now shut up about this?
Kristian: “When have I rejected the notion that photons from a cold place are absorbed by a warm place?!!”
Right here: “A radiative FLUX does not transfer from cold to hot..”
One photon transfer is a radiative flux as well as 1+n photon transfers is a radiative flux. The number of photons is immaterial and are indistinguishable from one another.
Kristian
At the micro level, dimes were exchanged. At the macro level, the atmosphere still removed energy from the surface. The result in it’s entirety (including the solar flux)?
The surface’s internal energy increased.
Ball, he capitalised the word FLUX for a reason. That word functions in the thermo realm, not the micro. Flux IS net.
barry…”Flux IS net”.
Actually, flux is an average, usually estimated. I don’t see how it can represent a Net when the flux comes from different bodies. When two flux field going in opposite directions merge, they are treated as vector quantities and vector calculus is applied.
I don’t see what good that would do with regard to heat transfer since no heat leaves either body, only EM flux fields. Talking about net flow makes no sense since other forces are at work. You can use Boltzmann to calculate the heat LOSS is a body by calculating the EM field.
A magnetic flux is the theorized number of lines of magnetic flux through a given area. Of course, there is no way to measure a single line therefore the flux is estimated based on the magnetic field strength.
You can see the effect using a sheet of paper with a magnet placed under it with iron filings sprinkled on top. The filings align themselves with the magnetic field to give an oviod pattern between poles.
I imagine the flux density is an indicator of the measured field strength of a magnetic field over an area.
Flux is used in all fluid substances whether they be liquid, gas, or invisible forms of energy like EM. The word itself does not mean anything physical that can be seen. However, the effects can be seen with a compass, gaussmeter, or using the simple experiment above.
In engineering, we associated flux fields with vectors. A vector in line with a flux field would be shown parallel to it whereas a vector for a curving field would be tangential to the curve. Terms like curl and cross product are introduced to define the vector in 3-D space and matrices are used to multiple and sum vector scalar quantities.
I have never understood a flux to be anything more than an imaginary representation of an invisible field.
barry, flux def. is the action of flowing in or out, the number or particles is immaterial. 1 oe=r n+1
…1 or n+1 of particles is immaterial.
Ball4
In physics, as you well know, the difference between opposing fluxes of photons/energy create a net flux. In Kristian’s mind, however, these opposing fluxes do not exist, rendering the term “net flux” meaningless. There is just FLUX.
All capitals indicate he is using “Kristianese”. We need to accommodate his special needs.
Gordon Robertson
Flux is used in many ways. You may have limited your understanding:
YOU: “I have never understood a flux to be anything more than an imaginary representation of an invisible field.”
That is one use of flux but certainly not the only one.
Here look at the broader use of the word Flux.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
HERE:
“Radiative flux, the amount of energy transferred in the form of photons at a certain distance from the source per unit area per second (Jm−2s−1). Used in astronomy to determine the magnitude and spectral class of a star. Also acts as a generalization of heat flux, which is equal to the radiative flux when restricted to the electromagnetic spectrum.”
Ball4 seems to be correct with his interpretation of flux. It can be microscopic or macroscopic. A photon emitted from a source would constitute a flux by this definition. If may require more than one since this definition does use plural form of “photons”.
Radiative Flux would be the energy hitting a surface area in a time unit. A few photons would be a radiative flux as would trillions. The magnitude of the flux is the only thing changing.
Snape,
In Kristians mind, however, these opposing fluxes do not exist, rendering the term “net flux” meaningless. There is just FLUX.
Kristian doesn’t think radiative energy moves in only one direction, he just believes that when you use the word flux you are aximotically speaking of the NET flow. When you say “opposing fluxes,” he contends that there is no such thing due to using that word in the phrase.
Barry
“he just believes that when you use the word flux you are aximotically speaking of the NET flow.”
Why would he believe this, when countless times we have explained that we are NOT using the word flux to represent net flow?
We say, “the difference between two opposing fluxes of photons creates a net flux”. Do you think Kristian is too stupid to understand our meaning?
I think he understands perfectly well, but disagrees.
norman…”Radiative flux, the amount of energy transferred in the form of photons at a certain distance from the source per unit area per second (Jm−2s−1)”.
Just as I claimed an imaginary representation of an invisible field. You speak of photons as if they are real. A photon is a definition adopted to particalize EM. It is defined as a particle of EM that has momentum but no mass.
A photon cloud is just as imaginary, no one has observed one directly or measured it. As Einstein claimed, those who think they know whether light is photons or a wave are wrong.
I still think of light as a wave. Even though I use the term photon, I do it with reservation. There is no way to visualize a photon because it makes little sense. Light is radiated isotropically from a source which suggests a spherical wave, not a series of particles.
Since the light radiates isotropically at a specific frequency, or series of frequencies, it makes no sense to speak of a particle of EM having a frequency. Of necessity, a frequency suggests regular oscillations of a field, not a particle. There is a one to one relationship between frequency and wavelength but particles don’t fit either description.
I think that the use of the word photon has to be done with great care. Whereas it can be helpful in visualizing atomic processes, there is no proof any such processes exist in the way we try to visualize them.
“A photon cloud is just as imaginary, no one has observed one directly or measured it.”
Planck and his fellow experimenters created such a beast, observed it directly and measured it to develop the Planck distribution of radiance for an object at each temperature (dry ice to superheated steam) and at each frequency of light per sr.
Gordon hasn’t yet caught up to an understanding of last century’s experiments in this field. A lot of study ahead of Gordon if he wants to get climate physics correct to experiment in comments & not just make assumptions. No study will continue to be evident if Gordon remains on his current low level of accomplishment commenting in this field.
The climate can change fast when it changes.
Oceanic temperatures in the end will determine the global temperatures and they are trending down.
Sal, here’s a deal for you.
You can have your colder ocean temps, just let me have nice warm ENSO temps. Just +1C anomaly is enough. I’m not greedy
Looks like La Nina is here. Moyhu has recorded the coolest day since January. Of course, deniers will deliberately confuse La Nina with global cooling.
NOAA October anomaly down to +0.73 from +0.78 in September.
Those that are “deliberately confused” are the clowns that believe “cold” can warm “hot”.
Those types will likely believe a La Nina will “heat the planet”!
Hilarious.
Due to the fact that more cold water is exposed to the atmosphere during a La Nina, the oceans do indeed absorb more heat during La Ninas. This is stored away to be released during the next El Nino, when the ocean heat is spread more evenly across the ocean surface.
“Those types will likely believe a La Nina will heat the planet!”
des proves me right, AGAIN.
So you’re admitting you don’t know the science behind the ENSO cycle.
It seems you believe that the oceans are not a part of our planet, and that merely transferring heat between the atmosphere and the oceans and back again somehow constitutes “warming the planet”.
I’ll wait in expectation for your BS reply, full of rhetoric and devoid of all science, a reply that you believe displays your “intelligence” but instead displays your inner 10-year-old.
des, the only “science” that you will accept is that CO2 “traps heat”. A La Nina indicates otherwise. But, it you like your “science”, you can keep it.
Please share how “a La Nina indicates otherwise”. In answering that question, remember that the total heat content of the earth system includes heat at depth in the ocean which does not interact with the atmosphere in the short term. You will need to show SOME understanding of how La Nina works. Let me give you a clue … the statement “the ocean cools during La Nina” is an incorrect one.
des, if you like your pseudoscience, you can keep it.
But, just for fun:
The El Nino/La Nina oscillation is an indication of how the Earth can cool itself. More than 70% of the planet is covered by water. Water absorbs solar energy like a sponge. The oceans guarantee a habitable climate. The oceans store heat, and release that heat based on thermodynamic principles. (Some people call it “weather”.)
So, ENSO is an embarrassment to the climate clowns that claim CO2 can overheat the planet.
That’s enough actual science for now. I don’t want to overheat your brain.
g*r…”… ENSO is an embarrassment to the climate clowns that claim CO2 can overheat the planet”.
And ENSO is a small player in the overall effect of the oceans. The Tsonis study revealed that ocean oscillations like the AMO, PDO, ENSO, AO, etc., can control global temperatures based on their phase differences with each other. When they act in phase, global temperatures rise, when out of phase the temps fall.
Since oscillations like the AMO are multi-decadal, while the PDO has a shorter term, and ENSO an even shorter turn around, it could be decades before major temperature shifts are noticed.
Right now, ENSO seems to be running the show but that could be an anomaly. If the AMO or PDO shifts phases, we could get an entirely different outcome.
des…”Of course, deniers will deliberately confuse La Nina with global cooling”.
No more than alarmists confused El Nino warming with anthropogenic warming.
Who did that?
Congratulations !
That’s not even wrong !
For once.
(Well, not quite true either, since the GHE denying crackpots do still a little better than alarmists in this respect.)
gamma…”Thats not even wrong ! For once”.
You don’t reply to my comments with any degree of intelligence therefore I have no idea what you consider right or wrong.
Possibly you don’t either, you just react to comments based on whether they contradict your belief system or not.
Just consider the following simple rule of thumb: Whenever I do not reply to your (or any other crackpot’s) comments it means it’s merely utterly wrong. Of course this does not mean that it’s right if I happen to reply.
Even if one denier confuses La Nina with global cooling (case in point … Ren) then “no more than” is an incorrect statement.
La Nina will be known to “be here” by March 31st at the earliest by the ONI method:
For historical purposes, periods of below and above normal SSTs are colored in blue and red [la Nina/el Nino] when the threshold is met for a minimum of 5 consecutive overlapping seasons [a 3-month average beyond the threshold -0.5 Nina, or 0.5 Nino].
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
For the late 2016 la Nina (only the ONI method produced a statistical la Nina for 2016), these were the months that encompassed that event – which was of the shortest possible duration.
2016 Jul: -0.44
2016 Aug: -0.63
2016 Sep: -0.65
2016 Oct: -0.78
2016 Nov: -0.80
2016 Dec: -0.55
2017 Jan: -0.33
7 months made up the 5 consecutive 3-month (‘seasonal’) average that lay consistently beyond the la Nina threshold.
The earliest start for the potentially burgeoning la Nina would be September. Here are the latest monthly anomalies since August.
2017 Aug: -0.22
2017 Sep: -0.52
2017 Oct: -0.55
The average of these three months is -0.42. La Nina will not have started in August should current conditions persist.
7 months including September brings us to March 31st 2018.
La Nina is looking more likely than not. But let’s not count the chicken before it hatches.
I think you mean end of February, not end of March.
If September ends up being the first month of La Nina, the fifth month will be January. The January ONI figure will be the average of December, January & February. There is no need for March.
The 7 month period you are referring to actually begins with August, not September.
Last year’s la Nina started in July, because the 3-month period (‘season’) beginning in August was -0.57, even though July itself was not at la Nina threshold.
2016 Jul: -0.44}
2016 Aug: -0.63 } -0.57
2016 Sep: -0.65}
That’s not going to work for August this year:
2017 Aug: -0.22}
2017 Sep: -0.52 } -0.42
2017 Oct: -0.55}
November anomaly for the ONI metric (NINO3.4 SSTs) has to be at least as cool as -0.43 in order for the first 3-month average of -0.5 to start a full-blown la Nina.
2017 Sep: -0.52}
2017 Oct: -0.55 } -0.50
2017 Nov: -0.43}
Typo: “beginning in August” should be “beginning in July.”
Might have to spell it out a bit more. Here’s how we get 5 groups of 3 months by the ONI method. I’ll make up the values:
2017 Sep: -0.52}
2017 Oct: -0.55 } -0.50
2017 Nov: -0.43}
2017 Oct: -0.55}
2017 Nov: -0.43 } -0.52
2017 Dec: -0.60}
2017 Nov: -0.43}
2017 Dec: -0.60 } -0.54
2018 Jan: -0.60}
2017 Dec: -0.60}
2018 Jan: -0.60 } -0.60
2018 Feb: -0.60}
2018 Jan: -0.60}
2018 Feb: -0.60 } -0.51
2018 Mar: -0.35}
That’s five 3-month averages, ending March 31st, all averaged at beyond the la Nina threshold.
The ONI figure for a particular month is a CENTRED average. The figure for October is the average of September, October and November.
Last year’s La Nina began in AUGUST, because the average of July, August and September broke the threshold.
In the scenario you gave in your third reply, the La Nina would officially begin in October, because that is the first CENTRED average to break the threshold.
I was thrown by your statement that a La Nina could start in September. In fact, October is the earliest possible starting month, and that would mean that the and of March is indeed the declaration time.
Using the centred month as the start point is fine by me.
I was simply stating that using the using the centred month as the start point is how ENSO phases are reported. It’s not like us plebs have a choice in the matter.
“using the using the centred month as the start point is how ENSO phases are reported.”
Can you corroborate that? I think the start/end dates are fluid ideas in the ENSO community, sometimes referring to the day/week, sometimes the month in which SSTs dropped below 0.5. But more often they speak in seasonal terms (el Nino began in the fall of XXXX).
IOW, I don’t think there is an official convention for beginning/end of ENSO events in monthly terms.
I was going by what NOAA do in this table:
http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Me too. There’s no specific directive on first/last month there. The temporal requirements are described as a sequence of averages, Ninos and Ninas are identified as ‘red’ and ‘blue’.
DESCRIPTION: Warm (red) and cold (blue) periods based on a threshold of +/- 0.5 C for the Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) [3 month running mean of ERSST.v5 SST anomalies in the Nino 3.4 region (5N-5S, 120W-170oW)], based on centered 30-year base periods updated every 5 years.
For historical purposes, periods of below and above normal SSTs are colored in blue and red when the threshold is met for a minimum of 5 consecutive overlapping seasons. The ONI is one measure of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, and other indices can confirm whether features consistent with a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon accompanied these periods.
That’s it.
You are correct Des many deniers will use La Nina ,and call it global cooling. I will not.
But you already ARE. You are claiming cooling oceans are the result of global cooling instead of an approaching La Nina.
Sir Isaac Snapelton
I have been giving the “photon cloud” some thought. Here is what I come up with. I could be wrong, I am thinking about it to try and grasp the concept.
When I look at the clear blue sky I see what a photon cloud would be. Energy coming from all random directions with not apparent flow or direction.
You can see the same blue sky from different vantage points and it is all uniform.
Here is where I think Kristian gets things wrong. Without a surface interaction the photon cloud exists as he claims or a transparent surface that does not absorb the energy.
Once you have an ABS surface you will have a macroscopic flow of radiant energy at the surface interface. This can be proven by the eyes seeing the blue sky. The energy the eyes convert into a blue color is a macroscopic flow of energy into the eyes. You can also have a camera array absorb the energy and show a macroscopic energy flow.
Also objects do not emit as a photon cloud. They do not form diffuse energy patterns like a blue sky where you can’t determine the source of the light as it is coming from all around. If there is a plane flying in the blue sky, it does not diffuse like the sky but forms a structured image. The photons are moving away (macroscopic energy flow) from the object in straight line paths, no cloud at all. I think Kristian is stuck on his photon cloud and can’t see it is only one type of radiant energy idea.
A surface will always have a two-way flux regardless what Kristian believes or how wrong he thinks everyone else is. It will emit energy away from it and will absorb energy incident upon its surface (which can come from multiple sources, yet the energy is only absorbed…one process).
That makes sense, Norman.
It’s mind boggling to think about visible light. Every tiny “pixel” of color/value from the world around us (millions/billions) reflects a unique ray of light that travels directly into our pupils, and is absorbed by an array of receptors on the retina. All at the same time and with very little interference from water vapor, particulates, etc. in the atmosphere.
IR is different, of course. It gets absorbed/reflecting/scattered by a lot of constituents in the atmosphere, so you wouldn’t expect thermal images to be very crisp….and we see from the images you posted they’re not.
Anyway, I think a photon cloud would include fluxes not only in every direction, but of every length – microscopic to many miles.
There would be fluxes between molecules separated by microns, or for example, between objects on one side of a street and the other. All part of the same cloud.
snape…”Its mind boggling to think about visible light. Every tiny pixel of color/value from the world around us (millions/billions) reflects a unique ray of light that travels directly into our pupils, and is absorbed by an array of receptors on the retina”.
Not sure if I understand your meaning. Light contains no colour. EM (light) is a transverse wave comprising an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field. It has a frequency and an intensity…no colour, no heat.
It’s the human eye that adds the colour. We have rods and cones in the retina. Rods enable vision at low light levels but the cones process frequencies in the visible light spectrum and convert them to colour.
Absolutely amazing system and I fail to see how that came from a series of flukes a la natural selection.
With heat, EM stimulates electrons in atoms and they convert the EM to heat by jumping to a higher energy orbital.
Gordon
“Its the human eye that adds the colour. We have rods and cones in the retina.”
The human eye doesn’t “add color” at random. It’s a response to input. A color we perceive as light brown, for example, corresponds to a unique input of light. The same is true for the thousands of different colors/values we see in the world around us.
norman…”A surface will always have a two-way flux regardless what Kristian believes or how wrong he thinks everyone else is. It will emit energy away from it and will absorb energy incident upon its surface (which can come from multiple sources, yet the energy is only absorbedone process).
Why? You seem to be claiming the surface absorbs and emits at the same time without specifying its temperature, what it is absorbing or emitting, or the temperature of the source of the emissions.
Remember, blackbody theory is aimed at an idealized situation at certain temperatures. For what we are discussing here, blackbody theory and Stefan-Boltzmann is serious overkill.
I have no problem with the idea that an object in a room is subjected to random emissions, while it radiates EM, I just don’t think that object has to absorb any old EM that strikes it.
What do you mean by “old” EM?
GR says:
“I just dont think that object has to absorb any old EM that strikes it.”
It doesn’t have to.
why do you think it would.
( But a blackbody absorbs all radiation incident upon it.)
A slightly different take on the NOAA anomalies:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bR6zC04LwIacl0tFnG12pMDoyqPEiag1/view?usp=sharing
There is no need for any denier to express their opinion about NOAA – we’ve heard it all before thanks all the same.
des, I bet you haven’t heard that NOAA appears to be cleaning up their act.
I have followed several NWS/NOAA sites for years. I have seen the blatant “adjusting”, in real lime. But, last September, there were two cases where they had perfect chances to cheat, but didn’t. It appears the “tampering” is at least slowing down.
What a difference an election makes.
What do you believe is “the perfect chance to cheat”?
And if you believe that the election has “made a difference”, why haven’t past NOAA anomalies changed?
Sorry des, but this is confidential information. Access is severely restricted. It’s all “hush-hush”, you know.
But, I can be bribed…
In other words … it was BS denier rhetoric without substance. Thanks for confirming that for me.
No des, it was “anecdotal”. It was just something I noticed. Hopefully it is a sign that the “adjustments” have stopped. But I am sometimes too optimistic.
What exactly is “anecdotal” about the phrase “the perfect chance to cheat”? What did you “notice” that suggested to you that September gave a better opportunity to “cheat” than any other month?
des, maybe this will help:
“Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.”
‘Baseless speculation’ might be a phrase worth defining here.
barry, you must know something about “baseless speculation”.
In other words you’ve invented a new claim and don’t have anyone to attribute it to. And you post it here expecting all deniers to lap it up like the religious believers that they are.
des, maybe this will help (read carefully this time):
“Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.”
Heh. Like saying “I have the facts,” and linking to a definition of the word ‘fact’ to prove</i. them.
Des, g*e*r*a*n revels in tomfoolery. You're only going to hurt your head against that brick wall.
In other words youve invented a new claim and dont have anyone to attribute it to. And you post it here expecting all deniers to lap it up like the religious believers that they are.
I’m up for a brick wall duel.
des exposes himself: “And you post it here expecting all deniers to lap it up like the religious believers that they are.”
Not really.
My comment was only my opinion, as I indicated. I had no idea it would cause climate clowns to lose sleep over it.
My bad.
Sleep well.
That’s odd – you said “there were two cases where they had perfect chances to cheat”. That sounds like a very specific opinion. On second though … no, that sounds like a Trumpism.
And no – I haven’t “exposed myself”. You’re the one who mimics ministers of religion, not me.
I have prepared the following WIKI entry on the topic of Pyscho-g*e*r*a*ntology (see also Dunning-Kruger syndrome).
Diagnostic criteria
Pyscho-g*e*r*a*ntology is form of obsessive compulsive disorder. In particular it is characterized by compulsive posting of thought disordered and paranoid delusions about government agencies and scientists in the comments section of certain web sites. The sufferers share conspiracy driven ideation with the anti-vax, antifluoridation, NASA moon hoax etc.. crowds.
These unfortunates also, more often than not , have a range of comorbidities. The most common and prominent is the delusion that they are the sole custodians of the truth and have insights that the vast majority of the scientific community are either unable to grasp, or are deliberately hiding to advance some agenda often ill defined, but sometimes stated explicitly (communism, socialism ,New World Order etc..)
Aetiology
These individuals have a tendency to vastly overestimate their intelligence which makes them prone to this condition . For more information regarding this see https://tinyurl.com/y9tht2c5.
It is also thought that chronic exposure to repetition by other like minded individuals can precipitate this condition (see prognosis).
Prognosis
Unfortunately the prognosis is poor as these sufferers have been immunized against logic. The tendency to frequent web sites that feed their fantasies will only exacerbate their delusional state.
Perhaps if the sufferers are not permitted to use computers connected to the internet ( a recommendation particularly appropriate for those who are institutionalized ) then there may be some hope they could naturally recover from their illness, otherwise anti-psychotic medication may be required.
The only other treatment that has proven to be effective in intractable cases is ridicule, which is usually very easy, however in most cases the sufferers lack any insight and they are totally unaware that they are being ridiculed.
If anyone else has some comments to add to the above, I will consider adding them to the WIKI.
MikeR
I think you’ve pretty much nailed it.
I like this one in relation to Ivar Giaver:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
Ah, fame and glory first, then comes wealth, then the women!
(I promise I won’t let anything go to waste.)
“Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.”
There’s a saying in science: the plural of anecdote is not data.
Think about it.
Then why are you and des trying to make it appear as if I’m presenting data? I clearly indicated it was a just an observation.
(I’m enjoying this so much, I may have to come up with some more anecdotes.)
Anecdotes are the best that g*e*r*a*n can come up with in the way of scientific facts (and it seems humour). I am glad however he was not offended in any way by my comment above.
The man has a thick hide and the mind to match.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“I have followed several NWS/NOAA sites for years. I have seen the blatant adjusting, in real lime. But, last September, there were two cases where they had perfect chances to cheat, but didnt.”
I bet you can’t show or name or document one time in the past that any untoward data “cheating” occurred.
Not one.
PS: Adjustments reduce the long-term warming trend. You’d like it higher? That’s unscientific….
Actually Davie, the “adjustments” tend to cool the past, to make the present appear as if we are warmer than the past.
Very tricky.
NOAA Oct global temp anomaly is released.
It’s down from last month, like RSS, while UAH and GISS has Oct higher than Sept.
NOAA monthly anomalies for the year:
2017 Jan: 0.91
2017 Feb: 0.97
2017 Mar: 1.03
2017 Apr: 0.89
2017 May: 0.82
2017 Jun: 0.79
2017 Jul: 0.83
2017 Aug: 0.82
2017 Sep: 0.78
2017 Oct: 0.73
No doubt there is a conspiracy theory that explains this…
The NOAA anomaly of +0.73 on the 1901-2000 baseline is +0.30 using the UAH baseline of 1981-2010. I wonder how long it will take deniers to abandon UAH and switch to NOAA?
Whatever data set has the lowest long-term (or since 1998) trend is the one skeptics will always favour.
Not me you know I am going by satellite even when I hate the results such as the last two months.
Salvatore: You hate results????
How can you hate real observed data?
Are you in this to understand the the science, or to confirm your prejudices?
WARMTH YES- I say it can’t last if overall sea surface temperatures keep cooling.
Of course it won’t last – we are heading towards La Nina.
Tell me – do you see a difference between ocean cooling rates right now and ocean cooling rates as we’ve headed into La Ninas in the past. Please tell me you’ve analysed past cooling events for rates of change.
It is to early and recent past events do not matter because they all happened when the sun was in an active phase.
I want to see how far oceanic temperature cool on a global basis . La Nina is just icing on the cake.
Right now according to ocean tid bits oceanic temperatures are +.255c.
I want to see where they go. Only time will tell.
Salvatore
I just looked at Tropical tidbits. Global SST’s are about the same as they were mid-September. I’m curious how much la nina will change this.
Of course past events matter. Without a baseline, what knowledge do you have which enables you to determine when the decrease is greater than expected? All you can do is invent your own thresholds that are not based on anything. Your first sentence is nonsense. The whole POINT is to compare the two different phases. If the rate of decrease now is no different than earlier rates of decrease in the lead up to La Ninas, then your solar effect is not making a difference.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Right now according to ocean tid bits oceanic temperatures are +.255c.
“I want to see where they go. Only time will tell.”
Why hasn’t time already told?
“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
The global temp. could crash from these levels.
Let’s check some of Salvatore’s past predictions:
“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
Yeah, that prediction was badly wrong.
As was this one:
“I will be proven correct along with many in my camp that predict this will be the decade of global cooling and a large part of that cooling will be due to LOW solar activity. Mark my words.”
– 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
I wonder if Salvatore can point to ANY of his predictions that has come true. Just one.
The “radiative properties” of an atmosphere are what thermodynamically connects the atmosphere to the planetary surface underneath. However, with this connection established, atmospheric radiation isn’t what warms the surface. The atmospheric TEMPERATURE is. When the temp difference/gradient between thermodynamic systems or regions decreases, it causes ALL heat transfers to weaken, including the radiative one. Which will induce accumulation of energy and hence a rise in temperature. If the heat INPUT to the heated system stays the same. But you can’t say that by somehow reducing the surface radiative heat loss, then you’ve reduced the temperature difference/gradient between the surface and the atmosphere. And you also can’t say that by reducing the surface radiativeheat loss, then you’ve automatically reduced the TOTAL surface heat loss to cause surface net warming.
No, the radiative properties of an atmosphere simply enable the atmospheric temperature (higher than that of space) to thermodynamically AFFECT the surface temperature by reducing the temperature DIFFERENCE between the surface and its effective thermal surroundings. Without atmospheric radiative properties, those surroundings would be space. With atmospheric radiative properties in place, however, space is all of a sudden replaced by the atmosphere itself.
Let’s take a look at a hypothetical planet.
In the initial steady state, there is no atmosphere on top of its global surface, and so the global surface has simply equilibrated with the average radiative heat input (net SW, ‘ASR’) from the planet’s mother star, meaning, its average radiative heat output (OLR, net LW) is equal to it. In our particular case, let’s now say that the average ASR value is 296 W/m^2, and so, in the steady state, this is also the average OLR value: 296 W/m^2 IN = 296 W/m^2 OUT. This state is ideally attained at the point where the planet’s global surface T_avg has reached ~269 K. (This, of course, relies specifically on two purely hypothetical conditions to abide: The global surface is i) a blackbody, and ii) isothermal.)
We now place a massive – and very much radiatively active! – atmosphere on top of this equilibrated planetary surface. Now, just as the surface before it could be considered to start off its journey towards its original steady state temperature (269 K) from a hypothetical initial temperature around absolute zero (~2.7 K), so could the atmosphere. We simply want to see what happens as energy accumulates inside this massive atmosphere, gradually warming it.
So to begin with, before any energy has managed to be transferred as heat from the surface (or from the mother star) to this new atmosphere, the surface radiant heat loss is: q/A = σ (T_sfc^4 – T_atm^4) -> σ(269^4 – 2.7^4) -> 296 W/m^2, IOW just what it was before the atmosphere was placed on top of it. And remember now, this is a fully radiatively active atmosphere – it is physically able to absorb and emit EM radiation. The only problem is that it’s still too cold.
But what happens as this atmosphere now absorbs more and more energy from the surface (and from the local sun), thermalising it and gradually warming from it? Its temperature rises beyond that of space itself. And as a simple consequence of this, the atmosphere is now turned into an insulating layer, basically interposing a thermal barrier between the solar-heated surface and the absolute coldness of space.
As the atmosphere warms, its apparent DWLWIR to the surface increases. But this is a mere expression of the atmosphere warming. This is something that seems to utterly confound people. The atmosphere itself warms, not from the impact of receiving apparent, thermally associated ‘radiative hemifluxes’, but from storing up internal energy [U], by absorbing and thermalising energy transferred to it as heat from the surface and directly from the sun. The thermal radiation (the photon gas/cloud) is but a natural product of this thermodynamic process.
What happens when the surrounding temperature of a constantly heated object/surface all of a sudden increases? The temperature difference between the object/surface and its surroundings is reduced. And what does this lead to? It leads to a reduction in the rate of “heat loss” from the object/surface in question. This is true whether the mode of heat transfer happens to be ‘radiative’, ‘conductive’ or ‘convective’. And so, if we assume that the rate of incoming heat to the object/surface remains unchanged, then energy will accumulate (because Q_in > Q_out) and the object/surface will necessarily warm as a result, until its heat balance is restored (Q_in = Q_out).
And what happens when the surface temperature rises as a consequence of this process? Its apparent UWLWIR increases. Its accompanying thermal photon cloud, thermodynamically equilibrating with it, becomes ‘warmer’ with it. Which makes the surface (radiative) heat loss rate (mathematically, DWLWIR minus UWLWIR) grow back up again.
But is any of this CAUSED by the radiation itself? No. The radiation is just one particular manifestation of how the thermal process is working and moves forward. Along for the ride …
The thing is, once the massive atmosphere is put on top of the solar-heated surface, then the whole surface situation is changed. Moving towards a new steady state, the atmosphere will
1) make the planet’s albedo increase substantially, and
2) absorb for itself a significant portion of the incoming heat input from the sun, so that it never manages to reach the actual surface at the bottom.
This (points 1 and 2) will reduce the average ASR at the surface from the original no-atmo value of 296 W/m^2 to a final +atmo value of a mere 165 W/m^2 (Moon -> Earth). Which is to say that about 44% (!) of the original solar heat absorbed by the global surface is now somehow made unavailable to it by the very presence of the radiatively active atmosphere resting on top of it, either reflecting it directly back out to space or absorbing it for itself, before it could ever reach the surface.
This cutback in the surface heat input alone would naturally reduce the potential steady-state surface radiative heat loss from 296 to a maximum of 165 W/m^2.
However, it doesn’t end there. You see, more things change at the surface once the massive atmosphere is put on top of the solar-heated surface. The surface heat budget after all also stops being a purely radiative one. And this fact is an extremely important one to appreciate, because it has obvious implications for the surface radiative heat loss, which used to make up 100% of the total. It won’t anymore. It will naturally have to “make room for”other losses, NON-radiative ones. IOW: It will, by physical necessity, become significantly smaller. Even without any increase in atmospheric IR opacity.
And so this really changes the whole narrative. The surface radiative heat loss ISN’T reduced because of a rise in the effective atmospheric temperature leading to a rise in apparent atmospheric DWLWIR to the surface. It is simply reduced because there is less ‘need’ for it, because other heat loss mechanisms than the radiative one are also now contributing to the total.
So you see, the absolute magnitude of the surface radiative heat loss is thoroughly constrained first by the heat INPUT to the surface (the ASR), then by the (effectiveness of the) other heat loss mechanisms at work. It can’t be determined simply according to some perceived atmospheric level of IR opacity.
In the end, we might have a situation where, after having emplaced a massive atmosphere around our hypothetical planet, the surface steady state corresponds to a Q_in = Q_out of only 165=165 W/m^2 (rather than one of 296=296 W/m^2), where the radiative portion is further reduced to, say, 53 W/m^2, non-radiative losses covering the remaining 112 W/m^2. And so we’re left with the following inescapable apparent DWLWIR-UWLWIR relationship: 398 – 345 W/m^2 (net LW: 53 W/m^2), at 289 (T_sfc) vs. 279 K (T_atm).
The thing is, then, that this doesn’t itself tell us ANYTHING AT ALL about how we got from a surface T_avg of 269 to one of 289 K. Nothing about physical causes. All it really tells us is that a) the surface steady-state T_avg happens to be 289 K, and that b) the surface steady-state radiative heat loss happens to be 53 W/m^2. 289 K -> 398 W/m^2, and 398 – 53 = 345 W/m^2. This is exactly how a pyrgeometer would compute the apparent “sky radiation” (DWLWIR). But it tells us nothing about why the radiative heat loss happens to be 53 W/m^2 and not at some other value, nor why the surface T_avg happens to be 289 K and not higher, not lower.
Think about it …
Remember how, when we first placed the atmosphere on top of the solar-heated surface, the heat input to the surface from the sun was 296 W/m^2, and there were no other heat loss mechanisms in operation besides the radiative one. Moreover, the no-(or pre-)atmo steady state surface temperature was 269 K (296W/m^2 IN = 296W/m^2 OUT), and this was also the initial situation as the massive, radiatively active atmosphere (at 2.7 K) was placed around the planet – the DWLWIR was practically zero, because the atmosphere was simply too cold. Then several things happened:
i) the atmosphere started warming (from absorbing energy transferred to it as heat),
ii) the heat input to the surface was reduced, and
iii) non-radiative heat loss mechanisms became available and operative as the system kept growing warmer (a direct result of the warming atmosphere).
And so, from the initial to the latter and final steady state, we went from a surface net LW (radiant heat loss) shedding 296 W/m^2 to one at a mere 53 W/m^2. Meaning, we went from a temperature difference of [269-2.7=] ~266 K between the surface and the APPARENT “effective atmospheric level of downward radiation” to one of [289-279=] 10 degrees. Does this mean that the atmosphere somehow got immensely more opaque to surface IR, vastly lowering the effective level of “sky radiation” to the surface, during the journey from t_i to t_f? No, it evidently doesn’t. The atmosphere was, after all, just as IR active the entire time.
* * *
The simplest way of expressing the ‘massive’ effect of an atmosphere on a planetary surface is probably like this:
What happens when the surrounding temperature of a constantly heated object/surface all of a sudden increases? The temperature difference between the object/surface and its surroundings is reduced. And what does this lead to? It leads to a reduction in the rate of “heat loss” from the object/surface in question.
Understood and agreed.
Nuts and bolts: There is an atmosphere that gets warmer than space and what physically occurs that causes the surface to reduce its rate of heat loss?
Kristian
You: “But you cant say that by somehow reducing the surface radiative heat loss, then youve reduced the temperature difference/gradient between the surface and the atmosphere.”
We’ve been down this road before, haven’t we?
If you reduce radiant surface heat loss, all else unchanged, the surface will warm, even without a difference in atmospheric temperature.
This is analogous to adding room temperature insulation to an attic.
You may counter, “all else is not unchanged, Snape. For example, water vapor has increased, and water vapor moves heat away from the surface FASTER. Consider the Congo versus the Sahara/Sahel………..”
Round and round it goes.
I wrote, “This is analogous to adding room temperature insulation to an attic.”
Also analogous to introducing the green plate. Or putting on a sweater, or any kind of insulation.
Temperature influences rate of heat loss, and rate of heat loss influences temperature. To separate the two and claim it’s only one or the other is nonsense.
“To separate the two and claim its only one or the other is nonsense.”
Where is the nonsense ?
The unknown is the surface temperature, the inputs are on the one hand the solar flux and on the other hand the structure of the atmosphere, Ts=f(Qsun, Structure). Neither backraditaions nor backconduction nor backconvection are part of the inputs. These concepts, useless in thermodynamic, depend on the thermal profile of the atmosphere (an output) and, for convection, on a lot of other parameters.
The introduction of bakradiations only illustrates the lack of thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect.
phi…”Neither backraditaions nor backconduction nor backconvection are part of the inputs”.
Back-radiation in watts was a brain-child of the Kiehle-Trenberth energy budget, a highly theoretical construct people have taken far too seriously. K-T admitted they made up much of the claims.
Besides, in the 2009 Climategate email scandal, one email featured Trenberth admitting the warming has stopped and it’s a travesty that no one knows why.
It’s ludicrous that GHGs representing about 0.3% of the atmosphere on average should be able to back-radiate as much energy as is emitted by the surface. Even if it was true, the 2nd law forbids heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface.
phi
What? I can’t tell what you’re saying.
Similar to Kristian – “thermodynamic calculations” only deal with NET flow (so are aximotically unable to deal with two-way or multidirectional energy exchanges), and also don’t handle continuous time changes, generally only dealing with the overall change between disequilibrium and equilibrium.
Gordon Robertson,
“Back-radiation in watts was a brain-child of the Kiehle-Trenberth energy budget, a highly theoretical construct people have taken far too seriously. K-T admitted they made up much of the claims.”
Kiehle-Trenberth energy budget is not the cause of confusion, on the contrary, this incoherent scheme is the faithful reflection of the greenhouse effect quantitative theory.
Backradiations play a fundamental role in the concept of radiative forcing. When the radiative imbalance is supposed to come from an increase in GHG concentration, it accounts for a decrease in energy coming out of the climate system, this decrease corresponds to nothing else than an increase in backradiations. It is thus the concept of radiative forcing that poses the equivalence between backradiations and solar flux.
From a physical point of view, this equivalence corresponds to the similarity between reaction of the climatic system to a modification of the radiative structure and a modification of the quantity of incoming energy; practically, therefore, to an identical effect on the temperature gradient.
Thermodynamics does imply aything like that, quite the contrary. The concept of radiative forcing is therefore based on a hypothesis on the temperature gradient. It is the impossibility of the calculation of convection, and therefore of a thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect, which explains this trick.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Back-radiation in watts was a brain-child of the Kiehle-Trenberth energy budget….”
Let’s just call this claim what it is — bald stupid ignorance.
This idea has been around since Tyndall…. Try learning something for a change, Gordon.
You always choose ignorance, and it’s time to call a spade a spade.
phil wrote:
“The concept of radiative forcing is therefore based on a hypothesis on the temperature gradient.”
Wrong — it is based simply on the fact that GHGs emit radiation in all directions, some of it downward.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Besides, in the 2009 Climategate email scandal, one email featured Trenberth admitting the warming has stopped and its a travesty that no one knows why.”
Another shameless lie from Gordon, who knows nothing but is always willing to indict people via his ignorance.
No one lies here more than Gordon. No one is as ignorant.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Its ludicrous that GHGs representing about 0.3% of the atmosphere on average should be able to back-radiate as much energy as is emitted by the surface.”
That’s not what the science says. Not what Trenberth’s energy balance diagram says. Another lie from the Ignorant Lying Gordon Robertson.
Good job, Gordon!
Davie is foaming at the mouth.
g*r …”Good job, Gordon! Davie is foaming at the mouth”.
The truth seems to affect him like that. When he can’t find a convenient rebuttal on wiki, he tends to rant.
Gordon, you were wrong about what Trenberth’s email said.
You were wrong. You clearly did not understand it.
And you didn’t even try to defend yourself.
I take that as a win.
David Apple,
You quote the conclusion of a rationale. If you think it is wrong, you have to demonstrate what is wrong in the rationale. Just to say that it is wrong and share your personal interpretation does not help.
Here’s your wiki rebuttal Gordon:
“email from Trenberth about this paper was widely misrepresented”:
https://tinyurl.com/y8dyws5g
snape…”Also analogous to introducing the green plate. Or putting on a sweater, or any kind of insulation”.
The insulation in an attic, or a sweater, serves only to block air molecules directly. Neither serves any purpose for blocking IR. If you want to block IR in a homes you need to afix a reflective barrier on the ceiling and walls.
The fact that home insulators are not concerned about heat loss due to IR should make it clear that such heat loss is insignificant compared to heat loss by conduction. There is far too much emphasis on heat loss at the Earth’s surface by radiation and not enough emphasis on direct heat loss via conduction.
Unless the temperature difference is significant between the Earth’s surface and/or ocean surface and the atmosphere, radiation should not be that much of a problem. On the outside walls and roof of a home, radiation becomes significant so the idea of insulation is to prevent air molecules getting to the outside walls and roof.
I am willing to bet that most heat being transferred to our atmosphere is being done directly through conduction and evapouration (as suggested by gbaikie) using the 99%+ of the atmosphere that is nitrogen and oxygen. I don’t think CO2 or anthropogenic CO2 make a spit of difference.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The insulation in an attic, or a sweater, serves only to block air molecules directly. Neither serves any purpose for blocking IR. If you want to block IR in a homes you need to afix a reflective barrier on the ceiling and walls.”
Still the same principle — some insulation blocks convective heat, some insulation blocks radiative heat.
Energy is energy.
https://energy.gov/energysaver/insulation
https://energy.gov/energysaver/radiant-barriers
Gordon Robertson says:
“I am willing to bet that most heat being transferred to our atmosphere is being done directly through conduction and evapouration (as suggested by gbaikie) using the 99%+ of the atmosphere that is nitrogen and oxygen.”
You think N2 and O2 molecules are massively escaping out of the tip of the atmosphere?
Do you have any evidence of such a thing?
(No, of course you don’t. It’s another of your lies.)
“I dont think CO2 or anthropogenic CO2 make a spit of difference.”
Yet you can provide no evidence whatsoever to support this tired claim of yours, or even any calculation to suggest it.
Because you hate science.
DA…”You think N2 and O2 molecules are massively escaping out of the tip of the atmosphere?”
I claimed N2/O2 is radiating to space, not escaping to space.
Prove it.
Show your evidence.
Present the data proving your claim.
You will not, and cannot.
kristian…”A solar-heated planetary surface cannot warm space, but it can (and does) warm a massive atmosphere, and in doing so, will by necessity be forced to become warmer itself as well”.
That makes sense, however, the atmosphere is a collection of matter in a less dense form than the surface. The matter (molecules) is stratified due to gravity and it has a higher density near the surface.
You ‘could’ visualize the atmosphere as a solid, less dense form of the surface that acts as a buffer between the surface and space. That requires heat transfer from the surface to space-side of the atmosphere by conduction and convection rather than radiation since treating the atmosphere as a buffer requires that the 99%+ of atmospheric gases nitrogen and oxygen be a significant heat transfer mechanism.
It makes no sense to consider gases like GHGs as a significant player. If it comes down to radiation it means transferring heat from the surface comes down to the 0.3% on average of the atmosphere that represent GHGs. It makes far more sense that heat gets transported to the TOA via conduction and convection using the 99%+ of the atmosphere that is N2 and O2, and allowing them to radiate to space (Lindzen thinks so).
I have seen reference to the notion that only GHGs can radiate to space. Not true. Any gas will radiate provided the temperature difference is there.
Furthermore, there is a question as to what happens to heat in a parcel of N2/O2 as it rises in N2/O2 that is cooler due to altitude. Obviously it gets transferred to the cooler N2/O2 by collisions, causing them to warm.
I am not happy with the meteorological explanation for lapse rate. I agree there are radiative and convective forces at work on top of the gravitational effect on density of air with altitude, but dismissing the gravitational effect and focusing on adiabatic processes seems myopic.
As hot, dense, air comprised mainly of N2/O2 rises into a thinner atmosphere, it too will thin. It will also come under the effect of gravity as the buoyancy that caused it to rise lessens.
I think this process of surface cooling is far more complicated than it appears.
GR says:
“It makes no sense to consider gases like GHGs as a significant player.”
Another stupid pronouncement from Gordon, which he did not try to prove in any way.
Without evidence, it can certainly be ignored. Especially if GR wrote it.
Davie, where’s your evidence that the Earth can warm the Sun?
Without evidence…
D*u*m*m*y – evidence presented long ago.
Naturally, you could not grasp it.
Without evidenceall you have are insults.
Nothing new.
Sorry you can’t remember.
You’re still afraid to sign your comments with your real name. C*o*w*a*r*d.
If there is ever a manned mission to the sun, I think we crowd source the funds required to ensure that g*e*r*a*n can acquire the direct empirical evidence himself.
Gordon can go along for the ride. I can also provide a mercury thermometer.
continued from above-
In the meantime the solar infrared spectrum of the sun showing absorp-tion lines is shown here -https://tinyurl.com/y8nuj7gx .
The IR spectrum for the earth as seen by a satellite is shown here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/ .
The answer is clear to anyone (with a minimum requirement of half a brain which unfortunately excludes g*e*r*a*n and Gordon and their fellow travellers), that yes there will be some absorp-tion of energy from the earth by the sun. Of course the energy will be miniscule compared to the fusion energy driving the sun.
The temperature increase , of course would be immeasurable so maybe the thermometer could be dispensed with.
miker, the Earth’s spectrum does not indicate the Sun will absorb.
G*e*r*a*n,
the figure lined to above https://tinyurl.com/y8nuj7gx does. This is from a paper titled Observations of the infrared solar spectrum from space by the ATMOS experiment see –
https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-35-16-2747 .
miker, you need to look up the word “to”. Then look up the word “from”.
Obviously FROM earth would be a reference to spectrum of the infrared radiation that is radiated FROM the earth as shown in the WattsupWithThat reference above. Likewise the TO refers to the infrared absorbed the sun (see the absortp-tion spectrum of the sun as referred to in my last comment).
This comment by g* just confirms that the requirement for half a brain would indeed be a stretch for g*.
I might have to simplify the above further, if it is possible, to reduce the difficulty for those who have similar intellectual deficiencies.
http://tinyurl.com/y7m7cc38
Description
The objective of the Atmospheric Trace Molecule Spectroscopy (ATMOS) experiment on ATLAS-3 was to (1) determine the detailed compositional structure of the Earth’s atmosphere from 20 – 120 km at 2-3 km vertical resolution and its global, seasonal, and long-term variability, and (2) study the partitioning of solar energy at levels in the atmosphere characterised by dissociation of many of the consitiuents and by the breakdown of thermodynamic equilibrium. The experiment was also able to obtain infrared spectral information about the Sun’s photosphere.
miker hopes: “Likewise the TO refers to the infrared absorbed the sun (see the absortp-tion spectrum of the sun as referred to in my last comment).”
NOPE. That’s is not what is shown. It’s what you BELIEVE is shown. You do not have a spectrum of what the Sun absorbs.
Back on Earth, there isn’t even such. People look at the spectrum of incoming IR and ASSUME it is all ab.sor.bed, but beliefs are NOT proof.
Keep trying to look stupid. You’re doing a great job so far.
DA…”Another stupid pronouncement from Gordon, which he did not try to prove in any way”.
I have explained it several times at depth. Or were you absent, or not paying attention?
The mass of CO2 in particular relegates it to a very minor contributor of heat to the atmosphere (Dalton’s Law and Ideal Gas Equation).
It would be impossible for CO2 to contribute more than a few hundredths of a degree C based on its mass and as the IPCC has admitted, anthropogenic CO2 is a ‘small’ fraction of atmospheric CO2, which comes mainly from natural sources.
I don’t know why that has escaped your guru, Pierrehumbert, who seems to buy into model nonsense that CO2 contributes 9% to 25% of the atmospheric heat.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The mass of CO2 in particular relegates it to a very minor contributor of heat to the atmosphere (Daltons Law and Ideal Gas Equation).”
That’s exactly your stupidity — you ignore all of quantum mechanics, and refuse to admit that GHG molecules absorb and emit IR.
You’ve never done a calculation with your hypothesis.
Or explained why you think you can ignore GHG emissions.
You just make pronouncements, without ever giving any scientific reasoning to justify them.
Because you have none — your “science” is based only on your emotions.
GR claimed:
“It would be impossible for CO2 to contribute more than a few hundredths of a degree C based on its mass and as the IPCC has admitted”
What calculation leads you to this number?
GR wrote:
“I dont know why that has escaped your guru, Pierrehumbert, who seems to buy into model nonsense that CO2 contributes 9% to 25% of the atmospheric heat.”
Like you know 1% of what he does.
You delude your own self, which is the worst sin of all.
Kristian wrote:
“IOW: A solar-heated planetary surface cannot warm space”
Why not? The radiation that escapes a planet carries energy. Energy warms…..
“Nuts and bolts: There is an atmosphere that gets warmer than space and what physically occurs that causes the surface to reduce its rate of heat loss?”
Water evaporates lowering surface temperature- that’s the main factor with Earth which is water planet.
Which planet lacking water, it’s a heated land surface has convectional heat loss to atmosphere, but with earth and 70% of surface covered with water, the evaporation of water heats the air to the same temperature of ocean surface temperture.
Earth average ocean temperature is about 17 C and main contributor to a global surface air temperature of 15 C.
Also have latent of water vapor.
With land surface the more difference of ground temperature compared to air temperature causes more heat to be transferred to atmosphere or when there little difference, little heat is lost to atmosphere. With ocean surface there is no difference and needs no difference of ocean surface to heat air to it’s temperature.
good explanation gbaikie, makes far more sense than GHE or AGW.
Really? Explain the part where he said “With ocean surface there is no difference and needs no difference of ocean surface to heat air to its temperature.”
Bodies of water are always evaporating. You have different rates of evaporation.
Wind [or electric fan] can cool a wet surface, the evaporated water vapor will same temperature as cooled surface which forced to evaporate at higher rate by the wind.
A swamp cooler is wet material which forced to evaporate with a fan, and to get the cooler air it depends on the wet material getting to a lower temperature.
Swamp cooler work [can make cooler air] when you have low humidity environment. So in desert region swamp cooler can create more cold air at lower energy costs as compared to typical air conditioners [heat pumps].
Or a system used is wet bulb temperature- wrap thermometer with wet cloth, spin it, and then measure the lower temperature of wet bulb compared to dry thermometer. If air has high humidity then there is less difference in temperature of wet bulb and dry bulb. Or if have a high wet bulb temperature swamp cooler don’t don’t cool the air [though if just want more humid air they work for that purpose].
So if on bodies of water or near bodies the water, you will tend to have high humidity [not places which swamp cooler can cool air] but water will still evaporate. Mop a floor and floor eventually dries out- but if have warmer air [and/or fans] floor will dry out quicker.
It’s good to see you stepping in to help out your (almost as) clueless (as you) friend.
–Its good to see you stepping in to help out your (almost as) clueless (as you) friend.–
If you cover the tropical ocean with asphalt parking lot- the net result would be global cooling.
So make a vast amount of floating islands and cover the tropical ocean.
The result would be the sunlight would heat this surface to about 70 C as compared to ocean surface which never gets much above 30 C.
And that would creating a massive urban heat island effect.
If cover the entire US with asphalt parking- it would be insignificant in comparison.
But the effect on global temperatures of a tropical parking lot, would be global cooling effect.
A bit more explanation is needed of average ocean temperature. 17C? This refers to sea surface temps, not the temperature of the global oceans to depth.
So how come SSTs are 17C on average (day/night) instead of much colder?
“So how come SSTs are 17C on average (day/night) instead of much colder?”
Gosh, hard to know.
Maybe it could be “It’s the Sun, stupid”.
Global av (day+night) SSTs would be 30K cooler if it was only the sun. Earth was a giant snowball, once. The sun didn’t prevent that from happening.
Let’s stop kidding ourselves. Global SST is as warm as that because of the atmosphere reducing the rate of heat loss from the surface. gbakie’s comment is a red herring.
barry believes: “Global av (day+night) SSTs would be 30K cooler if it was only the sun.”
barry believes the Sun cannot heat the planet. Hilarious.
barry continues: “Earth was a giant snowball, once. The sun didnt prevent that from happening.”
barry has no photos of the “giant snowball”, yet he believes it. That’s all he’s got. Hilarious.
Unabated, barry continues: “Lets stop kidding ourselves. Global SST is as warm as that because of the atmosphere reducing the rate of heat loss from the surface. gbakies comment is a red herring.”
barry’s belief system proves to him that his belief system is correct. Hilarious.
— barry says:
November 18, 2017 at 9:04 PM
Global av (day+night) SSTs would be 30K cooler if it was only the sun. Earth was a giant snowball, once. The sun didnt prevent that from happening.
Lets stop kidding ourselves. Global SST is as warm as that because of the atmosphere reducing the rate of heat loss from the surface. gbakies comment is a red herring.–
You can’t have liquid ocean without the pressure of atmosphere.
One could have atmosphere of water vapor which provided enough
pressure for liquid water. But I am not saying that atmosphere of N2, O2, CO2, and water vapor and clouds doesn’t have insulating effect.
I agree that anything absorbing the energy of sunlight going to increase temperature and atmosphere will absorb energy
from the sun.
But simple fact is the ocean is warmer in terms of average temperature than land surface.
The land surface doesn’t warm ocean the ocean surface, and ocean increases the average temperature of land surface.
Or most agree that Europe would have lower average without the warmth of gulf stream.
So Ocean adds to average temperature by simply being warmer and adds to global temperature because it warms land surfaces. It warms both by bring tropical heat poleward and increase air temperature generally. Or even if gulf stream wasn’t flowing warm water from tropics, the ocean would still warm Europe by some less amount.
But I would say a ideal thermally conductive blackbody indicates planet at earth distance from the sun is about 5 C
and Earth is about 5 C.
And if you imagine the planet would -30 C at Earth distance
you have explain why it’s so far from about 5 C. Or what causing the cooling of around 30 K.
Whereas I think the ocean explains why earth can more than 5 C, it make Earth a bit warmer as compared to same world which lacks a global ocean.
Or Earth ocean is not something which lowers global average temperature, but rather it increases it.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“barry continues: Earth was a giant snowball, once. The sun didnt prevent that from happening.”
Actually it was at least 2 times, and maybe up to four. The two are the Sturtian period and the Marinoan period.
There’s a reason the period 850 Myrs ago to 630 Myrs ago is called the Cryogenian.
You comment about “photos” is mindless and unthinking.
Davie, 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, or 91. It doesn’t matter. It’s ALL pseudoscience. No one knows if the Earth was ever even a “snowball”. You have no proof, all you have is random opinions and wandering beliefs.
So, your comment was “mindless and unthinking”.
Nothing new.
D*u*m*m*y – you presented no science whatsoever.
If you think science only pertains to what you can photograph, you are an even bigger d*u*m*m*y than you have been letting on here.
Let’s see you have some balls and start signing your insults with your real name and town, like real men do.
Afraid?
I enjoy my privacy.
(Besides, it drives you crazy.)
You enjoy insulting people while hiding behind your momma’s skirt.
The mark of a true coward.
You’re foaming at the mouth is not due to any insults from me. It’s due to the fact that your pseudoscience is failing.
Foaming/failing makes for great comedy.
” barry says:
November 18, 2017 at 8:05 PM
A bit more explanation is needed of average ocean temperature. 17C? This refers to sea surface temps, not the temperature of the global oceans to depth.”
Yes surface of ocean, globally is 17 C. Keep in mind tropical ocean is 40% of global ocean and tropical ocean surface temperature is quite warm and stays warm, night and day and throughout entire year- always is warm. Though oceans outside the tropic have more constant temperature compared land surfaces, the surface of such can vary more seasonally and night and day. Or tropics have thick slab of warm water, elsewhere it’s thinner or non-existnce.
The average volume temperature of ocean [even in tropics] is much colder- about 4 C or less. And this average volume temperature can and has been warmer in the past. And increasing this average volume temperature causes global warming. It’s the control knob of global average temperature- or surface ocean temperature is average global temperature, but surface temperature is control or governed
by the average volume ocean temperature.
Or since our ocean are cold, we in an icebox climate if average volume temperature was more than 5 C warmer, we would have a higher average global temperature, and would be in a global icebox climate. It needs to be about 10 C warmer to start be in hothouse global climate.
–…would be in a global icebox climate…–
…would *not* be in a global icebox climate…
Well here, it’s thought a last interglacial period [Eemian] may have have the entire being as much as 5 C warmer.
Or more certainty that sea levels were about 5 meters or more higher than current sea level [and much of that is thought to be due to the thermal expansion of a warmer ocean].
JMA Oct anomaly is also in:
2017 Jan: 0.39
2017 Feb: 0.46
2017 Mar: 0.48
2017 Apr: 0.39
2017 May: 0.36
2017 Jun: 0.36
2017 Jul: 0.41
2017 Aug: 0.38
2017 Sep: 0.34
2017 Oct: 0.31
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/list/mon_wld.html
For UAH and GISS, the Oct anomaly was higher than Sept.
For RSS, NOAA and JMA, the Oct anomaly was lower than Sept.
UAH had the biggest jump upwards.
[Disclaimer: I don’t think these differences are in the least bit important. But some people think that they are, so I post the results]
What is the JMA baseline period?
1981-2010, same as UAH.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
Worth noting that the JMA data set has the least coverage of all the data sets.
I tried downloading their data. The description says that the files contain plain text, but when I download I get nonsense. Do you happen to know what I am doing wrong?
I clicked on the icon next to “Download data in CSV format,” copied and pasted the data from that page to note pad, transported to Exel, checked the box labeled ‘commas’ to delimit the data, and that worked. Only had to remove a ‘+’ sign from the October anomaly. The rest were done for me by Exel.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/list/mon_wld.html
After clicking on CSV icon you should get this page:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/list/csv/mon_wld.csv
You can also get annual data from the graphics page of temp record, linked near the bottom.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/list/year_wld.html
Once again, click on CSV icon and follow the steps as I outlined above – assuming you have a PC. Dunno if it’s harder on Mac.
Thanks for that. However I would also like to download gridded data from this page:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/download.html
It says at the top that the data is in plain text format, but I don’t recognise the extension.
This is gzipped format, i.e. compressed. After having uncompressed the data, plain text appears.
But… this here is a per year output. The actual JMA data therefore shows only up to dec 2016.
On Linux, g[un]zip is free. I guess Winzip is behind paywall, try to download it, maybe you obtain it free for e.g. a month.
GZ files need certain software to open (I don’t have that stuff).
http://tinyurl.com/ybwvuz58
You can compare the same month over the years at that site. For example, here is the long term record of Octobers only.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/oct_wld.html
Oct 2017 is the 3rd highest in that data set.
The figure will be provisional until mid-November. Takes a month or so to finalise after quality checks.
moyhu has just had the first negative daily anomaly in 28 months.
The previous record was 9 months without a negative day and 3rd record was 5 months.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Overall oceanic temp +.237c this is down from readings mostly in the +.30c – +.38c range this summer. Although they were cooler earlier in the spring if I remember.
Will overall sea surface temperatures fall below +.200c? If they do I will start to get more excited.
Next item is global cloud coverage, is it now increasing?
These two items will go a very long way in determining what global temperatures will be doing as we move forward.
My play is very low solar will equate to lower overall sea surface temperatures and higher albedo due to an increase in global cloud/snow coverage and an increase in major volcanic activity.
RESULT IS GLOBAL COOLING.
Low solar conditions of late are really becoming entrenched ,much will be determined as we move forward and solar stays in the tank.
Again … if SST anomalies fall below +0.2, how will you distinguish that from the effects of La Nina? What historical SST anomaly is not normal during La Ninas? Research this, or you will embarrass yourself once the La Nina is over.
We shall see.
It is amazing how much emphasis you put on ENSO.
I am concerned about overall sea surface temperatures not EL NINO or LA NINA.
What is the long-term trend in SSTs?
Overall SSTs always fall during La Ninas. I’ll analyse it myself when I get the time.
DES, any data post DALTON MIMIMUM is useless.
Why? because the sun was in a prolonged active 1830-2005.
So why would I want to use data between 1830-2005 to try to see what may occur now. The answer is I don’t.
THAT IS PROLONGED ACTIVE STATE
“THAT IS PROLONGED ACTIVE STATE”
1830-present was the Sun being what the Sun does.
The Dalton minimum was the anomaly.
But it still didn’t cause the Little Ice Age.
The GMST is simply not very sensitive to changes in TSI — only about 0.1 K/(W/m2).
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“THAT IS PROLONGED ACTIVE STATE”
According to what data and evidence?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“So why would I want to use data between 1830-2005 to try to see what may occur now.”
Cite the evidence that we should expect another Dalton Minimum.
PS: The LIA wasn’t caused by the Dalton Minimum, or the Maunder Minimum, or any others. The Earth’s surface temperature is very insensitive to changes in TSI, only about 0.1 K/(W/m2) at most.
No one knows, but might have something to do volcanic activity in addition to solar activity.
Perhaps it was mini-mudball
Yes, science knows:
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
Salvatore del Prete wrote:
“Low solar conditions of late are really becoming entrenched”
Wrong & Bullsh!t.
Prove it.
“…here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
You are the one to talk Rotten Apple. At least Salvatore does not spout pseudoscience nonsense such as:
1. The earth heats the sun
2. IR is heat.
You are an embarrassment to science. You should demand a refund from whatever university you attended. But no, you were obviously AWOL or stoned during your physics lectures.
Funny – you spout scientific nonsense, and then use it to attack me.
You’re wrong on all of this.
And you seem proud to be wrong.
Why don’t you start signing your comments with your real name and town, so we can see if you’re a man who stands by his words and insults? I think you’re afraid to…..
You will not find any physics textbook which defines IR as heat. Furthermore, you will only find this IDIOTIC proclamation that the earth heats the sun from fringe lunatics that haunt respectable climate websites.
ha ha:
“Most of the heat transfer from this fire to the observers is through infrared radiation.”
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/methods-of-heat-transfer/
SkepticGoneWild says:
“Furthermore, you will only find this IDIOTIC proclamation that the earth heats the sun from fringe lunatics that haunt respectable climate websites”
You keep ignoring the questions, like all deniers do.
Which of the following statements is false?
1) The Earth emits radiation in all directions.
2) This radiation carries energy.
3) Some of this radiation is directed towards the Sun.
4) The Sun absorbs this energy.
5) When an object absorbs energy, its temperature increases from what it would otherwise be.
SkW: still afraid to insult people using your real name, huh?
Wimp. Coward.
You are a complete moron. That reference does NOT define IR as heat. You are more of an idiot than I thought.
Of course heat CAN transfer via IR from a warm body to a cold one, but the opposite is not true.
OMG and you have a PhD?
Ice emits IR, but it does NOT transfer heat to you. (But maybe only to you since your brain is dead)
Once again. Please provide a physics textbook which DEFINES IR as heat. YOU WILL NOT FIND ONE.
So dry ice emits heat? Sure bub. Throw a hunk of solid CO2 on the fireplace and watch the room warm up. Oh the irony! LMAO.
Long let David continue. He does a great job of discrediting his side of the argument by:
a) continuing to assert that the Earth heats the sun
b) continuing to pretend his questions havent been answered multiple times
c) continuing to bring up irrelevant (false) analogies to back up his arguments
Thats the sort of thing thats very easy for rational people to see through. So the more he does it, the better. Especially when he does it during a thread, stops, then repeats the exact same thing further down. Perhaps his aim is to destroy his side of the argument from within. If so hes doing a great job.
Davie, 4) is FALSE.
“Cold” can not warm “hot”.
SkW – IR radiation is certainly a form of heat.
Because it carries energy.
Tony: You too keep ignoring the relevant questions.
Which of the following statements is false?
1) The Earth emits radiation in all directions.
2) This radiation carries energy.
3) Some of this radiation is directed towards the Sun.
4) The Sun absorbs this energy.
5) When an object absorbs energy, its temperature increases from what it would otherwise be.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“So dry ice emits heat?”
Yes — all objects emit heat in the form of radiation.
SkepticGoneWild says:
“So dry ice emits heat? Sure bub. Throw a hunk of solid CO2 on the fireplace and watch the room warm up.”
Where did the energy to create the dry ice come from?
Where did it go?
Initially the system consists of a (presumably isolated) fireplace.
Then you introduce a chunk of dry ice into it.
Does that chunk contain heat?
Does it radiate energy?
Of course it does.
So you have added an energetic object to your system.
Your system now contains more energy.
And wat about the energy used to create the dry ice? Where did it go?
Davie,
Dry ice emits electromagnetic radiation. Look up the definition of “heat” in a physics textbook. Your definition is WRONG, and it appears you have not taken ONE physics class.
You are totally confused with the term “heat”.
Aren’t you embarrassed at all? You just keep displaying your immense stupidity regarding physics.
SkW – if you expect further replies, you’ll have to stop the insults.
–David Appell says:
November 21, 2017 at 6:31 PM
Tony: You too keep ignoring the relevant questions.
Which of the following statements is false?
1) The Earth emits radiation in all directions.–
False. Only in outward spherical direction.
–2) This radiation carries energy.
3) Some of this radiation is directed towards the Sun.
4) The Sun absorbs this energy.–
False. the Sun is hotter than Earth
5) When an object absorbs energy, its temperature increases from what it would otherwise be.
True. And earth does not warm the sun.
If Earth was as hot as Sun, it still would not warm the Sun.
And if the earth was as hot as the sun, the sun would not warm the Earth.
Two things of same temperature do not warm each other. If they did, billion things of same temperature would warm a billion times more.
If earth were the same temperature as the sun, earth couldn’t warm the sun, nor sun warm earth.
Or a hot earth could not lose energy in the direction of the sun.
Since sun is bigger, and sun’s size is .5 degrees, the sun’s diameter is equal to .5 degree of longitude and latitude of sphere with radius of 149.6 million km.
let’s scratch the million km
and 149.6 meter sphere has area of 2.8110^5 meter.
Or roughly it’s 2.8110^-5 of area
But 149.6 sphere has circumference of 940 meter and divide
by 360 is 2.6 meter per degree.
And circle which 1/2 degree longitude/latitude in diameter or 1/4 of degree in radius.
Anyhow the sun is occupying a small point in space which can not allow cooling. Or if can’t heat, it can’t cool.
So a sun hot earth will cool less because there is area to radiate it’s energy, but the radiant energy could reflect off the sun. So the big sun would prevent earth sun from radiate as much- though the degree the Electromagnetic energy reflected off the sun allow more heat loss [even if it reflect straight back to the Earth sun.
But in any case the Earth sun or Earth doesn’t warm the sun.
OMG. Stop making yourself look SO DUMB. I take that back. Keep on spouting your nonsense for the world to see.
Please look at the following:
http://tinyurl.com/22nwxrk
This is basic physics, Davie. What the hell were you doing during physics lecture?? Dropping acid? NONE of what you say resembles anything taught in a physics class.
Your questions have been answered.
“SkW if you expect further replies, youll have to stop the insults.”
You DESERVE to be insulted. You insult other people, but can’t take your own medicine. Your proclamation are IDIOTIC beyond all measure.
I wish I had an IGNORE button so I wouldn’t have to see your absolute STUPIDITY.
I don’t care if you REPLY. Just GO AWAY and quit spouting pseudoscience nonsense.
Tony: answered where? Link?
So many deniers who can’t keep their emotions under control.
“Bodies don’t “contain” heat; heat is identified as it comes across system boundaries”
The above is from MIT thermodynamic course notes. Yet Davie says:
“Does that chunk contain heat? Of course it does.”
You need to crack open a physics textbook for once in your life.
Yes, good example David. Keep going, youre a fantastic help.
Thats it, keep it up!
barry,
You’re still absolutely stuck on the notion that the a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n of each specific photon counts, even when looking beyond that single quantum event itself. Change your perspective only slightly, and you’ll see how the importance of individual photons and their discrete actions basically dissipates. Focus instead on the energy ASSOCIATED WITH or EQUIVALENT TO a photon of any particular frequency. Like normal physicists working in the field do. Photonic energy in a ‘generic’ sense, NOT in a ‘specific’ one.
Then return to the dime analogy:
Did the atmosphere ADD energy equivalent to the energy of a single photon to the surface during the full exchange? No. It added one PARTICULAR photon, yes, but it removed two OTHER photons at the exact same time. From the very same surface. Your hand.
So what ACTUALLY happened? The energy associated with one of the two photons/dimes that you held in your hand originally was simply EXCHANGED with the energy associated with the one photon/dime originally held by the ‘atmosphere’ person in front of you. The other one was lost (removed by the ‘atmosphere’), without compensation.
And so, the overall effect of the thermal radiative exchange between sfc and atm in this analogy is that the atmosphere doesn’t add ANY energy at all to the surface (zero dime-equivalents), while the surface gives IT some energy (one dime-equivalent), but LESS energy than it would’ve handed to space in the same situation (two dime-equivalents). And the reason is that the atmosphere, having a (thermal) mass, is WARMER than space.
* * *
Once you move from the chaos and disorder of the quantum world to the order and consistent patterns of the macro world, the random paths and individual actions (the ‘life’) of single photons no longer matter. The overall photonic energy is then simply experienced as a staticcontentof internal radiative energy, the thermal photon gas/cloud.
This isn’t MY invention, barry. This is how a thermal photon gas/cloud is physically described. It’s like a second body, made up of radiative energy, created and sustained by the first body, the material one, occupying the exact same volume of space, constantly exchanging energy with it, thermally equilibrated with it:
“The total radiation emitted by a cooling body is not correctly described merely as the sum of all the individual emission processes, as the particles can also absorb radiation. In the end, the statistics of a large number of emission AND a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n events determine the resultant radiation.” (…) “… if there are enough particles in the radiating body to produce a very large number of photons and photon-matter interactions, then the radiating body and the cloud of photons will achieve thermal equilibrium. The resultant radiation emitted from the body, then, is a cloud of photons at the same temperature as the body itself.”
This is what we call “blackbody radiation”.
https://tinyurl.com/k6jfexl
As long as the temperature [T] or temperaturegradientinside and/or across the radiation field is constant, and also its total volume [V], this static content (and distribution) of internal radiative energy remains the same and in place. The specific photons makingupthe photon gas/cloud are exchanged all the time; they’re never the same from one instant to the next.Individually, they pass through the field, and/or are scattered, absorbed and emitted by the medium itself and/or by the surfaces on either side of it. Constantly and continuously. But the total radiative energy associatedwiththem always ideally stays unchanged:
“We can think of the large number of photons, which are created in the body, as a second body of particles, so that there are two bodies present: the radiating matter (i.e., the atoms, molecules, or electrons) and a cloud of photons, both of which occupy the same volume. The particles in each body interact with those in the other, exchanging energy back and forth. The cloud of photons, though, is created by the matter particles and if more photons are created, then more energy is contained within the photon cloud.” (Same source as above.)
And the MOVEMENT of radiative energy – not the content, the movement – always flows one way only, from where the (photonic) energy density, the associated radiation pressure, and the radiative intensity, is higher to where it’s lower. Or – put differently – from higher to lower temperatures. If the radiating body is internally isothermal, then there is no inner movement of radiative energy. Then there’s only movement in the radiative energy once we reach the outer surface of the body, away from it; in the ideal BB scenario, into surroundings at absolute zero:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/431/heat_radiation_from_black_surface_absolute_zero.pdf
If you have a photon gas/cloud (a radiation field) of volume V, and there’s an established gradient in the photonic energy density, the radiation pressure, and the radiative intensity through it, then what happens when you somehow change the temperature at the one end of it? (It doesn’t really matter here if the photon gas/cloud in question stretches between two different bodies or through one and the same body; the governing principle is equal in both cases – the radiative gradient equilibrates with and thus conforms and corresponds to the thermal one.)
What happens when the cooler end warms?
Well, the temperature difference between the cooler and the warmer end then naturally decreases, even as the distance between them stays the same. And what does this lead to? It leads to a change in the gradients – in the thermal one and – as a natural result – also in the radiative one.
What happens is simply that the gradient in photonic energy density, radiation pressure, and radiative intensity through the photon gas/cloud no longer drops as steeply as before, from high to low potential, as you move from the warmer to the cooler end of it. Which reduces the measurable MOVEMENT (‘transport’) of radiative energy always flowing down the potential gradient – the radiative FLUX.
And so, it is not the thermalradiationat the cooler end of the photon gas/cloud that has a thermal impact on the warmer end. It’s the TEMPERATURE at the cooler end. Temperatures (molecular motions and interactions) are what generates and sustains a thermal photon gas/cloud. The very existence of a thermal (blackbody) photon gas or cloud, plus all subsequentchanges to it, originate in the temperatures (and temperature changes) of matter. It is not itselfan “impactor”, a ’cause’ or a ‘driver’, of change. A change in thermal radiation is merely an effect, an expression, a manifestation, of a change in temperature and/or temperature distribution.
This is seemingly what gets people confused.
Kristian says:
“barry,
Youre still absolutely stuck on the notion that the a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n of each specific photon counts”
Does each specific photon carry energy?
Of course it does.
Therefore it matters. Period.
–This is seemingly what gets people confused.–
Maybe.
What confuses me is how much radiation people think the atmosphere emits.
Obviously all radiation which reaches the void of space, must go thru the atmosphere.
And radiation going thru the atmosphere is not what I am referring to.
What I mean is something which emits radiation that is cooling. So pick say 1000 meter above surface and all atmosphere above 1000 meter which is emitting radiation and therefore cooling- rather reflecting, diffusing, re-radating the radiation coming form the surface [or emission coming from surface and surface cooling as result.
And included in atmosphere more than 1000 meter above the surface is clouds, dust and whatever which are 1000 meters and higher.
I tend to think the gases above 1000 meter are cooling less per square than say a cloud per square meter. And I don’t think clouds emit much energy into the void and thereby cool very much.
Or would say that lack of atmosphere cooling to the void, is
the greenhouse effect.
Or with Venus the atmosphere doesn’t emit much energy,and wahat in the atmosphere cooling the most is all those thick clouds of acid.
gbaikie says:
“What I mean is something which emits radiation that is cooling. So pick say 1000 meter above surface and all atmosphere above 1000 meter which is emitting radiation and therefore cooling”
According to Pierrehumbert’s textbook, the global average for this “effective radiating level” on Earth is 670 mb, or an altitude of about 3.3 km.
Yes that why pick 1000 meter above the surface. Of course there is land areas above 3.3 km and many people live at such elevation. So I meant in small regions which are higher elevation it’s 1000 meters above this higher elevation of surface.
But my question isn’t some “effective radiating level” I mean how much cooling occurs above this 1000 meter level.
Roughly since 1000 meter on average is 6.5 C cooler, it would roughly be the atmosphere which which is 15 – 6.5 C which is 8.5 C or cooler. So, in atmosphere which averages 8.5 C or cooler how much heat loss occurs per square meter.
How much of the 1000 meter above surface to 20,000 meter elevation cools and thereby emits per per square meter?
And as said if clouds are within it, I would think clouds cool and emit more per square meter as compared regions of the atmosphere which has no clouds.
It’s 3.3 km above the 1000 mb mark, i.e sea level. That level intersects high mountains, and above that global level radiation escapes to space, on average.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s land or not.
“How much of the 1000 meter above surface to 20,000 meter elevation cools and thereby emits per per square meter?”
Another of your questions that isn’t very relevant and definitely isn’t worth working out.
“And as said if clouds are within it, I would think clouds cool and emit more per square meter as compared regions of the atmosphere which has no clouds.”
The statement wasn’t about clouds and didn’t include clouds.
“David Appell says:
November 19, 2017 at 7:19 PM
And as said if clouds are within it, I would think clouds cool and emit more per square meter as compared regions of the atmosphere which has no clouds.
The statement wasnt about clouds and didnt include clouds.”
Well, didn’t say how much whether about clouds or anything- so not problem.
Clouds just complicate your original scenario. Ignore them and stick to it.
The dime analogy is fine. All you’re telling me is that thermodynamics gives you the end result, but is disinterested in the exchange. Nothing new here.
If I give 1 dime I get back 2. If I give 2 dimes I get back 3. If I give 3 dimes I get back 4.
The number of dimes I give impacts how many dimes the person in front of me gives. Of course, the person giving me dimes is also setting how many I’ll give.
My hands have holes. That’s why I give back fewer dimes to begin with. But over time my hands heal up a bit and I drop fewer dimes, giving more back. To compensate, the person opposite me has to give more back.
My healing hands are an analogy for the radiative effects of a sky with increasing GHGs.
It’s somewhat of an analogy. You’re making dimes out of thin air, much as CO2 creates heat energy all by itself.
Analogies are fine, but they can’t violate the Laws of Thermodynamics.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“Its somewhat of an analogy. Youre making dimes out of thin air, much as CO2 creates heat energy all by itself.”
Does the blanket you sleep under create heat energy all by itself?
Davie, the “blanket” ruse again? Surely you got some new tricks?
Does the blanket you sleep under create heat energy all by itself?
And, yet again.
How does a blanket keep you warmer?
Good job, keep it up.
No, G. Midas is shedding dimes at a constant rate until I stand in front of him and give some back. Midas needs to make sure that the same number of dimes get distributed to his people, so because I’m handing them back, he has to give out more to compensate. As my hands heal over I’m dropping less and less, so he has to give back more and more of the ones I’m giving him, plus the same amount needed to make budget with his people. Eventually my hands stop healing, and the exchange rate between Midas and me becomes constant. Because Midas’ people must never go without, Midas has to do more work because of me. The exertion makes him sweat.
barry says, November 19, 2017 at 7:50 PM:
In other words, the dimes you give back HEATS him some more. According to YOUR explanation. “He has to give out more to compensate.” How and when can he do this? Only after he has ‘absorbed’ your dimes and his U and T have risen as a result. “Because you’re handing dimes back.” Ergo, your “back-handed dimes” is equal to EXTRA HEATING, barry. A transfer of energy with a direct THERMAL impact. There’s no way around this.
This is why I try to tell you – to no avail, it seems – that you cannot EXPLAIN a thermal effect, specifically governed by the Laws of Thermodynamics, with a quantum mechanical process, which isn’t. The two phenomena address different aspects of reality!
How hard is this to comprehend, barry?
Oh no, Kristian, there’s no time delay. Midas and I work very quickly. At the speed of light. So when my hands heal and drop fewer coins, sending more back to Midas, he ups his rate (by returning mine + budget to people) instantaneously.
Again and again and again and again and again and again…
You tell me I can’t describe a thermodynamic process this way.
I’m not describing a thermodynamic process. Get that into your stubborn head.
barry says, November 20, 2017 at 5:43 AM:
And how does he do this? Without any delay whatsoever? Does he just magically know that he has to put out more photons at the exact moment more comes in? Without any rise in temperature in between?
This is how reality works, barry: First an object absorbs heat, say, in the form of IR radiation. Then the absorbed EM energy is thermalised, converted into internal kinetic energy. As this happens, the object’s content of internal energy [U] increases, which means its temperature [T] also goes up. At this point ONLY is the object able to thermally emit more photons.
The speed of light doesn’t enter this particular equation.
You appear to be in way over your head on this one, barry.
That’s right. And you should know by now.
Yes you are! Get that into your stubborn head. If the warmer object emits more photons, it can only mean one thing: IT HAS WARMED. Nothing warms in the quantum world. You’re distinctly in the THERMO realm, barry, but still playing around with QUANTUM processes.
Wake up and smell the coffee!
A blackbody emits its photons THERMALLY, barry. According to its TEMPERATURE. Not simply as immediate reemissions of absorbed photons.
I’m getting tired of having to explain such elementary concepts to you. How do you expect us to keep a discussion on particular physical phenomena running if you’re not even aware of the most basic fundamentals like this …?
When the green plate is introduced to the 2 plate system, the only way that heat energy passes from one plate to another is through radiation.
I’m sure we agree that the introduction of the green plate reduces the rate at which the blue plate loses radiation to space, whereby the blue plate becomes warmer.
This is how reality works, barry: First an object absorbs heat, say, in the form of IR radiation. Then the absorbed EM energy is thermalised, converted into internal kinetic energy. As this happens, the objects content of internal energy [U] increases, which means its temperature [T] also goes up. At this point ONLY is the object able to thermally emit more photons.
The only information the blue plate has about the heat of the green plate is via the radiation emitted by the green plate. There is simply no other way in this set up that the blue plate can ‘know’ to raise its temperature.
Thermodynamics only sees a one-way process. But reality is not limited to the view of thermodynamics. As you said, we are describing a “different aspect of reality.” Both views are formally separate, but complementary in reality.
“Im sure we agree that the introduction of the green plate reduces the rate at which the blue plate loses radiation to space, whereby the blue plate becomes warmer.”
barry, I think you’ve made that mistake before.
When the green plate is introduced, it begins warming, due to the 200 Watts/m^2 received from the blue plate. The blue plate is not even aware of the green plate. It continues to receive 400, and emits 200 in each direction. But the “system” is not radiating 400 Watts/m^2 to space, as some of the energy is used to raise the green plate temperature.
Once the green plate reaches the temperature of the blue plate, then the “system” is in equilibrium and receiving 400 Watts/m^2 as it emits 400 Watts/m^2 to space.
The blue plate temperature NEVER goes above its original equilibrium temperature. That would violate the “law”.
Barry
I wouldn’t waste my time responding to this guy. MikeR is right, g*e*r*a*n is too stupid to know how stupid he is.
barry…”When the green plate is introduced to the 2 plate system, the only way that heat energy passes from one plate to another is through radiation”.
Heat energy is thermal energy and the radiation is electromagnetic energy. Heat is not a property of EM and no heat is transmitted by EM.
It’s a conversion process. Heat is converted to EM, travels through space, and gets converted back to heat. Heat decreases in the hotter body and increases in the cooler body giving the appearance that heat has been transferred.
Barry…where have you ever seen a reference to a photon carrying heat?
I have offered you a similar analogy in an electrical transformer. Electrical energy in the primary is converted to magnetic energy when it runs through the primary coil. The magnetic field cuts the secondary windings inducing a voltage/current in the secondary.
The primary and secondary voltage/current is related by the turns ratio of the windings but there is absolutely nothing in common between the primary voltage/current and the secondary voltage/current. They are entirely separate circuits electrically isolated from each other.
Are you going to tell me the magnetic energy somehow transfers voltage/current from the primary to the secondary?
No way EM transfers heat physically between bodies via radiation. Furthermore, the process is not reversible. EM cannot transfer heat from the cooler body to the warmer body. That would be akin to water flowing up hill on its own. Cannot happen.
Gordon,
EM has no temperature of itself, but it does indeed convey the energy that began as heat, and becomes heat once again when absorbed by a surface.
That is how we experience the heat from the sun. The only way its heat energy gets to us across the vast distance is through EM radiation. This radiation has no temperature itself as it crosses the void and is converted once again back to heat when it strikes matter.
Exactly the same as the plate system in a vacuum.
Like Barry, I might have to waste my time dealing with G*e*r*a*n , as for once there appears to be some method in his madness. If the green plate only emits radiation away from the blue plate and not back towards the blue plate (i.e. no back radiation) then he is indeed correct and both plates will reach an equilibrium temperature of 244K.
The only problem with this scenario is that g*e*r*a*n would have to convince the photons emitted by the green plate to only move in the direction away from the blue plate.
As photons are notoriously hard to pin down, they tend to be recalcitrant and will stubbornly head in both directions and some (depending on the separation of the plates) be intercepted by the blue plate.
You could however coat the surface of the green plate closest to the blue plate with a material such as silver so this surface has an emissivity close to zero at the relevant infrared wavelengths.
All the radiation incident on this xurface would then be reflected and accordingly, the green mirrored surface would never heat up and remain at a temperature close to zero degrees K. If the plates were parallel and the silvered surface smooth enough so that all the energy is reflected directly back to the blue plate, then the additional energy arriving at the blue plate would increase the temperature of this plate to about 290K, (4th root of 2 times 244).
In this case the mirrored green plate would be close to zero K and its presence would have raised the temperature of the blue plate from 244 to 290K!
miker, at least you are beginning to understand that my correct solution does not “break any laws”.
But, you make an erroneous assumption. You assume there are no photons being emitted from green back to blue. So, you claim I “have to convince the photons emitted by the green plate to only move in the direction away from the blue plate.” Your assumption is WRONG.
The green plate emits photons in both directions, but the net heat transfer is 200 Watts, from blue to green.
Keep trying.
barry says, November 21, 2017 at 4:52 AM:
Another all too basic concept that you need to learn, apparently. “Heat” isn’t what’s generated once EM is absorbed by a surface!!! Heat [Q] is what’s TRANSFERRED TO that surface. Thermally. Once this transfer is absorbed by the surface, the energy becomes INTERNAL ENERGY [U].
Go read a book, barry. As of now, you and Gordon are equally uninformed on this subject …
G*e*r*a*n you state that both plates are at the same temperature of 244K at equilibrium and yet there is a net transfer of 200W from the blue plate to the green plate! If they are both at the same temperature then by definition the net transfer has to be zero because they are both generating the same amount of radiation (see Wein’s Law).
If you still think you are correct then you need to demonstrate this by providing the ingoing and outgoing values (both directions) in watts for both plates at equilibrium.
I would love to see how you manage to do this and get a net transfer of 200W from blue to green with both plates at 244K.
Naturally you would also have to satisfy the other equilibrium and Wein’s Law constraints i.e. same number of watts leaving in both directions from each surface for both plates, incoming and outgoing watts should be the same for each plate and energy conservation for the whole system needs to be satisfied.
Let me know how you go.
p.s. If you manage to succeed then you can work on calculating the temperatures of the plates when the green plate has a mirrored surface and is reflecting the radiation back to the blue plate.
The heat transfer is being supplied by the exterior heat source. Half (200W) leaves the blue plate from each side. One side is supplying that 200W to the green plate.
To understand, you may have to leave the world of “cold can warm hot”.
PS, miker.
You may be just grasping at straws with the mention of Wien’s Law. That law deals with photon emission. There is no argument that photons are being emitted. What you are trying to understand is energy “accounting”.
Just follow the energy. That makes it easy to understand.
Yes, g*e*r*an you are definitely correct. I should have referred to the Stefan Boltzmann law rather than Wiens’s law. This is a hazard of writing comments at 4 am local time.
Anyway that’s my excuse.
What’s yours?
In your reply above, you have not specified the number of watts arriving and leaving each surface etc. or demonstrated the satisfaction of the Stefan Boltzmann laws or thermodynamic equilibrium of the system.
Eli Rabbett’s solution does satisfy both these criteria with T1=262 K and T2=202 K corresponding to 267 watts leaving in both directions from the blue plate and 133 watts leaving both directions from the green plate. Note the 400 W entering the system (from the right on Eli’s diagram) is matched by the 267 watts leaving the system from the blue plate (towards the left) and the 133 W leaving the system from the green plate (towards the right).
So if you are capable, work out the corresponding numbers for your scenario. Please tell me if the results of your calculations can satisfy either of these criteria. This is a rhetorical request as I expect (actually know) that the response will be the standard g*e*r*a*ntological bluster.
Mike
The mirror on the green plate is an interesting twist, but I disagree with your result.
The blue plate would never be able to cool itself to the right (the direction of the green plate). That means it’s temperature would increase until it was emitting 400w/m^2 to the left.
At that point, it would also be emitting 400w/m^2 to the right, meaning the blue plate’s temperature would need to be such that it was emitting a total of 800 w/m^2.
Twice as hot is 488K
Kristian,
I replied to you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273205
Did you have nothing to say about that?
Kristian,
Another all too basic concept that you need to learn, apparently. “Heat” isnt whats generated once EM is absorbed by a surface!!! Heat [Q] is whats TRANSFERRED TO that surface. Thermally. Once this transfer is absorbed by the surface, the energy becomes INTERNAL ENERGY [U].
Doesn’t that absorbed energy become heat? I’ll look to you for the answer.
This is how reality works, barry: First an object absorbs heat, say, in the form of IR radiation. Then the absorbed EM energy is thermalised, converted into internal kinetic energy. As this happens, the objects content of internal energy [U] increases, which means its temperature [T] also goes up.
Your overweening formalism is actually obscuring the truth.
miker requests: “So if you are capable, work out the corresponding numbers for your scenario.”
miker, I have learned I can’t teach physics to Warmists. So, I am starting a new policy. Before I answer your request, can you answer yes to both of the following, unequivocally?
1) A system can NOT create new energy. (1st Law)
2) A cold object can NOT warm a hotter object. (2nd Law)
If you can agree to both, I will answer your request.
The 12-year-old turns 400 Watts into 800 Watts, magically!
“At that point, it would also be emitting 400w/m^2 to the right, meaning the blue plates temperature would need to be such that it was emitting a total of 800 w/m^2.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273297
Kids and pseudoscience, a perfect match.
Sir Isaac,
The relevant equation for the blue plate is
400 + sigma x (T the power of 4) = 2 x sigma x (T the power of 4) – all in watts
The left hand side corresponds to the energy arriving at the plate from the incoming 400 W from the left plus the incoming reflected radiation from the right from the mirror.
The right hand side is the radiation leaving the blue plate from both sides.
We know from the Stefan-Boltzmann law that for a plate which has identical emissivity on both sides the radiation leaving both sides has to be the same.
Solving for T
sigma x (T the power of 4) = 400 W
gives a value for T of 290 K.
Interestingly enough the blue plate now radiates 400 W from each side (total 800 W) to match the total incoming radiation (also 800 W) .
This might perturb some but, in terms of conservation of energy for the total system, the blue plate is emitting 400 W to the left that matches the incoming 400 W from the right. In the case of the green plate, due to the mirror surface of the green plate, there no radiation leaving to the right. So in terms of the total system , energy in equals energy out
In reality all that is happening is that the green plate at a temperature, at or near absolute zero, is reflecting back the radiation from the blue plate and increasing the blue plates temperature from 242 K to 290 K.
MikeR
This is the part I get, and was confident of:
“Interestingly enough the blue plate now radiates 400 W from each side (total 800 W) to match the total incoming radiation (also 800 W) .”
I don’t understand this:
“…. in terms of conservation of energy for the total system, the blue plate is emitting 400 W to the left that matches the incoming 400 W from the right.”
My thinking is that at equilibrium the blue plate radiates 400 W to the right that matches the 400 W received from the mirror. It radiates 400 watts to the left to match the 400 watts from the sun.
MikeR
Are you sure of the math?
242 K and the blue plate radiates 400 W
290 K and it radiates twice as much?
As predicted the standard g*e*r*a*ntological bluster. I will answer his two points to prevent g* continuing his filibuster
Yes 1) is true for an isolated system and likewise 2) is true for an isolated system that comes to equilibrium by exchange of energy.
The blue and green plates are not isolated as external energy is entering (400 W) and leaving the system (also 400 W).
Now g*e*r*a*n it is over to you now.
Stop with the avoidance mechanisms . Show us your mettle, rise to the challenge and do the calculations for both situations (the green plate as a black-body and as a reflective surface).
Otherwise it just reinforces your status, yet again, as a scientifically illiterate blowhard.
miker, I’m sorry to inform you that you didn’t pass the qualifying exam.
You failed to recognize and accept the Laws of Thermodynamics. In fact, you even suggested that the mirror would turn 400 Watts incoming into 800 Watts! Free energy!
Hilarious.
Sir Isaac’s statement directly below is entirely correct.
My thinking is that at equilibrium the blue plate radiates 400 W to the right that matches the 400 W received from the mirror. It radiates 400 watts to the left to match the 400 watts from the sun.
For the system of two plates it is also – 400 W in from the sun and 400 W out. As the mirror does not allow radiation to exit then it is not part of the energy balance for the entire system. As all good mirrors do, it just returns the energy it receives back to the blue plate. The mirror is part of the internal accounting for energy transfer between the two plates.
MikeR
In Eli’s diagram the sun is on the left. You may have misremembered? That would explain the part I didn’t understand.
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
G*e*r*a*n , you are really struggling with this material. You can do the experiment yourself very easily with a dark object, a plane mirror and a thermometer.
1. Place the object in the sun, then use your thermometer to measure the temperature of the object. Wait long enough for the temperature to stop rising.
2. Take the mirror and reflect light onto the object.
3. Repeat the temperature measurement using the technique above.
4. Make a note of the difference between the two measurements.
5. Report back whether the reflection by the mirror has caused an increase in temperature of the object, no change in temperature or has decreased the temperature of the object. The mirror could be quite cold if you are doing this experiment in winter, so wear gloves to avoid frost bite.
6. if you know the mass of the object and its heat capacity you could easily calculate the extra energy added (or subtracted) by the reflection from the mirror.
7. Finally , if you really want to check whether a reflective object can add energy to a system, repeat the experiment using a large parabolic or spherical mirror and place the object at it focus. Again be careful that you don’t insert your hand into the beam at that location.
In the meantime you indicated above that, once I answered your questions re the first two laws of thermodynamics, you would then produce your calculations regarding the two plates.
How long do you think this process will take? Before or after hell freezes over? I anxiously await your results.
Hi Sir Isaac,
I have linked copies of the Eli Rabbet diagram including the figures for radiation in and out of the system and between the plates at
https://s20.postimg.org/6ldo7h80t/Rabbett.jpg .
Here is the same for the green plate acting as a mirror.
https://s20.postimg.org/v35ruyagt/mirror.jpg .
In both cases it is 400 W in and 400 W out of the system. In the first case the output of the system is 267 W to the left and 133 W to the right. In the second case the output is just 400 W out to the left.
MikeR
You wrote, “. in terms of conservation of energy for the total system, the blue plate is emitting 400 W to the left that matches the incoming 400 W from the right.”
This confused me because the input to the system is the sun, which is on the left side of the diagram, not the right.
Also, I asked a little upthread if you are certain about the math.
The blue plate at 242 K emits 400 W
Are you sure that just a little warmer (290 K), it emits twice the energy (800 W)?
Sir Isaac,
Just to clarify further, doubling the temperature increases the radiated energy by 2^4 or 16. In contrast a doubling of the energy radiated would indicate a temperature increase by 2^(1/4) or by 4th root of 2 i.e about a factor of 1.19.
We are referring to the amount of radiated energy not the internal kinetic energy of the constituent particles which, in contrast, would be proportional to the temperature in Kelvin.
Thanks, Mike. I must have been replying (above) at about the same time as you.
Aside from a year of calculus in college, I have no formal background in either math, physics or chemistry, so the calculations you presented are a bit of a head scratcher for me.
I’m curious now, though, so I might put in the effort to figure it out.
MikeR
I spent a little time this morning trying to understand Plank’s equation for determining radiation from a black box. It led me to this:
http://blog.ed.ted.com/2014/12/07/quantum-mechanics-101-demystifying-tough-physics-in-4-easy-lessons/
Geez, I’m way over my head.
Blackbody
miker, you are getting some things right, but you are also making some mistakes. I leave today for a 400 mile trip for the holiday weekend. Think about the two requirements I have listed. See if you can understand, and agree. I’ll check back, maybe Sunday or Monday, to see if you’re still around. If you can agree to the two requirements, maybe I can help you.
Per Eli’s 2 plate exercise, and with Mike’s 100% reflective green plate…
Make the same provisions as Eli’s 2-plate set up – the plates are thin enough that conduction is not a factor, fairly close together, and infinite in surface area, so radiation dispersion is not a factor. The sun is to the left in this set up.
400 W/m2 received by blue plate from the sun
Blue plate warms and eventually emits 400 watts from 2 surfaces
= 200 w/m2 from each surface
Green mirror (100% reflectance) reflects 200 w/m2 back to the blue plate
In this set up the 2 plate system can only lose heat to the left, in the direction of the sun
Blue plate warms until it is emitting 400 w/m2 from the left side sunward – the system then has achieved equilibrium with input
Which means blue plate must be emitting 400 w/m2 to the right (towards green mirror)
Which means the blue plate has warmed because of reflected energy
Blue plate is emitting 400 w/m2 sunward, just as it would if itself was a perfect mirror
IE, same result from blue plate surface if it itself is 100% reflective, or if the green plate is 100% reflective
This is similar to how G has seen it – with equivalent w/m2 from every surface.
Except his vision up neglects the emission from the green plate to the right – to deep space. His view only works if
1) the plates are completely transparent
or
2) the right side of the blue plate is a perfect mirror
I think the problem is that he starts out fixed on the idea (no matter what) that the blue plate cannot get any warmer when the green plate is introduced, and strives to bend his ideas of physics to support that dogma.
With his view, insulation is impossible. If he was floating in space in front of the sun and beginning to cook, he would not throw a thin blackbody screen between himself and the sun for shade, because after a little while that screen would emit at the same intensity as the sun. So he seems to believe.
In truth, a blackbody sheet as thin as the width of a human hair would provide shade from the sun, and keep G a little cooler. Insulation works.
barry says, November 21, 2017 at 4:08 PM:
Not really.
Because I’ve covered it several times already. If you only bothered to actually read my comments. For instance, you write: “The only information the blue plate has about the heat of the green plate is via the radiation emitted by the green plate. There is simply no other way in this set up that the blue plate can ‘know’ to raise its temperature.”
Which tells me you haven’t read, you’ve ignored, or not understood, what I’ve been writing about this EXACT issue.
The blue plate (whatever that is) WON’T and CAN’T have its temperature raised directly from absorbing radiation from the green plate (a cooler one, I presume). Because that would constitute an extra HEAT input to the blue plate. From a cooler place. How many times do I have to repeat this!?
You can’t use QUANTUM MECHANICS to violate a THERMODYNAMIC law! Real physicists understand this. You apparently don’t.
I’ve explained how this works, barry. More than once. Why the temperature of the already warmer blue plate must rise further as the cooler green plate grows less cool.
Read it.
barry says, November 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM:
Er, no. Again, it becomes INTERNAL ENERGY [U]. First Law of Thermodynamics, what does it say?
ΔU = Q + W
Read about this stuff, barry. It’s pretty elementary.
Heat [Q] and work [W] are both transfers of energy TO the system. But once this energy ENTERS the system, it becomes internal energy [U]. Can’t get much more basic than that …
Huh? Please explain. What ‘truth’?
Just admit that the warmer object is unable to put out more photons “to compensate” for your extra input of photons before it has WARMED from it … And that, if something warms, you are – by definition – dealing with a THERMODYNAMIC process.
And you are trying to justify a direct violation of a THERMODYNAMIC law (the 2nd) by invoking a distinctly QUANTUM MECHANICAL view of the world. You can’t do that, barry. For the nth time.
Kristian: “The blue plate (whatever that is) WON’T and CAN’T have its temperature raised directly from absorbing radiation from the green plate (a cooler one, I presume). Because that would constitute an extra HEAT input to the blue plate. From a cooler place. How many times do I have to repeat this!?”
Until you run the test Kristian and find out for yourself that’s exactly what the data shows. It is your misuse of the heat term that keeps you from correctly understanding the test results.
barry, this will keep up until you too run the test and post up the data for Kristian to replicate.
I think Kristian agrees what will happen, but not how to say it?
Kristian,
Here’s the plate set up I’m referring to. It’s simple.
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
There is only one way in a vacuum that the blue plate can experience anything from the green plate, and that is from the radiation emitted by the green plate.
There is is simply no other way that information from the green plate can be accessed by the blue.
Your avoidance of this straightforward fact makes it seem like the blue plate’s internal energy state becomes more excited from some magic process that is coincidental to the introduction of the green plate.
The blue plate can’t experience ‘heat’ from the green plate, because that is a function of thermodynamics, and heat cannot flow from cold to hot.
So how in the hell does the blue plate ‘know’ to change its rate of emission upon the introduction of the green plate? What actual physical effect is incident upon the blue plate? It can’t be nothing at all. It can’t know that there is resistance to its output without some physical information reaching it. What is the form of that information?
Svante says, November 23, 2017 at 4:14 PM:
Thank you. At last someone with the WILL to understand me.
Insulation works. But it DOESN’T work through extra ADDITION of energy to the insulated object. That’s HEATING. People tend to make an absolute mess out of this, cheered on by “Climate Science”, and they can’t even see it.
IOW: You can’t EXPLAIN how insulation works by using QUANTUM MECHANICAL concepts. Insulation is distinctly a MACRO phenomenon, not a MICRO one. ALL thermal phenomena are. By definition. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply. They don’t in the quantum realm. Different aspects of reality.
barry says, November 23, 2017 at 4:38 PM:
The only ‘avoidance’ here is on your part, barry. You avoid reading what I’m writing. And you avoid admitting that the warmer object needs to warm even more, as a direct consequence of absorbing more photons from the colder one, to put out more photons of its own, which means you are essentially claiming that an extra input of energy to the warmer object – from a colder one – CAUSES it to warm even further. Which is in direct violation of the 2nd Law. This is the straightforward fact that YOU’RE avoiding, barry.
There’s a problem with you EXPLANATION, barry. Will you soon please GET IT?
Barry wrote:
“There is only one way in a vacuum that the blue plate can experience anything from the green plate, and that is from the radiation emitted by the green plate.”
That’s the bottom line, Kristian. Nothing else changed. The sun’s input was constant the whole time.
The blue plate wasn’t “notified” another object had been introduced.
You will run hoops trying to avoid this basic fact.
I have not had the energy, (pun intend) to follow the semantic driven debates and also the debates between Kristian and his adversaries, so I have been reluctant to intrude. However I have been prompted into action by Kristian repitition of the cold cannot heat mantra. This is true for a closed system (look up 2nd law of thermo) but it is obvious that the Rabbit two plate system is receiving external heat and is therefore not isolated.
As Nate has already pointed out, the principles of the green plate are utilised in multilayer insulation see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation.
Kristian I suggest you read the description in the section titled Function and Design. Kristian do you have an alternative explanation for this mechanism or have NASA and other space agencies made a series of dreadful mistakes?
To help the poor ignorant NASA scientists and engineers out, Kristian can you calculate for the blue and green plate system, the temperatures of both plates and the radiation emitted by both plates? Please indicate if your calculations satisfy the Stefan Boltzmann law for both plates if they also satisfy the conservation of energy for the system (radiation out equals radiation in)? Assume steady state conditions.
I gave g*e*r*a*n the same problem but he seems to have fled the scene of battle. Hopefully he will return soon with his answers but in the meantime you could fill the breach. I eagerly await your answer.
MikeR 6:05am, thanks for the effort energy (not in U), I concur.
Kristian is 100% semantics, 0% testing, only self cites or cites to the uncited web. Performing the blue plate, green plate test and taking proper, replicable data, posting it up would be, you know, better science. Neither anger nor Kristian will do so and thankfully NASA goes by robust testing. Do not expect anger to return with test results just more semantics; predict anger will live up to all my expectations as does Kristian.
BTW, the lamp is not necessary for this test. Isolated or not (as you define), irradiated energy from the added colder green plate will affect the warmer blue T in its view as found by simple test* and in accord with 2LOT as that process produces entropy.
I could always define an isolated system (arb. control volume) with the lamp outside as long as I keep track of the energy crossing the borders. In a vacuum this task is made easier but more difficult to test, even for NASA.
*As performed by Dr. Spencer in lab and on the atm. at large.
I predict Kristian will calculate the same blue/green temperatures as you do.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 24, 2017 at 9:25 AM:
How am I “avoiding this basic fact”!? The warmer object will become warmer as the cooler one becomes warmer. You don’t understand the disagreement here. The disagreement is not about the EFFECT. The disagreement is only about the EXPLANATTION.
Kristian says,
“How am I avoiding this basic fact”!? The warmer object will become warmer as the cooler one becomes warmer.”
And then, “The disagreement is not about the EFFECT. The disagreement is only about the EXPLANATION”
Your explanation is that the blue plate becomes warmer, not because of radiation revieved from the green plate, but because of the green plate’s temperature.
The obvious question then, is how does the blue plate know the temperature of the green plate? How do you answer?
You don’t.
gbaikie
In Eli’s experiment, the blue plate gets warmer as a result of radiation absorbed from a cooler object.
It’s an example of how insulation works in the absence of conduction or convection.
Nate and Svante have posted this link as a real life application:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Sorry, that comment was meant for way down thread.
Svante says, November 23, 2017 at 4:14 PM:
I think Kristian agrees what will happen, but not how to say it?
“Thank you. At last someone with the WILL to understand me.”
I’ve said that many times upthread. You will not deviate from the formalism of thermodynamics to describe what is going on, despite the fact that you are capable and it is quite permissible in the form of statistical mechanics.
You didn’t answer the question.
The blue plate warms up upon the introduction of the green plate.
The action occurs in vacuum, so there is no thermal bath between them, only radiation.
What physical information does the blue plate receive that occasions a change in the rate of energy emission? It can’t be nothing. It’s not just some equation. What’s the actual physics? What is incident upon the blue plate that changes its rate of emission? Can’t be ‘heat’, so what is it?
MikeR says, November 24, 2017 at 6:05 AM:
It is NOT ‘semantic driven’. It is PHYSICS driven.
A closed system can and does receive external HEAT, MikeR. Read up on thermodynamic systems.
A cooler system can NEVER (!!!!) directly make a warmer system even warmer by adding energy to it. Makes no difference if the system is open, closed or isolated. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
*Sigh*
As if I didn’t already know about MLI. It’s NOT the issue here.
Yes, I do. Read what I’m writing.
Why? It would be no different from yours.
barry says, November 24, 2017 at 5:38 PM:
And there’s an incredibly good reason for that, barry. You still refuse to acknowledge it. Get back to me once you do …
OK Kristian, I am glad you agree that the blue plate will increase in temperature by around 18 k due to the introduction of the green plate. ( see Kristians comment Why? It would be no different from yours). At least we have established this.
You however say , I think, that the energy of the blue plate does not increase.
Interesting.
Due to the increase in temperature of the blue plate the average K.E. of the constituent atoms has increased. If the total energy is supposed to be the same according to you, then the potential energy must decrease by the same amount to exactly compensate for the increase in K.E..
How does this decrease occur? I will take any reasonable explanation. If you don’t have any reasonable explanation than you may have to resort to even highly improbable ones , maybe even ones involving cold fusion. I am all ears.
Kristian,
There’s no “incredibly good reason” to avoid speaking in the language of statistical mechanics. Then you would be able to explain what is incident on the blue plate that makes its rate of emission increase.
It’s not that the heat of a ‘thermal bath’ adjacent to the blue plate has increased – the blue plate is adjacent to vacuum.
It’s not because its receiving heat from the green plate, because heat only flows from hot to cold.
It’s explainable, but you don’t want to say the words.
You say, “It is NOT ‘semantic driven’. It is PHYSICS driven.”
But you also say,
“The disagreement is not about the EFFECT. The disagreement is only about the EXPLANATTION.”
The latter is the truth. I’ll try my question again and see if you’re capable on answering it.
In the vacuum, what physical information does the blue plate receive that occasions a change in the rate of energy emission? It cant be nothing. Its not just some equation. Whats the actual physics? What is incident upon the blue plate that changes its rate of emission? Can’t be nothing, can’t be ‘heat’, so what is it?
Barry
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/?replytocom=273591#respond
In the comment above, I noticed you asked Kristian four questions. He ignored them all. That’s his modus operandi:
“Don’t respond to a question if the correct answer proves you wrong”.
miker, are you still out there?
I’m back now and can answer your questions, if you agree to the simply-stated laws of thermodynamics:
1) A system can NOT create new energy.
2) A cold object can NOT warm a hotter object.
Did you do your homework? Can you agree to the above?
If so, we can continue.
miker, you did not agree with the two simple statements of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Instead, you attempted to re-write the laws to fit your beliefs. You basically tried to claim that the laws did not apply to the blue/green plate scenario.
Interpreting established physics to fit your belief system is called “pseudoscience”.
BTW miker, you keep claiming that I won’t show the complete solution to the blue/green plate problem. You insinuate, over and over, that I won’t show you my solution because I can’t. In your belief system, you have “shown me up”, because you have pointed out, again and again, that you believe I do not have a viable solution.
“So if you are capable, work out the corresponding numbers for your scenario. Please tell me if the results of your calculations can satisfy either of these criteria. This is a rhetorical request as I expect (actually know) that the response will be the standard g*e*r*antological bluster.”
Once again miker, your belief system fails you. It makes you look incompetent and unknowing.
In recent posts, I HAVE presented my solution, with relevant temperatures and fluxes, more than once. You’re just not paying attention. But even worse, you falsely accuse me. That just makes you look impetuous and lazy, in addition to incompetent and unknowing.
Hilarious.
barry, almost everything you wrote about me, in the last half of your comment, is WRONG.
(November 22, 2017 at 6:03 AM)
It’s similar to your fascination with the incorrect solution to the blue/green plate problem.
You must just love being WRONG.
“2) A cold object can NOT warm a hotter object.”
This is true only in anger’s belief system because that process is shown to produce entropy in tests of the blue plate/green plate setup thus is fully in accord with 2LOT, 1LOT. anger has a name for his own belief system 2) is called “pseudoscience”.
anger should just run the blue plate/green plate test in a proper manner and post up replicable data as did Dr. Spencer.
anger must love to be wrong all the time with such hilarious! “pseudoscience” as in 2). More please, very entertaining twisting of semantics and inaccurate non-1LOT compliant formulas, a teaching opportunity.
anger serves a distinct purpose as a teaching tool: avoid his “pseudoscience” with actual scientific testing.
Right on schedule, tricky appears with his usual tricks:
1) Claim to have “experiments”
2) Mention Dr. Roy
3) Make numerous ad-homs.
Right on schedule, anger lives up to all my expectations and unconvincingly returns with:
1) No claims to have “experiments”
2) No mention of Dr. Roy’s experiments
3) Makes numerous ad-homs to commenters that do not support anger’s belief system that “2). A cold object can NOT warm a hotter object.”
Obviously anger does not succeed, convinces very few (none?) with this misuse of the scientific process. But it’s hilarious! Next.
Hey tricky, how about linking to your claim that cabbages glow in the dark?
That’s when you got the nickname “Cabbage Head”, remember?
That was funny! Besides being very indicative of your pseudoscience.
More ad-homs, no experiments. anger remains totally unconvincing. Next.
tricky, you should be proud of your advanced “experiments”.
Just provide a link so that those that have not seen it can do so. Not everyone gets to be called “Cabbage Head”–just a very select few. (In fact, you’re the ONLY one here.–very select.)
More ad-homs, no scientific method experiments. anger’s belief system remains totally unconvincing.
I’ve already provided links to proper experiments for others with replicable data proving anger’s belief system is pseudoscience right in this top post comment thread. It is anger’s turn to experiment, replicate the data convincingly. Next.
Just link to your “cabbages glow in the dark” nonsense. I’m sure no one would laugh.
I already tested a red delicious apple for you anger, I could just as well have tested a cabbage and a cold mug of beer. The replicable data experiment showed anger’s belief system “2). A cold object can NOT warm a hotter object.” is pseudoscience as the process is demonstrated to produce entropy.
anger should replicate the test data experimenting with a cabbage instead of an apple and post up the results for all to examine. THAT would be convincing, not anger’s belief system. Next.
Very tricky, tricky.
G*e*r*a*n ,yes its a pity I missed your evisceration by Tim Folkerts, Norman, GammaCrux etc. above, sorry. Reading the whole process it reminded me of the scene in the movie Airplane (Flying High in some locales) when a line of passengers slap an hysterical child to stop her from screaming . Looks like I might have to step in and play the role of a nun to try and administer the final blow.
Even Kristian, another rabid devotee of the Postma cult disagrees with your calculation and seems to agree with Eli Rabbett even though he has own unique interpretation (i.e. Kristian believes, despite the temperature of the blue plate increasing, the internal energy of the blue plate does not increase). So g* e*r*a*n you are out on your own limb with regard to your calculation.
I know like the slap happy nun it is total overkill to point out how nonsensical your answer is but nothing exceeds like excess so here are two objections to your calculations.
Point 1 , you say the blue plate is capable of sending radiation in both directions (which I agree with). i.e. both in the same direction as the incident radiation and back in the opposite direction (for some reason g* doesn’t think this is back radiation). So despite the blue plate is capable of back radiation the identical green isnt? Amazing!
Point 2. In the absence of back radiation by the green pate it must radiate all the energy it receives only in the forward direction. In other words it must act as a perfect transmitter that does not absorb or reflect or scatter radiation. So it manages to disappear into space. No wonder even Kristian thinks your answer is rubbish. I wonder what SkepticGoneWild, Phi and Tony have an opinion on the matter? Maybe you and Kristian and Joe Postma and the rest of the crew need to get together to thrash out your differences.
However in the meantime if you want to keep digging your hole deeper then feel free. Just make sure when you emerge from the other side you don’t end up under water.
Kristian,
Like Barry above, I am waiting with bated breath for a response to my own question above, see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273609 ).
I am in grave danger of auto asphyxiation waiting. Are you going to reply or are you heading for the hills?
Kristian, you seem to be an apostle of Joe Postma. A more suitable choice for someone with religious beliefs would be as an apostle of St. Jude.
miker, what a long, directionless ramble! You seem very confused. Maybe I can help.
Disregarding all of your desperate nonsense, in your Point 1, you state “for some reason g* doesnt think this is back radiation”.
Where did I ever state that?
Then, in your Point 2, you get even more confused.
“In the absence of back radiation by the green pate [sic] it must radiate all the energy it receives only in the forward direction. In other words it must act as a perfect transmitter that does not absorb or reflect or scatter radiation. So it manages to disappear into space.’
Where did I ever state that?
Possibly if you understood thermodynamics, you would not make such egregious errors. And then resort to claiming I stated things I never did.
Pseudoscience can make people very desperate.
g*e*r*a*n,
OK so back radiation does exist. I am glad you clarified that. In that case , the only steady state solution that leaves the temperature of the blue plate the same after introduction of the green plate, is if the green plate has a temperature of 0 K and therefore not radiating backwards or forwards. Alternatively it is totally transparent and has the same properties as a vacuum (ie. is has ceased to exist).
To emphasize this, with regard to the green plate, according to your accounting , we have 200 W coming in from the blue plate (from the left in Elis diagram) and it is radiating 200W out back towards the blue plate(to the left in Elis diagram) plus another 200W away from the blue plate(towards the right).
AS a picture is woth a thousand words , I have illustrated g*e*r*a*ns ineptitude with a diagram illustrating the two sets of calculations see https://s20.postimg.org/foe51o5hp/Calculations-1.jpg .
g*e*r*a*ns calculations for the green plate has 200W in and 400W out of this plate! This is in contrast to the equivalent Rabbett calculations that have the correct energy balances for both plates and the system as a whole.
G*e*r*a*n while you are still digging yourself deeper into that hole, can you please do my tax return , using your creative accounting skills in the meantime. Its the only way I might get a tax refund.
miker, you don’t have the correct figures.
Just more of your incompetence.
Or, is it dishonesty?
So g*e*r*a*n what are your exact figures for the temperature and incoming and outgoing radiation from each plate? This was my request from a couple of days ago.
If he is true to form I expect more waffle from g*e*r*a*n. I am sure I wont be disappointed.
Kristian,
I am glad to see you are alive and presumably in robust health. I was worried as you seem to have gone missing in action when it comes to responding to my question.
I am afraid I have to repeat my question –
Due to the increase in temperature of the blue plate the average K.E. of the constituent atoms has increased. If the total energy is supposed to be the same according to you, then the potential energy must decrease by the same amount to exactly compensate for the increase in K.E..
How does this decrease occur? I will take any reasonable explanation.
I can actually help Kristian with this question. I suggest he downloads and reads the material at https://tinyurl.com/ycaj3tn7 . Equations 1 and 16 are particularly relevant.
Accordingly, if he understands this material (an optimistic assumption) he would realize that, as temperature increases, both the K.E. and the P.E. increases and of course the total energy increases.
So despite Kristians attempt to use photon gas as a smoke screen, for steady state conditions, the colder green plate increases the temperature of the hotter blue plate and increases its energy.
I am still fascinated to hear from Kristian. He might suggest some other mechanism that can cause the temperature and energy of the blue plate to increase that is not a result of back radiation from the green plate . Again I await a response and I hope he can stay vertical long enough to formulate one.
MikeR
I’m hoping you have some good books to read while you wait for Kristian’s reply. If not, I would recommend the classic, “Don
Quixote” by Cervantes.
It’s an early example of someone with the Dunning – Kruger syndrome. Sad and comical at the same time.
Joseph Postma wrote a book called, “Slaying the Sky Dragon”.
Interestingly, when I did a google search for Don Quixote/Dragons, this link showed up:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills
Coincidence?
miker whines: “So g*e*r*a*n what are your exact figures for the temperature and incoming and outgoing radiation from each plate? This was my request from a couple of days ago.
miker, the correct solution is out there, at least twice. Others have seen it. No one has debunked it. It does not “break any laws”, as does the bogus “solution”. You’re just too lazy and incompetent to find it.
I offered to present it again, if you would accept the simple statements of the Laws. You have refused. You don’t want to learn. You only want to attack people that represent truth. You have falsely accused me several times. You have made up things about me.
I recognize your personality-type, and it isn’t a healthy one.
g*e*r*a*n*s blue/green temp calculation:
https://tinyurl.com/y8reh5kc
Blue Green
200W 244K 200W 244K
350W 258K 50W 227K
400W 244K 0W 244K
500W 258K -100W 227K
Hilarious.
Svante shows up to confuse things.
Svante, unless you strive to be irresponsibly negligent, you need to eliminate all but the 400W situation. Then, you need to also include the fluxes for each plate, as I indicated for that situation.
Unless you strive to be irresponsibly negligent, and thereby, hilarious.
It appears Svante will not come back to clean up his mess. He excels in “drive-by confusion”. So, I’ll have to clean up for him. Kids these days!
Here is the correct solution for the blue/green plate problem:
At equilibrium,
Blue–244K
Incoming 400W
Outgoing 200W, each side
Green–244K
Incoming 200W from Blue
Outgoing 200W (to the right, leaves the system)
Green also emits 200W to the left, which is returned by Blue.
Power into system = 400W.
Power leaving system = 400W.
G,
You say the blue plate does not get any warmer. This invalidates your result. Let’s work it through on your premise that the blue plate cannot get any warmer.
Both plates are blackbodies – non-reflective.
Blue plate receives 400 w/m2
Emits 200 W/m2 from either side
Blue plate emits 200 W/m2 to the green.
Green plate receives 200 W/m2
Emits 100 W/m2 either side
Blue plate cannot emit more than 200 W/m2 to green according to you. It is a blackbody, so it does not reflect energy coming from green plate.
How does green plate get any warmer than that if the total energy it receives stays constant at 200 w/m2?
barry inquires: “How does green plate get any warmer than that if the total energy it receives stays constant at 200 w/m2?”
barry, until the green plate reaches equilibrium, it cannot emit 200 W/m^2. So, it must warm, because it is receiving 200W/m^2. Once it warms to 244 K, then it can emit the 200.
But, you don’t want to learn. You want to discredit the correct solution. Your “confirmation bias” was evident in your first two sentences:
“You say the blue plate does not get any warmer. This invalidates your result.”
You’ve already “invalidated” my solution. You don’t want to see anything that will detract from your false religion.
Sorry, but that’s funny to me.
G,
barry, until the green plate reaches equilibrium, it cannot emit 200 W/m^2. So, it must warm, because it is receiving 200W/m^2. Once it warms to 244 K, then it can emit the 200.
But you haven’t explained where the extra energy is coming from. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Green plate only receives 200 W/m2 from blue.
That is all the energy it receives from any source.
It must warm until it matches input from blue (200W), and then emits 100 W/m2 each side. Just as the blue plate receives 400 W/m2 from the sun and emits half that amount either side.
There is no further input. Green plate is not getting extra energy from the sun. It is only getting energy from the blue plate. The blue plate is a perfect blackbody, so is not reflecting green plate energy back to it.
This is the problem with your set-up. Once green plate achieves equilibrium with blue plate, it cannot warm any further.
To heat up the green plate further, where does the extra energy come from on top of the 200 w/m2 emitted by the blue plate?
anger: “Green also emits 200W to the left, which is returned by Blue.”
Is a process that does not produce entropy in reality so fails 2LOT thus there is no hope for anger’s theory in the real world but to collapse in deepest humiliation. barry has already correctly explained why this is true 7:05pm above under 2).
barry: “The blue plate is a perfect blackbody…”
Yes, the original set up had the plates (all sides) with emissivity 1.0, here anger shows explicitly, deceptively a change in the story set up to a blue plate 0.0 emissivity, 1.0 reflectivity on the dark side to do the calculations.
Also of course the blue plate dark side in anger’s story having both 1.0 emissivity:
Blue-244K
Incoming 400W
Outgoing 200W, each side
And at the same time 1.0 reflectivity:
“Green also emits 200W to the left, which is returned by Blue.”
violates Kirchhoff law & anger stated at 7:50pm:
“nothing I said violates Kirchhoff.”
So there’s that. Total of at least 2 natural law violations in anger’s story, cite anger and revoke bail.
Svante thank you for finding that. I have to admit that I wasn’t paying too much attention, last month to the ravings of g*e*r*a*n regarding the plates. My only excuse is early onset dementia has been exacerbated by the unprecedented heat wave we are experiencing, so my concentration span is limited.
G*e*r*a*ns case of dementia must be more severe than mine because he can’t recall that I answered his questions regarding the first two laws of thermodynamics just a week ago at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273333 .
However I was surprised he didn’t ask me what is the ground speed of an unladen swallow before we could proceed.
I see in the meantime he has elaborated and produced calculations. I have a diagram that reproduces his latest effort see- https://postimg.org/image/8gh97ihft/ .
The blue plate has 200W to the left and 400W to the right from surfaces that are both at 242 K! It seems in g*e*r*a*n’s mind, that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is irrelevant.
Back to the drawing board.
barry, your long comment just confuses the issue. Maybe that is what you want.
But, if I try to take you seriously, you seem to be concerned with how the green plate can ever get to the temperature of the blue plate.
(See how simple it is to state?)
The green plate is receiving 200 W. But to get rid of that incoming energy, it has to be able to emit it. But, to emit it, it has to get to the S/B temperature. If it cannot emit enough, it continues to warm.
What’s hard to understand, unless you purposely strive to confuse?
miker, at least you got the graphic somewhat correct, this time. I don’t understand the color coding, but the numbers appear correct.
But you are still confused: “The blue plate has 200W to the left and 400W to the right from surfaces that are both at 242 K! It seems in g*e*r*a*ns mind, that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is irrelevant.”
miker, if you do not understand your own graphic, I’m glad to help.
The “400W to the left” is composed of the 200 emitted plus the 200 reflected.
“The “400W to the left” is composed of the 200 emitted plus the 200 reflected.”
Now anger further explicitly reveals how the calculations were changed from the original story of 1.0 emissivity blue/green plates.
Given the plates are opaque, the green plate now has 0.5 emissivity and 0.5 reflectivity to get the ideal balance numbers anger desires.
Cabbage Head just opened a new barrel of his homemade cabbage wine. Apparently it is very good.
I am glad that I have finally provided a diagram that meets g*e*r*a*ns approval. However he has stated that he doesnt understand the colour coding of the diagram. Must be too complex for him.
Blue arrows are for radiation leaving the blue plate and green arrows are for radiation leaving the green plate.
I am also not sure about his claim that 200 W is being reflected from a black body whose emissivity is 1.
Possibly an alternative is that g*e*r*a*n thinks the back radiation from the green plate to the left passes straight through the blue plate!
One thing we have learnt from these exercises is that anything is a possibility when it comes to the inanity of g*e*r*a*n.
“Possibly an alternative is that g*e*r*a*n thinks the back radiation from the green plate to the left passes straight through the blue plate!”
Ahhh, yes. Good point MikeR. I hadn’t thought about that particular anger inanity – making a blue plate side transparent, transmissivity 1.0. But only one way! Because the 400 coming into the blue plate is all absorbed, emissivity 1.0. What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
miker offers: “Blue arrows are for radiation leaving the blue plate and green arrows are for radiation leaving the green plate.”
That might explain some of your confusion, miker. One of the blue arrows should be green.
miker projects: “Possibly an alternative is that g*e*r*a*n thinks the back radiation from the green plate to the left passes straight through the blue plate!”
miker, what kind of cabbages are you smoking to believe that?
The comedy just keeps coming.
Thanks Sir Isaac,
So Joe is a dragon slayer. I thought dealing with dragons was the province of St.George (it must be my English heritage). I gather both g*e*r*a*n and Kristian are fellow disciples of St.Joseph of Postma.
St.Joe clearly has inherited the mantle of ST. Jude as the patron saint of lost causes (and generalized lunacy).
I agree Sir Isaac , the reference to Don Quixote and tilting at windmills is particularly appropriate.
A more contemporary analogy for g*e*r*a*n would be Monty Python’s black knight, full of bravado despite the loss of all his limbs. He doggedly persists even though his only remaining weapon in his intellectual armour is his residual appendage.
G*e*r*a*n, I think you might have just lost your last appendage.
Colour the arrow green or any other colour you like (I am more of a puce man myself).
To paraphrase the immortal bard, an arrow by any other colour would still smell as sweet (and more importantly still point in the same direction).
G,
The green plate is receiving 200 W. But to get rid of that incoming energy, it has to be able to emit it.
The green plate at 200 W emits 100 W/m2 from each of its two surfaces.
100 W/m2 X 2 = 200 W/m2
Green plate is now at equilibrium with energy received from blue plate.
But you have the green plate emitting 200 W/m2 from each side, which means it must be at 400 W.
You have not explained how it can warm that high if it is only receiving 200 W/m2 from the blue plate. Both plates are perfect blackbodies, so reflectance is not part of the process.
Where does the extra energy come from to heat the green plate?
Yes Barry for any way that g*e*r*a*n tries to skin this cat, if both the blue and green plate are at the same temperature, the energy equations for both plates and the entire system cannot all be balanced and satisfy the Stefan Boltzmann equations at the same time.
It is actually totally unsurprising as we have an asymmetrical situation with 400 W of energy directly striking the blue plate alone while the green plate gets its energy indirectly from the radiation emitted from the blue plate. The green plate is effectively shielded from the source by the blue plate. Due to this asymmetry it would be astounding if the two plates had the same temperature for steady state conditions.
If the 400 W source is removed, then of course, the two body system is isolated and symmetrical and the two plates would eventually reach equilibrium and therefore reach the same temperature.
“The green plate at 200 W emits 100 W/m2 from each of its two surfaces.”
barry, look at the graphic. miker got the color-coding wrong. One of the arrows from the blue plate should be green. So, as the green plate warms to emit 100 W/m^2 from both surfaces, it is receiving 200 W/m^2 PLUS 100 W/m^2. It will continue to warm.
PS I love all the desperation–Slayers, Python, Quixote, etc.
It’s fun to watch.
miker hopes: “Yes Barry for any way that g*e*r*a*n tries to skin this cat, if both the blue and green plate are at the same temperature, the energy equations for both plates and the entire system cannot all be balanced and satisfy the Stefan Boltzmann equations at the same time.”
Sorry miker, but look at your own graphic. S/B and the laws of Thermo are all satisfied.
(You just need to change the color of the one arrow, for clarity.)
One of the arrows from the blue plate should be green. So, as the green plate warms to emit 100 W/m^2 from both surfaces, it is receiving 200 W/m^2 PLUS 100 W/m^2. It will continue to warm.
The green plate emits 100 W/m2 to the blue.
The blue plate is a blackbody.
Blackbodies are perfect absorbers of energy.
They do not reflect energy.
So how does the 100 W/m2 from the green plate do a U-turn to go back the way it came and warm the green plate?
barry states: “Blackbodies are perfect absorbers of energy. They do not reflect energy.”
barry, black bodies are used in thought experiments to make calculations easier. They do not exist in reality. They do not allow you to ignore the laws of thermo.
Don’t let imaginary devices lead you farther into pseudoscience.
How does the 100 W/m2 from the green plate do a U-turn to go back the way it came and warm the green plate?
View factors. Youll work it out. Your education is not our responsibility. You can come back and apologise when youre ready to stop playing dumb.
Tony says (to barry): “You can come back and apologise when you’re ready to stop playing dumb.”
Tony, maybe it’s not an act.
☺
*****
barry asks: “How does the 100 W/m2 from the green plate do a U-turn to go back the way it came and warm the green plate?”
barry, I’ve already addressed this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273888
If you’re still confused, think of it this way: The heat energy from the green plate can not go to the left. So, the only way heat energy can leave the green plate is to the right. And, to emit 200 Watts to the right, its temperature must increase to 244K.
Why aren’t you asking such questions about the bogus solution? That solution is in clear violation of the laws. You’ve got to understand that your belief system is your problem.
G*e*r*a*n I gather if I change a blue arrow to green this will satisfy you. Which of the two blue arrows to the right do you want to change? Does this mean the blue plate is no longer emitting the radiation because the arrow representing it has been changed from blue to green. The blue plate is clearly unbalanced (an entirely appropriate description of g* e*r*a*n ). The colour of the arrows of course is irrelevant.
I do however see that g*e*r*a*n has changed his tune yet again and now claims that there is no back radiation, see his latest version , to quote – The heat energy from the green plate can not go to the left. So, the only way heat energy can leave the green plate is to the right.
So g*e*r*a*n has got rid of a green arrow to the left which unfortunately violates the Stefan Boltzmann law for the green plate now i.e. O W to the left but 200 W to the right from the two sides of a plate at the same temperature.
I am however glad that g* is still immune to logic (and also unfortunately innumerate). He seems to have a lifelong immunity and does require any booster shots.
Tony,
You want to introduce view factors into the debate. Thats fine. Bring it on.
You can read all about view factors at http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html .
Let us know how you go but I will help you out by pointing you in the right direction,see figure 19.13 for aligned parallel rectangles and the following figure 19.14 that gives the view factors for different ratios of the length to separation of the plates.
For a factor > 20 the view factor asymptotes to 1. Even if the factor is smaller than 1 the effect of the back radiation from the green plates is reduced but the colder green plate still causes an increase in temperature and internal energy for the warmer blue plate.
For simplicitys sake, over at Rabett Run Eli went on to specify that the plates were to be considered infinite in size. Hence the view factors between the plates would be reciprocal.
miker, the longer you comment, the more you get wrong!
miker states: “Which of the two blue arrows to the right do you want to change? Does this mean the blue plate is no longer emitting the radiation because the arrow representing it has been changed from blue to green.
g* responds: It doesn’t matter which of the two right-going arrows you change. No, it does not “mean” that. It means that the IR was emitted by the green plate, instead of the blue plate.
miker states: “The blue plate is clearly unbalanced (an entirely appropriate description of g* e*r*a*n ). The colour of the arrows of course is irrelevant.”
g* responds: No miker, the blue plate is NOT unbalanced. You just don’t know how to add/subtract. 600 W/m^2 arriving blue plate, 600 W/m^2 leaving blue plate. 600 – 600 = 0. (“Ignorant” might be an appropriate description of miker.)
miker states: “I do however see that g*e*r*a*n has changed his tune yet again and now claims that there is no back radiation, see his latest version , to quote The heat energy from the green plate can not go to the left.”
g* responds: No miker, I have not changed my “tune”. I have been saying the same things over and over. You are just too ignorant to comprehend, so you keep trying to blame me for your ineptness.
miker states: “So g*e*r*a*n has got rid of a green arrow to the left which unfortunately violates the Stefan Boltzmann law for the green plate now i.e. O W to the left but 200 W to the right from the two sides of a plate at the same temperature.
g* responds: No miker, I have not “got rid of a green arrow to the left”. There is no violation of S/B. I have no idea how you dream up such nonsense.
miker states: “I am however glad that g* is still immune to logic (and also unfortunately innumerate). He seems to have a lifelong immunity and does require any booster shots.”
g* responds: miker, if you would grow up and spend more time trying to learn, instead of trying to hurl mud, you would be better off for it. (You might want to look up the word “innumerate”, and then re-consider your statement “the blue plate is clearly unbalanced”.
Do you want to remain a “climate clown”, or do you want to do better?
This is getting really, really stupid. We now have 600 W entering and leaving blue plate ! G*e*r*a*n What temperature does this correspond to? Try using the Stefan Boltzmann equation to work it out. I will promise to take back my comment about your numeracy skills if you can provide the correct answer.
Hint a 242 K plate emits 200w from each side.
G*e*r*a*n also states – It doesnt matter which of the two right-going arrows you change. No, it does not mean that. It means that the IR was emitted by the green plate, instead of the blue plate.
So in g*e*r*a*n’s mind either of the two right-going blue arrows that are towards the green plate (not away) represent emission by the green plate . He clearly has not thought this through.
It seems I clearly can’t do justice with a diagram to represent g*e*”r*a*n ‘s fantasies. Perhaps a Jackson Pollock drip painting would do the trick with a range of different colours and rays going in all directions.
Rather than my inadequate attempts at trying to interpret g*e*r*a*n I think he could do everyone a favour by taking out his crayons and illustrating his own diagram, photographing it, loading it onto the Web and providing a link to it. It could also be useful as a diagnostic tool to try and understand the origins of g*e*r*a*n’s delusions.
Sorry to be giving poor g*e*r*a*n such a hard time but my tolerance for fools has its limits.
G,
Please don’t cast aspersions on my honesty. I’m quite genuine and I think you’re wrong.
If youre still confused, think of it this way: The heat energy from the green plate can not go to the left.
The radiation from the green plate of course goes both left and right. You’ve even said so yourself.
So, as the green plate warms to emit 100 W/m^2 from both surfaces, it is receiving 200 W/m^2 PLUS 100 W/m^2.
And here again:
Green244K
Incoming 200W from Blue
Outgoing 200W (to the right, leaves the system)
Green also emits 200W to the left, which is returned by Blue.
I’m going to assume you still agree with the latter statements.
How does this radative energy at 100 W/m2 emitted from the green plate towards the blue do a U-turn to head back towards the green plate that emitted it (thereby warming it beyond the 200 W/m2 received from the blue plate)? Are you saying that the blue plate is a perfect white body that 100% reflects the energy coming from the green plate? Otherwise I don’t see how this works in your mind.
miker, another long comment, filled with inaccuracies.
Your first two sentences: “This is getting really, really stupid. We now have 600 W entering and leaving blue plate!”
Yes, failing to understand your own graphic is really, really stupid.
The blue plate does NOT emit 600 Watts/m^2. That’s why you need to change your color-coding. I have explained this. You fail to understand.
There’s no need to continue with you, as you clearly desire a career in climate comedy.
Best of luck, you have a lot of competition.
barry requests: “Please dont cast aspersions on my honesty. Im quite genuine and I think youre wrong.”
Okay barry, you are allowed to be honestly mistaken. I won’t hint that you are dishonest. But you must admit you are biased, closed-minded, and avoiding the truth.
You’re still confused about the IR emitted from the left side of the green plate. You can’t understand what is happening. You keep asking the same question. So, let me try to explain it again.
Let’s call this IR emitted from the left side of the green plate “LG”. You seem to understand that the value of LG changes as the green plate warms. It starts out at some lower value, depending on the original temperature of the green plate, and warms to the equilibrium temperature of 244K. I think you understand this so far.
Now, when LG impacts the blue plate, it gets reflected, due to the temperature of the blue plate. (That’s maybe why miker has refused to change the color-coding on his graphic. He wants to confuse folks.) Then, when the reflected LG returns to the green plate, it can either support continue heating to equilibrium, or be reflected again.
If it makes it easier for you to understand, you can think of the blue plate as a “white body” to LG. That’s not a perfect analogy, but it works in this specific case. LG is not being “accepted” by the blue plate.
If you were open-minded, and applied the same level of scrutiny to the bogus solution, you would find it fails immediately and miserably. But, you continue to pick at the correct solution, hoping to find some way to mis-interpret, mis-represent, or confuse the facts.
G,
Now, when LG impacts the blue plate, it gets reflected, due to the temperature of the blue plate
This is what I’ve said all along you think. Eg,
His view only works if…
2) the right side of the blue plate is a perfect mirror
But that was the first time that I saw you use the word ‘reflect.’ This is wrong.
Blackbodies absorb radiation of any frequency.
A black body is one that absorbs all the EM radiation (light…) that strikes it.
https://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node48.html
The blue plate does not reflect radiative energy. No blackbody does, and no greybody does 100%.
You’re confusing radiative transfer, or statistical mechanics with classical thermodynamics. No (thermodynamic) heat can flow from a cold object to a hot one. But radiation is absorbed by warmer bodies that emanates from cooler bodies. Thermodynamics describes the NET transfer, but is largely oblivious to energy exchange between two objects.
The 2nd Law is not violated by the blue plate absorbing radiative energy from the green plate, because the instant that heat is absorbed the energy state of the blue plate rises and at the same time emits radiation at greater intensity.
The NET flow of heat is always from hot to cold, but there is also always an energy exchange going on.
In your view there can be no shade from the sun with our micrometer thin plates. 10 or a hundred of them would all be at the same temperature.
In fact, the temperature of each would be lower the more plates between them and the sun.
There is a temperature gradient from left to right. You can experience this right here on earth by painting a piece of aluminium foil black and watching the thermometer temperature drop and stay dropped when interposing the foil between it and the sun.
In your view we could have 100 sheets of black aluminium between some object and the sun, and the object would be the same temperature as if exposed directly to the sun.
Happily, this defies common sense, as well as physics. You should be able to see that. Shade works. There is a temperature gradient. The green plate can never be as warm as the blue in the configuration we’ve been discussing.
barry, I’ve explained the problem with a black body before. It makes a thought experiment easier to discuss, but you do not get to use the concept to “break the laws”.
In your pseudoscience, it appears the more desperate you are, the longer your comment!
It’s fun to watch.
And speaking of long comments, you might like to consider this example from the infamous con-man. He rambles relentlessly, but sometimes gets so tangled up that he accidentally spouts some truth. In the link below, he is describing a hollow cube. He indicates (CORRECTLY) that there will be no heat transfer inside the cube. IOW, the cube will not be able to “heat itself, just as the blue plate can NOT be heated by the green plate.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273262
See if you can agree with your “brother-in-pseudoscience”.
Hilarious.
It was curious that you were running this thought experiment with blackbodies right up until the point I said blackbodies are perfect absorbers. But you would still get a temperature gradient from left to right with greybodies, and this is the point in my last post that you didn’t respond to.
Common sense and the physics work together here. For each added plate off to the right, that plate is a little cooler than the one before. Shade works.
In your conception, 100 green plates in succession to the right of the blue would all warm up to be the same temperature: an object in the successive shade of 100 micro-thin black sheets on Earth would be the same temperature as if exposed directly to the sun.
I think you imagine this to be the case because you mistake a thermodynamic law, which is about bulk properties, for a description of what happens when one looks at the components at the micro level that make up the NET.
This is why you believe a warm object can absorb no EM radiation from a cooler object. If it were true, you should be able to cite something from a physics textbook or other formal source that explicitly says so. Until you do, you leave me with no choice but to continue believing that this is an invented ‘law’.
There is a post on WUWT that speaks precisely on what I’ve just said:
Now, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only about net flows. It states that the net flow of thermal energy which we call “heat” goes from hot to cold each and every time without exception. However, the Second Law says nothing about the individual flows of energy, only the net flow. Heat cant flow from cold to hot, but radiated energy absolutely can.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/24/can-a-cold-object-warm-a-hot-object/
Anthony Watts comments:
“I get so tired of hearing this stupid argument from the anti-ghg crowd. Thanks for quantifying it.”
I guess you could quibble about the use of the word ‘flow’, but the point is secure. Radiation is exchanged, even between hot and cold objects; the net exchange is always hot to cold. Both things are true at the same time.
Isn’t g*e*r*a*n*s solution very clear?
His blue plate right side has emissivity = reflectivity = 1.
All other sides are perfect black bodies.
Just like Ball4 said:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273832
barry, normally I would just respond to your rambling with “blah, blah, blah”. But tonight, you are lucky. I’m enjoying a second bottle of wine, after an scrumptious dinner, so debunking your nonsense is perfect entertainment.
barry: “It was curious that you were running this thought experiment with blackbodies right up until the point I said blackbodies are perfect absorbers.”
g*: WRONG! I was never “running this thought experiment”. You brought this pseudoscience here. And, as I have indicated numerous times, fictitious concepts do not allow you to violate established laws.
barry: “But you would still get a temperature gradient from left to right with greybodies, and this is the point in my last post that you didnt respond to.”
g*: There is no temperature gradient in a vacuum. You have no “point”, unless you claim “zero” as a gradient.
barry: “Common sense and the physics work together here. For each added plate off to the right, that plate is a little cooler than the one before. Shade works.”
g*: barry, you don’t get to go back and forth between a “thought experiment” and the real world. You’re just trying to work a con. (But, I did laugh at the “common sense” part. As if Warmists had any common sense!)
barry: “In your conception, 100 green plates in succession to the right of the blue would all warm up to be the same temperature: an object in the successive shade of 100 micro-thin black sheets on Earth would be the same temperature as if exposed directly to the sun.”
g*: barry, you don’t get to go back and forth between a “thought experiment” and the real world. You’re just trying to work a con, AGAIN.
barry: “I think you imagine this to be the case because you mistake a thermodynamic law, which is about bulk properties, for a description of what happens when one looks at the components at the micro level that make up the NET.”
g*: NOPE, I never said anything about “micro”.
barry: “This is why you believe a warm object can absorb no EM radiation from a cooler object.”
g*: barry, you keep imaging what I believe, WRONGLY.
barry: “If it were true, you should be able to cite something from a physics textbook or other formal source that explicitly says so. Until you do, you leave me with no choice but to continue believing that this is an invented law.”
g*: It seems, to support your pseudoscience, you must invent what you believe I believe. In science, all I have to deal with are facts, not “beliefs”. I prefer my part.
And, I noticed you ignored the con-man’s “hollow cube”. Smart move, to protect your pseudoscience. You’ve got to keep the hoax going.
Hilarious.
Svante always drops in like a vulture. He hopes to find easy pickings.
But, he always ends up roadkill.
It’s fun to watch.
@barry
It’s been about 8-9 years ago, but I used to visit WUWT daily. I wanted Anthony to succeed. We were in email contact, and I was trying to offer him help with his science. He rejected science. He wanted to be a “Lukewarmer”.
Unfortunately, he has been in downfall ever since. His hearing has declined. His finances are bad. His marriage has failed.
But, at least he still has his pseudoscience.
G,
The temperature gradient refers to the temperature of each successive plate to the right, being cooler as there are more plates between a plate and the heat source. That should have been very clear as I said the same thing 3 different ways in successive posts.
Some time ago we agreed to conduct the conversation civilly. I have done so consistently. You have lately been accusing me of lying (“con”). Your earlier appeal for civility is revealed to be as hollow as your understanding of this matter.
The rest of your reply was utterly without substance. I would say the booze has liberated you.
You have said that the blue plate ‘returns’ radiation emitted by the green. Pressed on this you have no substantive response. You are evasive. You project denial (“I never said…”) rather than articulating a positive response. You evade questions with your regular non-answers.
No cite from a formal source explaining why radiation from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer one. Instead, a side-step implying – but never clearly stating – that this is not your view.
Your contribution here has been completely unpersuasive.
Thank you for the conversation.
barry, now it’s “blah, blah, blah”.
You are entertaining.
Thanks.
barry, before you go off all whiney, explain why you commented below, in asterisks:
*******
But you havent explained where the extra energy is coming from. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Green plate only receives 200 W/m2 from blue.
That is all the energy it receives from any source.
It must warm until it matches input from blue (200W), and then emits 100 W/m2 each side. Just as the blue plate receives 400 W/m2 from the sun and emits half that amount either side.
*******
Can you see how confused you were?
And, you get all whiney because I used the word “con”?
Hilarious.
I can see that this a pointless exercises so I am hoping this is the last time we have to deal with this moveable feast.
One day it is blue plate emitting 200W from each face- on Nov 27 at , 5:28 pm. Two days later it is 300W from each side of the blue plate ( to quote him 600 W/m^2 leaving blue plate – on November 29 at 4:48 am) . He then changes back in his latest comments above. G*e*r*a*n is as slippery as a greased pig.
However as g*e*r*a*n has insisted on a revised version of his latest version with a blue arrow changed to green, I have obliged (see
https://s20.postimg.org/av6u36vbh/I_m_with_stupid.jpg .
I must point that the altered arrow that that has been changed to green is pointing inwards to the green plate.
However according to the unique interpretation of g*e*r*a*n it is supposed to represent radiation leaving (emitted in his words) from the green plate.
This is despite every other arrow is representing ,via colour, which radiating plate it is leaving, and in all cases the direction is away from the relevant plate (with the obvious exception of the incoming 400W). I pointed this out this blatant flaw earlier as I thought it might have been an inadvertent mistake by g*e*r*a*n but he has dumbed down, yet again, with his latest comments.
Maybe we have all misunderstood g*e*r*a*n. Maybe he is an unrecognised genius.
If he has found another flaw with my diagram then I think g*e*r*a*n needs to illustrate with his own diagram what he thinks is going on. He can download any of the diagrams that I have posted and modify it accordingly using any image editor (even Microsoft Paint will do) and then upload it into a web hosting program such as postimg.
If he is incapable of this , rather than using an image editor he could grab some crayons and draw his diagram and photograph it and upload accordingly. It would be interesting to see if he is capable of this. Somehow I doubt it.
I think it is now time for me to terminate my exchanges with g*e*r*a*n as, I have to admit, I am being frustrated by g*e*r*a*n’s obstinate refusal to face reality . I know it now the Age of Stupidity and I have to get used dealing with idiocy but I am more likely get an intelligent response from my cat.
Identical plates at the same temperature,
but different radiation between them!
Two arrows left and one arrow right?
It really is that anger’s comments serve only as a warning to others to read the properly tested science. Not every comment can be a success, just like not every vessel can be seaworthy. There’s only despair & no use in being one spectacular shipwreck like anger.
https://despair.com/products/mistakes
“The question of where water is on Mars today is easy to pose but difficult to answer fully. Direct observations exist of exposed martian water reservoirs, which include water vapor in the atmosphere, water ice in the atmosphere, seasonal water ice deposits at the surface, and permanent water ice deposits at the polar caps…..
…assuming a high ice-to-dust ratio, is the equivalent of a global water layer 22 to 33 m thick”
And:
At kilometer depths, Marss geothermal gradient should eventually give rise to conditions where temperatures exceed 0 C, and there liquid water will be stable”
https://www.nap.edu/read/10715/chapter/8
And: Recommendation. COMPLEX recommends that NASA pursue the global mapping of subsurface water and water ice in near-surface and crustal reservoirs.”
I agree this should a priority in regards to Mars exploration.
Though agree with idea of first exploring the Moon, then Mars.
So find water in lunar polar regions, and then subsurface mapping of Mars water.
It seems plausible to find large quantities of liquid mars water which can extracted from drilled wells.
And with this water one can make a shallow tropical oceans on Mars.
Build it and they will come, with Mars is build a lake, and one would get Mars settlements on Mars.
NASA job is the exploration, billionaires can build the lake.
Curious, I searched for the term ‘back radiation’ at google scholar.
There were 10,000 results, and from the first few pages it was used regarding antenna strips and downwelling atmospheric infrared. Earliest papers using the phrase were from the 1920s.
barry, did you also search “front radiation”? “Side radiation”?
“Upside-down, double-reverse, side-armed, hook-shot radiation?
It’s a big world out there.
D*u*m*b
No, but you go for it.
I was inspired by the notion upthread that Trenberth made it up. Apparently not.
Yeah, I just think he made up the part that back-radiaton could heat the planet. Or was at least complacent in that part of the hoax.
Trenberth was certainly not the first to say that, by about 100 years.
Yes, backradiation does heat the surface.
In general, back-radiation does NOT heat the surface.
DA…”Yes, backradiation does heat the surface”.
As you like to say, prove it. It’s actually impossible. You cannot take heat from the surface after losses, absorb it in GHGs, back-radiate it to the surface after more losses, and expect that radiation to be absorbed and raise the temperature of the surface to a higher temperature than what it was warmed by solar energy.
DA…ever heard of perpetual motion? Ever heard of the 2nd law?
Gordon Robertson says:
>> DAYes, backradiation does heat the surface.
“As you like to say, prove it. Its actually impossible.”
Observational proof:
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Theoretically, the proof is trivial: photons carry energy, and some of the backradiation is absorbed. That implies warming.
As ever Gordon, you misunderstand the 2nd law and refuse to learn about it. Sad.
Davie believes: “Theoretically, the proof is trivial: photons carry energy, and some of the backradiation is absorbed. That implies warming.”
No Davie, you “infer” warming. Beliefs are not science, they are pseudoscience.
Fact: photons carry energy.
Very good, Davie. Photons carry energy.
You’re learning.
Now realize that there is no guarantee that energy will ever be thermalized.
G*,
What textbook, publication, law of physics, states that
” there is no guarantee that energy will ever be thermalized.”
in the situations discussed here?
Nate, it’s called “reality”. There’s about a 99% chance that, from where you are now, you can see examples of objects that are not thermalizing IR. It’s just that you don’t have the science background to understand. And, that’s not my fault.
‘There is no guarantee energy (of IR photons) will ever be thermalized.
Fine.
This is a very different statement from ‘NONE from a cooler object will be thermalized in a warmer object’ which is what you constantly claim.
In fact, even imperfect real-world black bodies (charcoal) will absorb and thermalize ~ 96% of IR photons from all sources, even cooler sources.
As you may be aware, 96% is >> 0.
“This is a very different statement from ‘NONE from a cooler object will be thermalized in a warmer object’ which is what you constantly claim.”
Nate, if I “constantly claim” that, then surely you could provide just one example?
Nate, could you also please provide your source for:
“In fact, even imperfect real-world black bodies (charcoal) will absorb and thermalize ~ 96% of IR photons from all sources, even cooler sources.”
Thanks.
“if I constantly claim that, then surely you could provide just one example?”
“Incoming 200W from Blue
Outgoing 200W (to the right, leaves the system)
Green also emits 200W to the left, which is returned by Blue.”
The photons from slightly cooler GREEN are not absorbed by BLUE. All 200W/m2 of them, according to you.
No longer believe this?
Now you have to play tricks. You “quoted” me as stating “NONE from a cooler object will be thermalized in a warmer object”.
You stated I “constantly claim that.
But, when I asked for an example, all you could come up with was my solution to the blue/green plate problem.
So, you didn’t really mean to “quote” me. You really meant to “speak” for me.
Helpful hint: Don’t quote people unless you have the exact quote. That just makes you look desperate.
The exact quote BS again…a great way to avoid accountability.
Come up with and defend your own damn quotes then!
You have many times stated, in many ways, that photons from colder sources not absorbed/thermalized by warmer ones, as in the GPE case. “Green also emits 200W to the left, which is returned by Blue”
Do you still believe this or not?
Nate gets caught “misquoting” me: “The exact quote BS againa great way to avoid accountability.”
It’s my fault that I caught him!
Hilarious.
“please provide your source for:
In fact, even imperfect real-world black bodies (charcoal) will absorb and thermalize ~ 96% of IR photons ”
http://www.infrared-thermography.com/material-1.htm
Note 8-14 microns is key range for room temp BB spectrum
Nate, notice the temperature range, based on the peak wavelengths:’
8 microns–362K
14 microns–207K
Room temperature is about 296K
Kinda funny, huh?
So what?
Look, find any material that behaves the way you want, and show us.
G*,
“Nate gets caught misquoting me: The exact quote BS again a great way to avoid accountability.”
I said about your views: NONE from a cooler object will be thermalized in a warmer object”
Ye G*, I did not quote you directly, I was attempting to summarize my understanding of your belief.
If this is not your belief, I stand corrected.
But your beliefs then are a moving target, and quite confusing to me, because when asked by Tim about 200W emitted by GREEN:
3) Blue absorbs the 200 W mentioned in line (2a)
Your response is
“NOPE!”
So in this example, none of the energy coming from Green (supposedly cooler), will be absorbed by BLUE.
How am I to understand this? Pls explain.
The flux emitted by the cooler green plate will have a peak wavelength longer than that of the warmer blue plate. Consequently, the flux will mostly be reflected back. Since we are assuming “perfect” conditions, with no losses, we can assume all of the flux will be reflected.
If you can learn that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”, it will be easier to understand. (Please don’t run get a blow torch, to heat the “cold”, just to prove me wrong. That’s been tried.)
“The flux emitted by the cooler green plate will have a peak wavelength longer than that of the warmer blue plate.”
So far so good.
“Consequently, the flux will mostly be reflected back. ”
Nope. Here is where you depart from regular physics. Show me any eqn that requires this.
“Since we are assuming perfect conditions, with no losses, we can assume all of the flux will be reflected.”
Nope. Ideal BB absrb all flux.
Nate, a black body is an imaginative concept. It is NOT real. Using a fictitious concept to promote your belief system is called “pseudoscience”.
If you want your pseudoscience, you can keep your pseudoscience.
“a peak wavelength longer than that of the warmer blue plate.
Consequently, the flux will mostly be reflected back.
Again, what equation or law of physics requires this?
Do you have an answer or not?
You would have to understand the physics of photon “acceptance”. Which you, obviously, do not. And I’m not going to try to teach quantum physics to someone that would refuse to understand anyway.
But, if any part of you is sincere about wanting to learn, look at the “acceptance” spectrum for some random gas, like say carbon dioxide for example. Why does that spectrum show “acceptance” at certain wavelengths? There’s a whole lot of IR out there, but CO2 ONLY “accepts” certain wavelengths. Do you suppose wavelengths have something to do with “acceptance”?
Never let facts get in the way of your pseudoscience.
Nate, unfortunately for anger’s pseudoscience, Planck’s law testing demonstrates ideally CO2 “accepts” nonzero radiated energy at all wavelengths at all temperatures because any CO2 object “emits” all wavelengths at all temperatures (anger claims to always comply with Kirchhoff).
When Plancks distribution is multiplied by measured emissivity and a constant find all real objects (this includes CO2 objects) have a nonzero radiance at all frequencies all temperatures(even blue plates).
Except of course for warm blue plates in anger’s universe where blue plates reflect all frequencies at and below peak green which is pseudoscience in the real universe.
Never let tested facts get in the way of anger’s pseudoscience.
And, right on cue, Cabbage Head shows up to prevent any useful learning.
Cabbage Head believes CO2 is now a perfect “black body”. And that goes well with his cabbages that glow in the dark.
I love climate comedy.
anger thinks: “CO2 is now a perfect “black body”.”
Only in anger’s pseudoscience universe, in the real universe CO2 objects have a measured nonzero emissivity, transmissivity and reflectivity.
Just like blue and green plates do in the real universe. Only in anger’s pseudoscience universe do blue plates reflect all irradiance from cooler green plates: “when LG impacts the blue plate, it gets reflected”
“You would have to understand the physics of photon acceptance. Which you, obviously, do not. And Im not going to try to teach quantum physics to someone that would refuse to understand anyway.”
“Theres a whole lot of IR out there, but CO2 ONLY accepts certain wavelengths.
Your statement “The flux emitted by the cooler green plate will have a peak wavelength longer than that of the warmer blue plate. Consequently, the flux will mostly be reflected back.”
was clearly about PLATES not CO2! So that does not answer the question at all.
The plates that are either black bodies (ideal case) or grey bodies that ‘accept’ photons over a broad range of wavelengths. There are plenty of materials that qualify.
‘You would have to understand the physics of photon acceptance. Which you, obviously, do not.’
Dont worry about me, I am willing to learn.
Just explain how ‘photon acceptance’ gets applied to plates, and how this explains why the BLUE should reflect all GREEN plate flux.
Nate, I was trying give you a simple illustration, that you could understand. So, let’s go slow and take it one step at a time. If I determine that you are trying for “gotchas”, then I will know you are insincere.
1) Do you understand that a surface molecule will have a frequency related to temperature?
I cant promise that the physics wont getcha.
1) Do you understand that a surface molecule will have a frequency related to temperature? Yes.
Do you understand that many materials absorb over a broad range of frequency? Look up grey body.
Wait, hold your horses.
1) Do you understand that a surface molecule will have a frequency related to temperature?
Molecules ‘acceptance’ frequencies are not typically temp dependent, amplitudes yes.
Well Nate, you just flunked out of any help I can give you. You clearly have no interest in learning.
It wasn’t a trick question. But even with two efforts, you couldn’t even get close. Yet, you believe you’ve got all the correct answers!
Hilarious.
(I just love climate comedy.)
I have flunked, eh? Meanwhile, with your childish games, you have dodged answering the question.
Youve made a statement, about photon ‘acceptance’. Yet you cant justify it, explain it, with known facts or known science.
That should bother you.
.
G*,
You long ago, for whatever reason, decided that warmer objects cannot absorb EM radiation from cooler objects. And as a weird consequence the BLUE and Green plates must come to the same temp.
Since then, you have been looking for reasons to justify these beliefs. If you cant justify it with real physics then it is in the realm of belief and no science.
This idea of photon ‘acceptance’ and the deviations of real-world materials from the BB behavior, are your latest scheme.
But this will not solve the problem. Plenty of materials (e.g. most paints) absorb and emit broadly in the IR, like a BB. Because of this fact, your ideas regarding the shift of the peak with temperature makes little to no difference in absorbance of a EM energy emitted by a cooler object to a warmer object.
It is simply an established fact that warmer plates can and do absorb EM energy from colder plates.
But that is NOT in any way a violation of 2LOT, so there is really no need to deny this fact.
2LOT refers to net heat transfer, which is always from hot to cold. 2LOT is NOT a requirement on EM energy transfers. This is the confusion that many commenters have.
No, this idea was around decades before Trenberth went to school.
In this 1927 paper, “back radiation” in the interior of a star is discussed.
http://tinyurl.com/y9af2ch6
So there is precedent for that usage 70 years before the IPCC.
This paper from 1938 describes atmospheric “back radiation.” It attempts to calculate the radiative water vapour effect.
http://tinyurl.com/ydxd7hps
There are tons more through the earlier decades of the 20th century covering a few fields.
The point is, “back radiation” is not an invention of modern climatology, but has been in the literature since the photon was first experimentally observed.
The notion of “back radiation” being an invention of IPCC climate science was an idea I thought unlikely and automatically dismissed without comment. This is the first time I decided to run a check and see if it held water.
It doesn’t hold water. It’s just one of those things that skeptics have fabricated.
Here’s a paper written in 1929 that describes “back radiation” for various layers of the atmosphere, including to the surface.
The development and present status of the theory of the heat balance in the atmosphere
http://tinyurl.com/y8yrhu2z
The concept in terms of sky radiation to surface is at least 90 years old.
Another meme bites the dust.
Can’t we give Trenberth credit for digging up old ideas?
There were papers written in the early 70s that refer to back radiation. So … no. Trenberth is merely utilising the concepts he learned in his degree.
It really all dates back to the infamous, and bogus, CO2 equation credited to Arrhenius. The equation creates energy out of thin air. The concept was largely discredited in it’s time.
Continental drift
Genetic inheritance
Heliocentric solar system
Blood circulation is caused by the heart
Hand-washing prevents germs
Natural selection
Diseases are spread by germs
Immunotherapy
All ‘discredited’ in their time.
Homeopathy
UFOs
Martians
and one of my favorites–“pyramid power”
The list goes on.
The list goes on:
Marxism
Racism
Socialism
Capitalism**
** capitalism is often misunderstood- it’s
largely a word invented within the ideology of socialism and
Marxism who are claiming to be in religious war
against capitalism [with the evil capitalists- though all capitalist are evil as they responsible for the evil of the “capitalistic system” which is the source of all evil in the world- which btw, is similar to a common belief of early Christians- or money and everything connected with it, is evil].
But business people who dislike the idea of a government robbing them too much, routinely call themselves capitalists. Or they were labeled, and accept this label- though they is particular ideology which basically is about upward mobility- work hard and you will succeed. Rags to riches belief.
But mainly for them, capitalism is freedom in business, trade, and buying and selling of stocks- which is symbolic or equaled with capitalism. Of course the [or a particular] stock market is just another kind of market and is often used to measure the “health” of a large number of different markets.
gbaikie…”But business people who dislike the idea of a government robbing them too much, routinely call themselves capitalists”.
I can understand that point but how about sending children to work and exploiting them while working. They still do that in some parts of the world and they’d do it here if they could get away with it.
It’s not capitalism that bothers me, it’s the greedy, blackhearts who tend to be capitalists.
des…”no. Trenberth is merely utilising the concepts he learned in his degree”.
John Christy of UAH did his grad work under Trenberth. He was taught what Trenberth believes. Much to his credit, when he saw the data from NOAA sats, Christy began to disagree. Ever since, Trenberth has been after John and Roy, going out of his way to interfere with the peer review of both John and Roy.
In the climategate email scandal, Phil Jones of Had-crut threatened that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that certain skeptical papers would not make it into IPCC reviews. Draw you own conclusions but Trenberth and Jones are Coordinating Lead Authors on IPCC reviews.
One of the papers to which Jones was referring was co-authored by John CHristy.
“Phil Jones of Had-crut threatened that he and Kevin would see to it that certain skeptical papers would not make it into IPCC reviews”
Emails don’t convey tone and selected emails don’t give context. Could have been engaging in hyperbole (looks that way to me). In any case, skeptic papers got into the IPCC and still get published. Spencer and Christy papers are cited by IPCC, as well as Mycintyre’s hockey stick papers in AR4, for example.
-Gordon Robertson says:
November 21, 2017 at 1:33 AM
gbaikieBut business people who dislike the idea of a government robbing them too much, routinely call themselves capitalists.
I can understand that point but how about sending children to work and exploiting them while working. They still do that in some parts of the world and theyd do it here if they could get away with it.
Its not capitalism that bothers me, its the greedy, blackhearts who tend to be capitalists.-
Who has send children anywhere, other than parents or governments?
If capitalist parents send their children to work at the age 5, say greedy, blackhearted farmers [obviously any farmer is capitalist] sending their children as young as 5 years old to plant corn, do we need to use the power of government
to prevent any such an activity from happening?
I didn’t have a paper route when I was a kid, but my older brother did, and as I recall, Ian started when he was about 10 years old. Now, as far as I know, my parents had nothing do with Ian having a paper route, other than allowing him to do it. Though it could be argued that my parent didn’t provide Ian with enough allowance money. Though it could also be argued that Ian was a greedy blackhearted capitalist who somehow become aware that next door neighbors were working for a local newspaper and I imagine that thru them learned of a means of getting more money.
gbakie,
Cant we give Trenberth credit for digging up old ideas?
No – “back radiation” appears in papers, including on atmosphere radiating to surface, throughout the decades. Revelle’s 1957 paper has this (based on Keeling’s work with atmospheric CO2 measurements), and papers from the 70s also have this.
Trenberth didn’t initiate or unearth the notion. It has a century old, continuous history in the scientific literature.
IOW, this isn’t about Trenberth.
The atmosphere, like all objects, radiates.
Even moreso because it’s composed of GHGs.
That radiation goes in all directions, because GHG molecules in the atmo are randomly oriented.
Some of that radiation is directed downward.
That’s “backradiation.”
Q.E.D
Two camps of dimwits. One thinks backradiation does a U-turn when it sees Earth’s surface.
The other admits backradiation gets absorbed, but believes it has no effect. (According to the theory, shortwave photons kick ass, while longwave photons are a bunch of lazy, do nothings).
Does second camp think the SW of a blue sky kick butt?
gbaikie
It’s must be very confusing for Earth’s surface. All the photons look identical.
Photons are different, depending on their source temperature. The peak emission from a black body at 300K is about 2.4 microns longer, than at 400 K. That’s a HUGE difference at molecular dimensions.
Translation: The “colder” photon is not as likely to be absorbed as is the “hotter” photon.
(That’s where the expression “size matters” comes from.)
g*
Maybe you should argue with the dimwits at camp 2.
“Translation: The “colder” photon is not as likely to be absorbed as is the “hotter” photon.”
Stop the presses!!!
g* has changed his mind!
Now he thinks a “colder” photon can be absorbed by the warmer surface, it’s just not as likely as the other way around.
Good job, g*, you’ll be warmist in no time.
There is no physical barrier preventing a 400K blackbody absorbing a photon from a 300K blackbody.
“Size” is not “physical”?
Wow barry, you really are desperate.
Size doesn’t matter in the inrafred spectrum.
–barry says:
November 20, 2017 at 8:54 AM
There is no physical barrier preventing a 400K blackbody absorbing a photon from a 300K blackbody.–
The full Moon is roughly a 400 K blackbody [and we see it because the dark gray surface of the Moon reflects sunlight].
And if on moon while it’s full on Earth, the Earth’s apparent size is much larger and is roughly a 300 K blackbody.
Moonlight warms earth by less than 1/2 degree, earth shine warms shadowed portions of the Moon by few degrees, but does
IR radiation of Earth warms the full moon [other sunlight wrapping around Earth atmosphere, during full moon, Earth is not reflecting sunlight. Note, sunlight wrapping around Earth’s atmosphere makes the Moon reddish during partial lunar eclipse].
barry claims: “Size doesnt matter in the inrafred spectrum.”
barry, never let any science come between you and your belief system.
g*e*r*a*n
Looks like you are making up your own physics again. I guess you have to do that because you strongly believe established science is pseudoscience. Whenever a poster states established science you jump right in and proclaim “pseudoscience”. I know Joseph Postma would be so proud of you that you learned a new word (even though you have no clue what it means), that he taught you, did he pat you on the head?
What established science do you have to provide support for you made up physics.
YOU: “Translation: The colder photon is not as likely to be absorbed as is the hotter photon.”
I was looking around to see if there was a correlation between IR wavelength and ABS but I haven’t found any to support you statement.
Different molecules will absorb different IR energies but it depends mainly on the molecular configuration than on the photon wavelength.
It seems you just make up physics. You and Gordon Robertson have a lot in common in that area. I think Gordon has a considerably better personality than you, but he does make up a lot of physics that can be demonstrated to be incorrect. You do the same with a smirk on your face.
Well Con-man, you got a whole lot of rambling nonsense there. You mentioned Postma, but you forgot to mention Johnson.
Maybe you’re slipping?
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You are right, I did forget to mention the other “crackpot” Claes Johnson. Another one who makes up their own physics and rejects the established physics.
You statement would go against Kirchhoff’s Law. The emissivity and absorbitivity of a gray body are equal. That is why they only use emissivity term for the heat transfer surface in the heat transfer equation.
Nothing supports you statement.
YOU: Translation: The colder photon is not as likely to be absorbed as is the hotter photon.
Made up physics from the pupil of the Masters at making up physics and pretending it is valid. Joseph Postma (your personal hero), and Claes Johnson (a close 2nd to choice of Top Scientist).
Is it fun to make up your own science and call established science (which you can’t understand) pseudoscience?
No Con-man, nothing I said violates Kirchhoff. You just don’t have the background to understand. That makes you frustrated, and then you turn into a yelping chihuahua.
Go back and read my comment. Sometimes memorizing it will help you understand.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273159
norman…”You are right, I did forget to mention the other crackpot Claes Johnson. Another one who makes up their own physics and rejects the established physics”.
He has a degree in math and can lay out the formulae to back his assertions, yet he is a crackpot to norman.
Johnson has actually laid out a theory based on Newtonian mechanics to explain Planck’s quanta. He is also extremely well informed on the history of thermodynamics.
Gordon Robertson
I have been on Claes Johnson’s blog and read comments from actual scientists who blow holes in his ideas and try to reason with him.
I call him a “crackpot” (which does not make him stupid) because he thinks empirical tested established science is wrong but his made up version is correct even though he offers no experimental proof or evidence. Einstein’s theories were controversial and only became accepted because of empirical evidence. I have read some of your posts where you reject Einstein’s view that gravity is a warping of space-time by matter but it does have empirical support.
You like his work because you and g*e*r*a*n follow his pattern. You make up your own physics. I will agree he is several levels above either of you since he can manipulate math several degrees above you and make it look like his ideas are valid. You and g*e*r*a*n just make up stuff and think it is true and correct with no support, no evidence, no support from any established science.
Look up the pseudoscience. You and g*e*r*a*n peddle it often on this blog but at least you don’t call established science pseudosience. g*e*r*a*n will do this quite often with multiple physics informed posters.
HERE:
“Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual, in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.”
You make up ideas that are your belief but they are not factual or scientific and you have zero evidence to support them (mostly dealing with how IR EMR is generated by molecules).
I think your online personality is several levels above g*e*r*a*n but you both engage in pseudoscience, made up versions of reality that have no support.
Nice long rambling rant, Con-man, signifying only your desperation.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
No desperation at all. I am stating the obvious. You make up physics and think it is true. Made up physics is pseudoscience.
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE, YOU: “Translation: The colder photon is not as likely to be absorbed as is the hotter photon.
This is a refutation of Kirchhoff’s Law which states that emissivity=ABS. If an object has an emissivity of 0.95 it will emit 95% the energy of a blackbody at the same temperature and will also absorb 95% of the energy that strikes its surface.
This is the science.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node135.html
Yours is the pseudoscience.
Heat transfer equation.
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ac
Because of Kirchhoff’s Law they just use the emissivity (longer form they use ABS for Tc^4 but since the terms are the same they drop the ABS from the equation)
Con-man, you still can’t understand. Try reading my comment one more time–third times a charm, as they say.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273159
The point you can’t understand is that I am describing photon emission. I am indicating how photons ARE different.
There is no violation of Kirchhoff. You are grasping at straws. You can’t understand, so you get frustrated and desperate.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
I was not objecting to the first part of your post that photons are different based upon their energy nor did I bring it up in my posts.
I am challenging your translation only (which I post in my response).
If you had left it as more energetic photons have shorter wavelength I would not commented. If you were only attempting to point out photons are different I would not comment. Sir Isaac Snapelton was only referring to the photons that produce a blue color when our brain interprets them, which are basically identical.
If your intent was only to demonstrate photons are different why did you add this statement?
YOU: “Translation: The colder photon is not as likely to be absorbed as is the hotter photon.”
Con-man, you seem to have settled down somewhat. You’re no longer attacking and sounding like a castrated chihuahua. And finally, after 3 tries, you seem to understand my comment.
Amazing.
The purpose of the “translation” was to help explain why all IR is not always “accepted”. You see, there are climate clowns that believe that all IR is always “accepted”. They have to believe that, because otherwise the rest of their pseudoscience blows up in their face.
Photons do not have a temperature.
Temperature is a statistical property of many body systems, not of single particles.
Very good, Davie.
You finally got something right. Feels good, huh?
Keep learning.
g*e*r*a*n says:
November 20, 2017 at 7:23 AM
“Translation: The colder photon is not as likely to be absorbed as is the hotter photon.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273159
Yes Davie, that is an informative link.
Keep learning.
You said photons have a temperature.
Then you said they don’t.
Your usual degree of scientific rectitude.
Claes Johnson is your classic crank.
The Crackpot Index
John Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Davie imagines: “You said photons have a temperature.”
No davie, I NEVER said that. You are taking things out of context.
Your usual degree of scientific rectitude.
G*e*r*a*n
“all IR is not always accepted’
Where does this ‘accepted’ concept show up anywhere in real physics of black bodies???
Black body, BY DEFINITION, absorbs all light, i.e. accepts all photons.
You are now redefining what black body is. The essence of pseudoscience.
Nate, “accepted” is the word I use here because the site has trouble with certain forms of a.b.s.o.r.b. I have explained this before. Your failure to follow threads is not my problem.
No, I am not “re-defining what a black body is”. I am talking about reality. A “black body” is an imaginative concept. You can NOT order one from Amazon. Your inability to accept reality is not my problem.
G*e*r*a*n,
You dont get to claim black or even grey bodies behave in some magical way with respect to absorbance of photons from slightly cooler black or grey bodies. That does not match any reality.
Nor can yours or Postma’s made-up-physics explain MLI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation.
This material acts as an insulator in a vacuum, in precisely the way the green plate insulates the blue, by producing a temperature differential and reduced heat flow.
“The peak emission from a black body at 300K is about 2.4 microns longer, than at 400 K. Thats a HUGE difference at molecular dimensions.”
“Cant order black bodies at Amazon”
For the purposes of this discussion, plenty of materials are close enough to being ideal black bodies that the small deviations make little (not HUGE) difference.
And in the green blue plate THOUGHT experiment it certainly makes no difference.
Sorry Nate, but you just don’t understand the physics. We’ve been here before.
Wavelength makes a HUGE difference. It determines whether or not a photon will be “accepted”.
You don’t understand quantum physics, and you don’t understand thermodynamics.
But, I’m certain you BELIEVE you understand thermo, so here’s a little quiz. Go to the link you provided on MLI. Under the heading “Function and Design”, see if you can find the mistakes in the very first paragraph, involving thermodynamics.
I would be surprised if you can.
‘Huge’ is in the eye of the beholder. Just go ask your wife.
More to the point, the word has little meaning in quantitative science. You have not shown a quantitative example, where the blue-green plates will behave as you believe.
A mistake in wiki? Shocking. But a distraction from the challenge to you and Postma, to explain how MLI works within your made up physics. You obviously cannot explain it.
‘You dont understand quantum physics, and you dont understand thermodynamics’
These kind of statements, with no data to support them, show two things.
1. You are very bad at drawing correct conclusions from available data.
2. You, like Postma, are extremely insecure in your own knowledge.
Nate, you’re the one that produced the MLI link. I didn’t. I just pointed out the errors. Now you try to claim I’m the one with a “distraction”!
And, now you are obsessed with Postma!
You clowns are hilarious.
G*,
You guys see 2LOT violations everywhere, in existing physics and now rocket science.
” imagine a square meter of a surface in outer space, held at a fixed temperature of 300 K, with an emissivity of 1, facing away from the sun or other heat sources. From the StefanBoltzmann law, this surface will radiate 460 W. Now imagine placing a thin (but opaque) layer 1 cm away from the plate, thermally insulated from it, and also with an emissivity of 1. This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W. So overall, the radiation losses on one side have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.”
If you see a thermo violation, it is likely you are misinterpreting something about the example, which is somewhat lacking in detail. I dont see any.
“This new layer will cool until it is radiating 230 W from each side, at which point everything is in balance. The new layer receives 460 W from the original plate. 230 W is radiated back to the original plate, and 230 W to space. The original surface still radiates 460 W, but gets 230 W back from the new layers, for a net loss of 230 W.”
The first surface then has 230 W incoming net. Equilibrium has not been reached.
Unless you can account for all the energy flows, it’s NOT thermodynamics, it’s pseudoscience.
“The first surface then has 230 W incoming net. Equilibrium has not been reached.”
You are working very hard to misunderstand.
You are ignoring the other sides 460 W output.
You ignored the statement ‘held at a fixed temperature of 300 K’
How can that be accomplished, obviously by supplying heat to it as needed for net 0.
As I said, wiki is not always well written..
G*,
“You are ignoring the other sides 460 W output.”
Actually they want us to ignore the other side of the object-it could be a mirror, it could be the inside of a spacecraft, it could be a very massive object, it is not specified.
All we need to know is the temp of the radiating surface is held fixed at 300K.
Nate, you sure do great with false accusations:
“You are working very hard to misunderstand.”
“You are ignoring the other sides 460 W output.”
“You ignored the statement ‘held at a fixed temperature of 300 K'”
But, then you caught yourself:
“Actually they want us to ignore the other side of the object-it could be a mirror, it could be the inside of a spacecraft, it could be a very massive object, it is not specified.”
I’ll just leave you to your own confusion.
–Snowball Earth” Confirmed: Ice Covered Equator–
“But volcanoes would’ve made Earth more mud ball than snowball, scientists say.”
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100304-snowball-earth-ice-global-warming/
“Study leader Francis Macdonald, an Earth scientist at Harvard University, and colleagues worked with volcanic rocks in Canada that were found sandwiched between glacial deposits. Such deposits are recognizable by the presence of debris left behind by melting glaciers and sediments deformed by glacial movement.
Using extremely precise uranium-lead mass spectrometry, the researchers determined that both the volcanic rocks and glacial sediments were deposited about 716.5 million years agoduring the purported snowball-Earth period.
The team then matched their findings to previous magnetic studies that had found these rocks had formed when Canada was situated near the Equator.”
It doesn’t seem to me like glacier at equator, mean much.
In our current configuration of land masses, it would mean something. It would be somewhat surprising to me if the current tropical glacier were much larger. Though being a bit larger, is sort of assumed to be case during the long periods of glaciation periods we have. But anyhow glaciers in tropics is dependent on topography, and who knows what that was like hundreds of millions of years ago.
Or what was highest mountain 100 million years ago?
What was highest mountain in last 100 million years, what highest in last 500 million.
And basically the greatest mountain ranges world are mostly a matter of the newest mountain ranges and/or actively still being built.
“‘Snowball Earth’ Confirmed: Ice Covered Equator”
Apparently, and 716.5 million years, but they prefer to call it a mudball rather than a snowball.
I think I will wait before calling it anything.
Crazy as it could seem, I think there could be better thing
to call it in a decade or so from now.
‘Slushball’ has been a well-used term of late.
Davie, are we to interpret that you hastily accept one paper, because you believe it aligns with your beliefs?
You have no questions? No scientific curiosity?
Hilarious.
Dear mr. Spencer
I have also been wondering about the discrepancy between satellite and ground data 97/98.
I have recently done some research into the 97/98 el Nino satellite/ground-data discrepancy, and have found this document.:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1
On page 45 of that document theres a record of all the satellites that have been used to procure data for both the RSS and UAH temperature-calculations.
Four different satellites were in operation in the above mentioned period ( 97-98 ) where the satellite-data differs significantly from ground-data.
I can see three interesting incidents from that period :
1. NOAA-11 reinstated 8/1997, withdrawn again 4/1998!(Actually two incidents )
2. NOAA-12 withdrawn 11/1998!
3. NOAA-15 launched 8/1998! (With new AMSU instruments )
What really strikes me is, why was NOAA-11 retired in 1994, reinstated in august 1997 and withdrawn again 4/1998!
And wheres NOAA-13? Well it failed! ( Dont ever use the number 13 in space-matters ).
I have an idea on what happened then, excuse me if I am wrong. The temperature satellite program was undermanned ( 1993 ), as far as operational satellites concerned, and they just had to cope with the remaining satellites
( NOAA-11, 12 and later from july 1995 NOAA-14).
NOAA-11 was retired from service in december 1994, but for some reason was re-drafted for a brief period from august 1997 to april 1998 .
Why ?
I have no idea, but my guess is that it might have something to do with the up-coming of an extreme El Nin 97/98 which they wanted to have as much data about as possible. So they decided to pull 11 up from the dust.
But what about the instruments aboard 11, were they
still fully functional and intact after almost 2 years 8 months?
I have a clear suspicion that the data after august 97 appears faulty!
The statement at the end of this link seems to confirm my hunch, that something might have been wrong with the instruments aboard NOAA-11 :
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/703808/
The visible channel on NOAA-11 was much noisier, with a detrended standard deviation of /spl sim/3%, indicating that this satellite experienced month-to-month sensitivity changes. Data processed for November 1988-February 1991 showed a linear increase in sensitivity of 0.5%/year.
It is also of interest that NOAA-15 ( launched august 1998 ) was equipped with a new version of the Microwave Sounding Unit, namely the Advanced MSU ( Wikipedia ).
All in all this info make me suspect that something must be wrong with the satellite-data for this period, but I have no chance to see if I am right or not, so therefore I turn Your attention to my observations.
Hope this is useful
Yours truly
Brge Krog
you should post such questions in post post above this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/trump-wrongly-blamed-for-destroying-sea-ice-satellite/
But these satellites generally have many different instruments, and there not a satellite designed measure global temperature, rather one has satellites with various instruments, and a instrument can be used to measure global temperature. So satellite have multiple purposes and if your instrument can fit on a satellite it’s added to satellite’s payload.
brge…”All in all this info make me suspect that something must be wrong with the satellite-data for this period,”
Both NASA and the American Meteorological Society awarded medals to UAH for excellence making data sets from those NOAA sats. Do you not think they would have noticed the sats were flaky if that was the case?
UAH adjusts their data on a monthly basis.
Honestly!
No!
And I am still waiting for a reply from Mr. Spencer!
I thought there was going to be a moratorium placed on any discussion about heating a warmer body. Can I suggest that people stop replying to denier BS on this topic. It has little to do with the greenhouse effect anyway. Let them make their nonsense claims.
Greenhouse effect:
“On the global scale, Venuss climate is strongly driven by the most powerful greenhouse effect found in the Solar System. The greenhouse agents sustaining it are water vapour, carbon dioxide and sulphuric acid aerosols. ”
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Greenhouse_effect_clouds_and_winds
Cumquat
des tries to leave the burning barn: “It has little to do with the greenhouse effect anyway.”
No des, it has EVERYTHING to do with the bogus GHE. Violating the Laws of Thermodynamics is pseudoscience. Consequently, the GHE is pseudoscience.
(Get out before the roof caves in.)
pomegranate
Yes, pomegranates are one of the worst contributors to global warming. As is all fruit. Pound for pound, bananas emit much more “back-radiation” than atmospheric CO2. And, they’re also radioactive.
Deadly stuff.
frobion
Salvatore quotes:
Feb 2011
“If we go back to El Nino, temperatures will warm some but not go as high, as the last El Nino.”
Mar 2013
“By post 2014, like I have been saying, the temp. decline will become firmly established.”
Neither of these statements were conditional.
Here is all the Pacific could muster from last year’s La Nina:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomg.10.6.2016.gif
Here is what we have now:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomg.11.16.2017.gif
Here is the height of the 2010/11 La Nina:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomg.10.18.2010.gif
I’d kill for an image from December 1973.
Des, you are oblivious to solar and the impacts it has on the climate especially the secondary effects.
Your approach and reasoning is based without any regard to the state of solar activity.
All data post 1830 is based on a prolonged active solar period , which appears to have ended in year 2005.
If this indeed is the case and we are now in a prolonged inactive solar state all the data you seem to rely on 1840-2005 when the sun was in active state can be thrown out the window.
Ol Salvatore!
What are you telling us again here?
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/151118792868/001.jpg
The image should be rotated but as it is you can see that there is NO prolonged active solar period starting in 1830 and ending in 2005.
In 1880, the solar activity was as low as it is now; and in 1835, it was as high as it has been in 1955.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post_23.html
the data shows otherwise.
No Salvatore!
What you show is an arbitrary integral of sun spot numbers; what I show is the original SILSO data administrated in Brussels.
http://www.sid-c.be/silso/datafiles
Drop the hyphen to access the link!
This is the one and only valuable SSN source.
Moreover, Salvatore, here is an exact comparison of the Silso Sun Spot Numbers with Sea Surface Temperatures (from NOAA, but the differences between NOAA, JMA and HadISST are minimal):
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1511190295914/001.jpg
Sorry again for a wrong rotation by 90 degrees, due to a stupid PDF creator.
The SSN plot is identical to the one in my previous comment above, excepted a scaling to have SSN and SST in comparable value ranges.
You clearly see that the Tallbloke graph is definitely wrong. There is NO correlation between SSN and SST.
I think he is correct.
In addition UV light just beyond the visible range penetrates the sea surface to several meters.
UV light changes by up to 10% during prolonged solar minimums which has to effect the amount of energy entering the oceans which in turn has to effect the temperatures to some degree.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
But as in all areas of the climate disagreement is the rule.
I say low solar causes sea surface temperatures to drop because of reduced UV light which penetrates the sea surface to many meters.
Over time.
” Salvatore Del Prete says:
November 20, 2017 at 10:04 AM
I think he is correct.
In addition UV light just beyond the visible range penetrates the sea surface to several meters.
UV light changes by up to 10% during prolonged solar minimums which has to effect the amount of energy entering the oceans which in turn has to effect the temperatures to some degree. ”
Well at least some portion of UV light goes deeper the blue light.
So maybe more sunlight gets “lost” in ocean- causing cooling.
Arguing with the dimwits at camp 2, is always fun.
I think cold warms Venus. Or about 80 C air temperature
makes 737 K (464 C) air temperature.
And due to the “greenhouse gas”: sulphuric acid.
Now, sulphuric acid isn’t gas, but neither are water droplets or ice particles of earth clouds- which are almost included as greenhouse gases, and people generally seem ever so happy to be seen as inclusive. Anyhow, sunlight heats droplets and droplets warm the Venus air.
And basically the average velocity of air at say 50 Km stays the same as average air velocity at “sea level” but there is a lot more molecules per a given volume of air at sea level and compared to 50 km elevation.
And on Earth this referred to as Katabatic wind or fall winds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind
And Venus is rather windy at higher elevation [around 50 km in elevation]
Oops meant to post at the bottom of page
Des lag times apply at least 10+ years of sub solar activity in general , followed by low average value solar parameters which I have stated many times.
It seems to now be taken place.
So now you’re setting yourself up for a continuation of your nonsense beyond 2018 once your prediction doesn’t eventuate for the 9 year in a row.
Let me repeat – you stated “By post 2014, like I have been saying, the temp. decline will become firmly established.
TEMPERATURE DECLINE
TEMPERATURE DECLINE
TEMPERATURE DECLINE
You were claiming that any lag would be over and
TEMPERATURES WOULD FALL BY THE END OF 2014.
Quit changing your story.
It would be nice if climate scientists would provide 5 year prediction of global climate.
No doubt we could get similar predictions about future activity of the sun in next 5 years. All over the map, but seems more progress is being made predicting the sun.
In terms of climate prediction there is more money in predicting regional climate changes and it seems the current focus.
Personally I like to see predictions for California climate over the next 5 years.
It was freezing the night before last night, and freezing last nite, but it going to snow in high deserts this Christmas season?
Still confusing weather and climate I see.
Scientist can’t predict the next 5 years of solar changes, volcanic eruptions, and ENSOs.
This true david, but if you are believer in idea that CO2 is the only significant control knob.
One can predict Co2 levels in 5 years.
Basically it should be 10 ppm higher.
Though unfortunately that idea isn’t working. Many have tried and failed. [At a significant cost to tax payers- and more that is paid for this service, doesn’t improve the guesses.]
gbaikie says:
“This true david, but if you are believer in idea that CO2 is the only significant control knob.”
No one believes that for short time intervals, <~ 30 years.
No climate scientists doubts that the Sun, volcanoes and ENSOs can change influence the atmosphere, land/ice and oceans for several years.
But that's different from influencing climate.
I have never changed my story the sun was much more active then I thought it would be back then.
This year the sun has reached the quiet I was calling for to result in a global temperature drop. I will not have any changes from this point on regardless of what global temperatures do.
Either correct or not.
You lying, Salvatore. You said long ago that all that you needed was in:
“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
You were badly wrong.
As UAH anomalies have approximately a 5 month lag in response to ENSO events, do you agree that the best time to make such a call is 6 months after we reach ENSO-neutral conditions?
(By ENSO-neutral, I don’t mean simply leaving the La Nina. I mean getting back to a near zero ONI, say within plus/minus 0.2)
“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
Salvatore constantly fools himself.
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/2v2ywzb.png
the correlation is there even when a severe solar minimum was not in place.
In mid October, I noted a couple of moderate westerly wind anomalies in the western tropical Pacific. My prediction was that these would put a damper on the developing la nina .
(the western Pacific is a long way from the nino region, so it takes a while to show up).
From what I can tell so far, this has held true, but as Salvatore says, “the test is on”.
I’m looking at two things that make me think la nina might be waning.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Scroll down to “change in weekly SST’s over the past four weeks”, and you will see as much warming as cooling.
Scroll down to “sub-surface temperature departures in the equatorial Pacific”. Look carefully, and you will see an east to west movement of warm water, and a slight retreat of cold water.
To see mid-October’s bursts of anomalous trade winds, scroll down to “Low-level zonal wind anomalies.”
Geez, I keep messing up.
“Look carefully, and you will see a WEST to EAST movement of warm water,……”
Here’s the animated version of subsurface temperature anomalies. Interesting to see the battle between warm and cold water.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml
Animation of tropical Pacific SST actual values/anomalies:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/sstanim.shtml
Hi Salvatore,
Thought you might enjoy this collection of papers dealing with the coming solar cycles: http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/10/a-swelling-volume-of-scientific-papers-now-forecasting-global-cooling-in-the-coming-decades/#sthash.hOdjc5Ju.dpbs
Consider the source.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/2v2ywzb.png
Consider the source — the exact opposite of peer reviewed science.
gbaikie says:
November 20, 2017 at 12:52 PM
“Arguing with the dimwits at camp 2”, is always fun.
I think cold warms Venus. Or about 80 C air temperature
makes 737 K (464 C) air temperature.
And due to the greenhouse gas: sulphuric acid.
Now, sulphuric acid isnt gas, but neither are water droplets or ice particles of earth clouds- which are included as greenhouse gases, and people generally seem ever so happy to be seen as inclusive. Anyhow, sunlight heats droplets and droplets warm the Venus air.
And basically the average molecular velocity of air at say 50 Km stays the same as average molecular velocity of air at sea level but there is a lot more molecules per a given volume of air at sea level as compared to 50 km elevation.
And on Earth this referred to as Katabatic wind or “fall winds”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katabatic_wind
And Venus is rather windy at higher elevation [around 50 km in elevation]. It has what is called a global wind:
“It is well known that winds on Venus are extremely fast and powerful. Now, ESAs Venus Express has, for the first time, put together a 3-D picture of the venusian winds for an entire planetary hemisphere. ”
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/How_windy_is_it_on_Venus_Venus_Express_answers
Speaking of winds, we sometimes have constant wind at tropics going from east to west and I am wondering if there is similar effect [though far less] with sunlight heating clouds.
Topics has high clouds and intense sunlight, particularly at higher elevation.
radish
fatwa
–In Islam, there are four sources from which Muslim scholars extract religious law or rulings, and upon which they base their fatwa.–
scholars = scientists
turtle
Though I should say that I am unaware of any “dimwits at camp 2” [or anyone] that “denies” the warming effect of Katabatic wind or fall winds”.
Argument is about radiant effect of colder objects warming a hotter object which is of course impossible. Or there couldn’t any kind of “energy shortage” if this were the case. Perpetual motion machines would be possible.
Of course one ask could use the heat of Venus for energy purposes. Of course you could as it would be like using geothermal energy, though it’s not as “infinite”, or Venus hot atmosphere is more of finite source of energy. And it’s not free, or has a cost just like geothermal energy has a cost.
But in terms finite, if energy is viable it could provide enough energy for more than 1 billion people, indefinitely, Or until such as people want Venus to have lower temperature [which generally doesn’t seem necessary to cool Venus, as one live quite happily in it’s sky].
gbaikie says:
“Argument is about radiant effect of colder objects warming a hotter object which is of course impossible.”
Then why do you sleep under a blanket at night?
Davie loves his blanket. He carries it with him all the time.
Stop your immature insults and answer finally: How does a blanket keep you warmer?
David
Everyone knows the correct answer to that question, including g*, gbaikie, Tony, Gordon, SkepticsGoneWild, etc.
Because it proves they are wrong, that a cooler object can infact make a warmer object warmer still, they refuse to answer.
That’s a classic pattern of confirmation bias – don’t answer a question if the answer proves you wrong. Pathetic.
“How does a blanket keep you warmer?”
For a living humans, a blanket reduces evaporation losses
and reduce convectional heat loss.
A space blanket with holes doesn’t work very good.
The amount of holes will increase evaporation and convectional heat loss.
Preventing all evaporation losses with cause living human to overheat- people have died from doing this. But colder the air, allows more convectional heat loss [won’t die from heat, but it’s inhibit human body from regulating it’s temperature.
Of course there is also heat conduction- sleeping on cold floor has it’s problems.
gbaikie
Thanks for answering!
When we cover ourselves with a blanket, the blanket is typically room temperature (65 -70 F), the human body is in the upper 90’s F.
Obviously the human body can get warmer as a result, demonstrating a cooler object can make a warmer object warmer still.
gbaikie says:
“For a living humans, a blanket reduces evaporation losses
and reduce convectional heat loss.”
Yes, it keeps you warmer by reducing heat loss.
And GHGs keep the Earth’s surface warmer also by reducing heat loss.
David, a blanket works because it suppresses convection, many insulating materials bear a family resemblance. What do wool, down, cork, felt, hair, glass wool, foam, earth, snow, etc. have in common? They all are porous materials.
When subjected to temperature differences in a gravity field, air moves, therefore transporting energy. But the air in pores, if they are sufficiently small, doesn’t move much. So the function of blankets is to suppress the movement of air by enclosing it in small pores.
If you want to discuss radiative effects of GHG and blankets then discuss that you want a blanket that also reduces net radiation so wrap the blanket with aluminum foil, which has a low emissivity (NASA tested & certified!)
This is why the insulation in houses or around pipes is coated with foil. But note that this is just the opposite of what happens in the atmosphere. As the emissivity of the atmosphere increases, we expect downward radiation component from it to increase. This is yet another reason why assertions about the “atmosphere acting like a blanket” are unproductive, reserved just for MSM laypeople.
Ball4
You’re overthinking. A sweater reduces the rate at which a human body cools. The atmosphere reduces the rate at which the earth cools.
The similarity is they both reduce cooling. The “how” is not the point.
“And GHGs keep the Earths surface warmer also by reducing heat loss.”
Yes, I agree.
I have been a lukewarmer before the word lukewarm was coined-
what is important as far as I am concerned is how much.
As said numerous times, CO2 is not the control knob, and CO2 isn’t causing earth to be 15 C rather than -18 C [or colder].
I tend to think clouds cause more reduction in heat loss as compared to Co2. And I think it clouds may even cause increase
in surface air temperature. But can’t quantify this effect, other than it’s a rather small effect [in term increasing temperature rather than reducing heat loss.
In terms of reduction of heat loss, clouds do the most, followed by water vapor, and CO2 is least of the three.
And I don’t think that all greenhouse gases and clouds cause
33 K of warming. Roughly I agree with Richard Lindzen in that this total effect is about 15 K or less.
And as say endlessly, the tropical ocean is major element of why Earth average temperature is 15 C [or can get as high as 25 C average global temperature].
And what regard as most significant is not the warming aspects, but the cooling aspects. Specific answers rather than general things like Antarctica continent’s location, and the mountain building of last, say 20 millions years.
Or more of how, and how much.
Or also what I go on about, the average temperature of entire ocean is the control knob, so, how more exactly does the entire ocean cool.
“As said numerous times, CO2 is not the control knob,”
It’s the best, easiest control knob available to us.
If humans ever try to terraform Mars, the first thing they will try is getting more CO2 in its atmosphere.
“and CO2 isnt causing earth to be 15 C rather than -18 C [or colder].”
Not alone, but it’s a major contributor. Without it, the greenhouse effect would leave Earth’s GMST < 0 C.
Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earths Temperature, Lacis et al, Science (15 October 2010) Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html
gbaikie says:
“And I dont think that all greenhouse gases and clouds cause
33 K of warming. Roughly I agree with Richard Lindzen in that this total effect is about 15 K or less.”
Lindzen is wrong. And nobody cares what you think.
You don’t do any science, and certainly haven’t published anything to prove anyone wrong. In fact, like all others here, you’re afraid to even make claims under your real name.
davie is learning science. Learning about the insulation properties of a blanket is a good place to start.
Someday, maybe he will be able to understand radiative heat transfer.
But, sometimes I can be too optimistic.
— David Appell says:
November 21, 2017 at 11:56 PM
gbaikie says:
And I dont think that all greenhouse gases and clouds cause
33 K of warming. Roughly I agree with Richard Lindzen in that this total effect is about 15 K or less.
Lindzen is wrong. And nobody cares what you think. —
It seems likely to me, that Richard Lindzen is wrong about something, and perhaps greenhouse gas cause much less than 15 K.
There is no hard evidence that greenhouse gases causes any increase in global temperatures. It’s merely a guess.
What is known is that CO2 levels are not the cause of glacial and interglacial periods. And what is known is CO2 is not the cause of warmest period of the Holocene period.
But as said I think a doubling of CO2 level could cause a significant amount of warming, but others imagine it would cause much more warming, than I do.
The main problem with others, is they support pseudo science, which does them no credit.
Their corruption, their dishonesty, their lack of engagement for the good of the public they serve, indicates no good will come from these people.
gbaikie says:
“There is no hard evidence that greenhouse gases causes any increase in global temperatures. Its merely a guess.”
False.
It’s completely obvious:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
gbalkie wrote:
“And what is known is CO2 is not the cause of warmest period of the Holocene period.”
We are currently in the warmest period of the Holocene. Because of, primarily, CO2.
gbaikie says:
“The main problem with others, is they support pseudo science, which does them no credit.”
Completely typical denier talk.
Instead of proving them wrong, you try to merely assert they’re wrong, while giving no reasons whatsoever.
You just try to label them wrong.
No smart person falls for that kind of horsesh!t.
Yes, exactly. No one smart falls for that denier labelling.
More on your interstellar object:
–A brief visit from a red and extremely elongated interstellar asteroid–
…Here we report observations and subsequent analysis of 1I/2017 U1 (Oumuamua) that demonstrate the extrasolar trajectory of Oumuamua. Our observations reveal the object to be asteroidal, with no hint of cometary activity despite an approach within 0.25 au of the Sun….”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25020
Linked from:
http://www.spaceweather.com/
from post at:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/21/oddball-cigar-shaped-interstellar-asteroid-visits-our-solar-system/
Electric sun
Don Scott: A Transistor Analogy of THE SUN’S SURFACE
Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1378&v=JsfEG4HzWAY
Norman says, November 17, 2017 at 10:23 PM:
No, Norman. YOU have two spatial DIRECTIONS in which to LOOK. Up (outgoing). And down (incoming). That doesn’t mean there are actually two separate macroscopic fluxes of energy inside one and the same thermal radiation field. It just LOOKS that way to YOU!
That you still to this day are unable to fathom this painfully simple concept just tells me that you have the brain of a little child. Stating this might even be unfair to the child. That’s how low the level of imaginative power needs to be in order to ‘get it’ …!
Norman is, of course, right.
Notice Kristia continues to provide experimental evidence for his bizarre claim.
Oops, I meant, he continues NOT to provide any evidence….
And he still hasn’t…..
Kristian
YOU: “No, Norman. YOU have two spatial DIRECTIONS in which to LOOK. Up (outgoing). And down (incoming). That doesnt mean there are actually two separate macroscopic fluxes of energy inside one and the same thermal radiation field. It just LOOKS that way to YOU!”
Yes there actually are, at least if you accept established physics.
Energy is moving toward or away from a surface. The energy moving toward the surface is not affected by the energy leaving the surface. They are two separate and independent energy fluxes that move through each other without any impact. The outgoing energy is not merging with the incoming energy to create a super ball of photons. They do not interact at all with each other.
I know you won’t accpet it but I have a rational case for you to consider and that demonstrates why you bluster a lot but it is not supportable.
You have a powered cube. It has 6 sides each 1 m^2. What temperatrue will this cube reach with no surroundings (make it a blackbody for ease of calculation) and a power input of 2400 Watts?
I get around 290 K. The inside of the cube will have your photon cloud. There is no heat flow from any surface inside.
Now open the cube up to form flat plates and what becomes of the photon cloud? It is gone, now you only have radiant energy moving one way, away from the surface. What will be the new equilibrium temperature? I get 244 K.
Heat flow is one way as you state correctly. Energy flow is multiple directional and macroscopic.
Norman says, November 21, 2017 at 12:48 PM:
Nope. MACROscopically, the movement of energy through a thermal radiation field is ONE WAY only. The RADIATIVE FLUX. The HEAT. Everything else is conceptual.
MICROscopically, photons fly everywhere. There’s no two-way flow of energy in the quantum realm. The movement of energy is super-mega-multi-directional. It goes everywhere! In all directions. It follows the photons. There is no preferred direction. Only once you cross the thermodynamic limit you will observe an overall directional pattern. The photons are gone. All you’re left with is a UNIdirectional net movement (a flow/flux) of energy.
Kristian says:
“MICROscopically, photons fly everywhere. Theres no two-way flow of energy in the quantum realm.”
Completely wrong.
Photons carry energy. That constitutes a one-way energy flux.
This is getting mindlessly stupid.
Kristian
The words flux, micro, macro, thermal, heat, etc. are often used to mean different things, even within the field of physics. Maybe you could take a few minutes to go over the definition, as you see it, for each of the terms you commonly use in your comments.
Then we could be sure our arguments are truly about physics, and not a result of confusion over semantics.
Kristian
You: “MICROscopically, photons fly everywhere. Theres no two-way flow of energy in the quantum realm.”
Imagine two objects in space (A and B), separated by just a few meters, and both receiving energy from the sun. They would each be emitting photons in every direction, and one of those directions would be towards the other……continuously.
Do you agree with this? If not, why?
If you agree, please explain why you think the photons moving from A towards B, and from B towards A, could not be concidered a two-way flow of energy?
What do you think the definition of flow is?
Kristian
BTW, the exchange of photons between object A and B (energy) occurs in the quantum world.
If both objects were the same temperature, then from a thermal viewpoint, nothing happened. If they had a differing temperature, then Clausius can still rest easy: the colder object’s temperature increased at the expense of the warmer object!
Kristian
I will tell you again why you are wrong and anyone on this blog can see that your view is warped version of reality.
There is two-way flow but you do not understand it. Photons do fly in every direction except back toward the source that generated them. They will never return unless something else directs them back. They flow AWAY, all of them and if you take a area of that AWAY flow you have a macroscopic flow of energy (Watts/Area).
Here is the example. See what the other posters think.
You are sitting in a room facing a highly absorbing wall. There is a powerful light source behind you but you can’t see it, the wall absorbs all the light hitting it, none returns to your eyes.
Now you put an object between the wall and your chair that reflects some of the light from the source behind you. Now you can see that there is a light source. The light hitting your eyes is flowing against the light source (back radiated…radiant energy moving in the opposite direction and back to the source). There is no merging of light or light gradient that prevents this. Only in your mind is such a thing existing, reality does not agree with your photon cloud and merged energy flows. Now you can get a meter that will give you how many watt/m^2 are coming back to you. A MACROSCOPIC flow of energy back to you against the gradient. From this measurement you could even calculate how intense the light is behind you if you knew some values such as how far behind you the light source was and how much of this light the object is reflecting back toward you sensor and how far the object is from you.
You can make all the claims you want and you can tell me I am wrong. I am sticking to established science. The established view is each object is emitting IR away from it, it is a macroscopic flow of energy (Watts/m^2 value) You put a sensor of known area and it will receive a macroscopic amount of energy.
How many times does Ball4 have to tell you light does not interact with light. It moves through it. You can have two way beams and they do not lose any energy to each other passing through. A surface has a macroscopic flow of energy leaving its surface and a macroscopic flow incident and absorbed by the surface. Both processes are completely separate from each other. I think you are wrong. That is okay, obvious I won’t change you. Logical argument does not work either. Most people with science backgrounds do not seem to agree with your view.
Kristian continues to demonstrates no acceptance of the existence of incoherent photons as non-interacting particles in his MACRO world 2:26pm: “Only once you cross the thermodynamic limit you will observe an overall directional pattern. The photons are gone.”
Gone to where?
Compton scattering is the classic experiment that started the general acceptance of the particle nature of light, the photon existing in the MACRO world. Einstein in 1905 started the bandwagon rolling with his eventual Nobel Prize winning paper on the photoelectric effect.
Here are more recent experiments confirming the general acceptance was initially correct based on the bulk of evidence that started in the 1920s. Here is a 2004 paper reporting on performing an experiment in the MACRO lab the results of which cannot be explained using a classic wave theory of light along with a good history of earlier now classic experiments.
http://people.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf
Actually, Norman (and Balls), light does interact with light.
Not classically, but it does via quantum effects. Though the cross section is small.
Light colliding with light can actually create matter, like an electron-positron pair.
David, this is a climate blog, discussing light photons with hf energies on the 1st order of that which exists in the atm. around 288K. In the relevant physics, no experiment (or theory) has ever shown incoherent visible light photons interacting with one another nor for the near (or far) IR hf.
If you want to discuss higher order (non-linear), much, much higher energy physics, try your hand at those blogs. Heck in the earth trop. we can’t find enough energy to lift molecules above even electronic base level states.
If this is a blog about climate science, why are we discussing elemetary physics about glasses of water?
Because working climate temperatures are in the range of ice water to a room temperature kitchen. So the photons emitted/absorbed have hf energies equivalent.
If you want to discuss positron-electron pair production, CERN et. al. blogs exist for your edification.
Yet it was like pulling teeth to get you to admit that a glass of water emits infrared radiation.
No David I did so in my 1st comment back to Gordon:
“..colder temperature body radiating to hotter temperature surroundings? Say a glass of ice water…”
Your professed level of accomplishment should have known that, but instead I get nothing in the way of answering my challenge from David.
Balls: your need to continually insult me and my educational accomplishments demonstrates a lack of confidence. (Several others here show the same regularly.) I’m sorry if you feel intimidated by my degrees. As anyone with lots of degrees will tell you, you should not.
In other words,
The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
― Charles Bukowski
Norman
I always like your examples.
It doesn’t make sense to me that someone like Kristian, who seems intelligent otherwise, needs to have such a basic concept explained.
Norman says, November 21, 2017 at 12:48 PM:
Hahahahahaha! This is exactly what I’m talking about! It isn’t gone, Norman. This is just you not understanding AT ALL what a photon gas/cloud is. You’re such a laughable clown.
Just to remind you, here’s what I wrote about this particular issue, just upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272997
Once you move from the chaos and disorder of the quantum world to the order and consistent patterns of the macro world, the random paths and individual actions (the ‘life’) of single photons no longer matter. The overall photonic energy is then simply experienced as a static content of internal radiative energy, the thermal photon gas/cloud.
This isn’t MY invention (…). This is how a thermal photon gas/cloud is physically described. It’s like a second body, made up of radiative energy, created and sustained by thefirstbody, the material one, occupying the exact same volume of space, constantly exchanging energy with it, thermally equilibrated with it:
“The total radiation emitted by a cooling body is not correctly described merely as the sum of all the individual emission processes, as the particles can also absorb radiation. In the end, the statistics of a large number of emission AND a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n events determine the resultant radiation.” (…)“… if there are enough particles in the radiating body to produce a very large number of photons and photon-matter interactions, then the radiating body and the cloud of photons will achieve thermal equilibrium. The resultant radiation emitted from the body, then, is a cloud of photons at the same temperature as the body itself.”
This is what we call “blackbody radiation”.
https://tinyurl.com/k6jfexl
As long as the temperature [T] or temperature gradient inside and/or across the radiation field is constant, and also its total volume [V], this static content (and distribution) of internal radiative energy remains the same and in place. The specific photons making up the photon gas/cloud are exchanged all the time; they’re never the same from one instant to the next. Individually, they pass through the field, and/or are scattered, absorbed and emitted by the medium itself and/or by the surfaces on either side of it. Constantly and continuously. But the total radiative energy associated with them always ideally stays unchanged:
“We can think of the large number of photons, which are created in the body, as a second body of particles, so that there are two bodies present: the radiating matter (i.e., the atoms, molecules, or electrons) and a cloud of photons, both of which occupy the same volume. The particles in each body interact with those in the other, exchanging energy back and forth. The cloud of photons, though, is created by the matter particles and if more photons are created, then more energy is contained within the photon cloud.”(Same source as above.)
And the MOVEMENT of radiative energy – not the content, the movement – always flows one way only, from where the (photonic) energy density, the associated radiation pressure, and the radiative intensity, is higher to where it’s lower. Or – put differently – from higher to lower temperatures. If the radiating body is internally isothermal, then there is no inner movement of radiative energy. Then there’s only movement in the radiative energy once we reach the outersurfaceof the body, away from it; in the ideal BB scenario, into surroundings at absolute zero:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/431/heat_radiation_from_black_surface_absolute_zero.pdf
If you have a photon gas/cloud (a radiation field) of volume V, and there’s an established gradient in the photonic energy density, the radiation pressure, and the radiative intensitythroughit, then what happens when you somehow change the temperature at the one end of it? (It doesn’t really matter here if the photon gas/cloud in question stretchesbetween twodifferentbodies orthroughone and thesamebody; the governing principle is equal in both cases – theradiativegradient equilibrates with and thus conforms and corresponds to thethermalone.)
What happens when the cooler end warms?
An aside on so-called climate change.
In 2006, a severe storm relative to what we expect around here went through the Vancouver, BC area. Winds were a paltry 70 mph.
The worst storm we’ve experienced in these parts in modern times was Typhoon Freda in 1962. It had more respectable winds of 90 mph.
Could one draw the inference that climate extremes were far worse 55 years ago?
“Could one draw the inference that climate extremes were far worse 55 years ago?”
No, one could not.
One should look at larger region, ie:
“Analysis of {winter} storm tracks indicates that there has been an increase in winter storm frequency and intensity since 1950.
drought statistics over the entire CONUS have declined
no detectable change in meteorological drought at the global scale.
Western North America where determining if observed recent droughts were unusual compared to natural variability was particularly difficult
IPCC AR5 did not attribute changes in flooding to anthropogenic influence nor report detectable changes in flooding magnitude, duration, or frequency
{In the US| increasing & decreasing flooding magnitude but does not provide robust evidence that these trends are attributable to human influences no formal attribution of observed flooding changes to anthropogenic forcing has been claimed
a number of precipitation metrics over the continental United States has been examined; however trends identified for the U.S. regions have not been clearly attributed to anthropogenic forcing ”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/20/roger-pielke-jr-describes-the-distorting-of-climate-science/
gbaikie
What’s your point? Would you make an inference on extreme climate events based on Gordon’s example alone?
There is no evidence of extreme climate change- presently or within 100 years. Though one say the dust bowl was a extreme climate change.
Regional climate does change, the Sahara desert was once a vast grassland. That is something closer to an extreme climate change. So once a grassland for thousands of years and become vast desert, the size of the US, for thousands of years. In comparison, the dust bowl is rather temporary and minor.
Glacier periods and interglacial periods are on even larger scale of “extreme climate change”.
We have weather, we have changing weather patterns, that what going on recently- that was the great dust bowl. And no doubt in other lands, there been other events in weather of somewhere within the scale of US dust bowl within last 100 or 200 years.
In terms manmade, you had what Saddam did in Iraq.
There some huge disaster the Soviet brought about- though I can’t say I paid a lot attention to it, but nor does it seem that many do.
norman…”Heat transfer equation. q = ε σ (Th4 Tc4) Ac
norman…you have to be careful applying this equation. It does not apply to the radiation between two bodies in a mutual sense, it implies a one way-way transfer of heat LOSS from a hotter body to its cooler environment.
Written more explicitly it’s q = ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ac
Th = hot body absolute temperature (K)
Tc = cold surroundings absolute temperature (K)
Ac = area of the object (m2)
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
I don’t understand why you infer there is a two-way transfer of EM. For this equation to work Tc has to be less than Th. Otherwise, the environment would be transferring energy to the body.
WordPress has eaten my minus signs. Obviously the equation should be q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ac
I’ll write it out just in case:
q = ε σ (Th^4 minus Tc^4) Ac
Gordon, that would be for a glass of warm water in the 1bar kitchen at say 170F radiating to room temperature surroundings (70F). The q comes out plus.
What’s the eqn. look like for a colder temperature body radiating to hotter temperature surroundings? Say a glass of ice water 32F in the kitchen radiating to room temperature surroundings (70F).
Whats the eqn. look like for a colder temperature body radiating to hotter temperature surroundings? Say a glass of ice water 32F in the kitchen radiating to room temperature surroundings (70F).
The glass of ice water doesn’t cool. If it somehow cooled [requiring ice cubes to grow in size instead shrinking] it might be losing heat via radiant process.
Glass of ice water radiating heat would have to be lowering it’s temperature.
gbaikie says:
“Glass of ice water radiating heat would have to be lowering its temperature.”
For crying out loud.
The glass of water also absorbs energy.
WHY IS THIS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND??
How did the visit to the vet go, Davie?
Fear of water is one of the symptoms, I’ve heard.
–David Appell says:
November 21, 2017 at 4:22 PM
gbaikie says:
Glass of ice water radiating heat would have to be lowering its temperature.
For crying out loud.
The glass of water also absorbs energy.
WHY IS THIS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND??–
No one is stopping you, david, from answering Ball4’s question. I thought a gave answer, why don’t you provide a better answer?
Rather than providing your constant whining?
To answer your question one needs to know what is cooling, in order for glass of ice water to increase in temperature.
And generally speaking as you describe it, the air would be cooling.
so need to determine the temperature change rate, you need to know the convectional heat loss of the warmer air to the glass of ice water.
Other heat losses could be heat conduction of the surface which glass of ice water is placed on [assuming it was at room temperature before putting the glass on it].
But generally it should be mainly convectional heating by the warmer air.
Ball4 says:
“Whats the eqn. look like for a colder temperature body radiating to hotter temperature surroundings?”
For a blackbody, it’s Planck’s law, as always.
The outward radiation from a blackbody doesn’t depend on anything that surrounds it — it only depends on its temperature and frequency.
Integrated over frequency, it’s the S-B law.
So far not going the way I guessed it might.
David: The glass of ice water is not a black body. Yes, Planck’s law allows you to calculate at 32F the ideal amount of irradiance (W m^-2 micron^-1) from the glass of ice water at any wavelength (micron) you care to choose, but not Q.
“Integrated over frequency, it’s the S-B law.”
So do so, write the resulting eqn. out similar to Gordon.
gbaikie: The glass of ice water is not radiating heat nor is it radiating cold. The glass of ice water constituent molecules are radiating EM energy transformed from their KE. The ice water molecules are also absorbing EM energy from the kitchen molecules KE transformed into EMR. Challenge is to write out the eqn. for Q similar to Gordon.
You merely need to include the appropriate emissivity, a function of frequency, temperature, solid angle, …
“The glass of ice water is not radiating heat nor is it radiating cold. The glass of ice water constituent molecules are radiating EM energy transformed from their KE.”
There is no such thing a “radiating cold.”
But it definitely radiates heat. Are you claiming you wouldn’t see it if you looked at it with a night vision scope?
If the kitchen radiates heat at the ice water David, then it is only fair to say the ice water radiates cold at the kitchen.
You are observing the EMR of objects in the night vision goggles, you perceive it as heat only in your thoughts.
Write out the equation I challenged you with.
Ball4 says:
“Yes, Plancks law allows you to calculate at 32F the ideal amount of irradiance (W m^-2 micron^-1) from the glass of ice water at any wavelength (micron) you care to choose, but not Q.”
Is the glass in a vacuum?
Then its radiation is the heat coming from it.
No vacuum, Planck’s law was developed at room temperature and ~1bar so it works just fine in a kitchen.
David, you and I do not feel much heat coming from the glass of ice water. The ice water feels cold to me for sure whether I touch it or hold my hand close. In fairness, the ice water must be colding the kitchen as well as my hand. My IR thermometer reads out its brightness temperature at 32F.
Write out the eqn. I challenged you with, as Gordon did or is he ahead of you in being able to do so?
Ball4 says:
“David, you and I do not feel much heat coming from the glass of ice water.”
That hardly means it isn’t there.
Would the glass of ice water show up if you were looking through a night vision scope?
If so, why?
Your problem isn’t well enough defined to write down an equation.
But:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation#Statement_of_the_equation
Ball4 says:
>> Integrated over frequency, its the S-B law. <<
"So do so, write the resulting eqn. out similar to Gordon."
Until the emissivity function is specified, the integral can't be done.
It seems Gordon used the results of the Planck Law integration over all frequencies (the S-B law) and correctly added in the objects measured emissivity & did a 1LOT energy balance.
David represents being accomplished enough to do so, Gordon even wrote out the results for David. David ought to be able to write out the similar equation that I challenged with.
Gordon’s equation is junk — you didn’t specify the emissivity function.
You should know that.
Balls: You never explained what you mean by “radiating cold.”
It’s not a physical concept.
“Would the glass of ice water show up if you were looking through a night vision scope?”
I haven’t done that test, as I haven’t any experience hunting a glass of ice water at night (with either star light amplification based or IR based scopes or goggles). Perhaps David can link or do the test and inform. I do know my IR thermometer reads the correct brightness temperature 32F of a glass of ice water.
You don’t know.
You don’t know. Perfect.
—
Does the glass of water emit IR?
“Gordon’s equation is junk.”
S-B, Kirchhoff, Planck descendants and current text book authors writing on radiative equilibrium are going to be deeply disappointed to hear that David now has a test disproving their work, which was based on tests.
“you didn’t specify the emissivity function.”
It’s measured, see the little epsilon in Gordon’s eqn.?
“You never explained what you mean by “radiating cold.”
Sure I did 9:17pm: “If the kitchen radiates heat at the ice water David, then it is only fair to say the ice water radiates cold at the kitchen.”
“Does the glass of water emit IR?”
Perhaps David has experience hunting glass of ice waters at night with night vision scopes and can inform, I don’t. I have experience with my IR thermometer which confirms, yes, the glass of ice water radiates IR as it reads 32F.
Ball: So your glass of water emits IR.
QED.
Ball4 says:
>> you didnt specify the emissivity function. <<
"Its measured, see the little epsilon in Gordons eqn.?"
Wrong — GR merely assumed it was a constant.
What's the physical basis for that assumption?
Basis? A glass of ice water emissivity testing and testing the emissivity of all the stuff in a kitchen. NASA tests their fully ready to go satellites for emissivity routinely.
All this struggling and David can not produce an eqn. found in beginning atm. radiation texts similar to the one Gordon produced. I take this to mean David cannot meet my challenge. Let’s see if anyone else can do so, my goodness Gordon has written it out. Hint: Crib off Gordon, his eqn. is THE text book example.
You still haven’t specified the emissivity function.
Does this have you stumped?
Do help you need help understanding the Planck law? I’m here to explain it to you…..
Ball4 says:
“NASA tests their fully ready to go satellites for emissivity routinely.”
I’d be very interested in learning more about that. Can you please cite some papers?
Thanks.
This (outdated) link I found ought to get you started, getting ready for JWT full size testing at the time. Actually they found easier to measure the reflectivity and since opaque, 1-reflectivity = emissivity.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/engineering/integrated_environments/altitude_environmental/chamber_A/
“You still havent specified the emissivity function.”
epsilon is a constant function. For a glass of ice water you can use 0.95, for the kitchen at large stuff (ex the shiny stuff) you can also use 0.95.
This isn’t that hard, Gordon pretty much showed the way David, all you need to know is in his comment. Geez.
Ball4 says:
“epsilon is a constant function.”
Then just integrate the Planck law to get the SB Law. It’s hardly rocket science.
“1-reflectivity = emissivity.”
All you did was post a link with the word “emissivity” in it.
“All you did was post a link with the word “emissivity” in it.”
For the chamber wall! Not the test article which is unknown. Given your level of professed accomplishment, you ought to be able to find papers on how Chamber A at JSC facility was used on various objects. I bet there are others somewhat smaller. Do some work, inform.
“Then just integrate the Planck law to get the SB Law. It’s hardly rocket science.”
Then do it as did Gordon, answer my challenge. You haven’t yet shown you are at even Gordon’s level of accomplishment. You are great at tearing down others, put up some answers, build up instead of tear down.
Details about known physics and measurements using 18th century physics is left to engineers — physicists aren’t interested, having long long ago moved on.
as they say, “it’s just chemistry.”
Ok, that means David cannot answer my challenge, he isn’t accomplished enough in basic meteorology, atm. radiation basics. Let’s see if anyone else can use Gordon’s comment for an answer to my challenge worth discussing.
Balls:
The equation hardly depends on anything meteorological.
It’s just two radiating bodies. That’s completely trivial (assuming there’s nothing in-between).
Again, this is just basic radiation physics.
David, the glass of ice water would be the surface and the surroundings the atm. This radiative physics is essential to the discussion of climate.
It’s physics, not meteorology.
PS: Meteorology is a subset of physics.
Ball4 says:
“You are observing the EMR of objects in the night vision goggles, you perceive it as heat only in your thoughts.”
Ha!
So standing in front of a fire doesn’t keep you warm?
It doesn’t keep your front side warmer than your backside?
The Sun-side of a spacecraft isn’t warmer than the opposite side?
Mercury isn’t warmer on its sun side than its dark side???
Ball…?
Where are your answers??
So standing in front of a fire doesn’t keep you warm?
Standing in front of a fire does keep me warm.
It doesn’t keep your front side warmer than your backside?
Standing in front of a fire keeps my front side warmer than my backside.
The Sun-side of a spacecraft isn’t warmer than the opposite side?
The Sun-side of a spacecraft is warmer than the opposite side.
Mercury isn’t warmer on its sun side than its dark side???
Mercury is warmer on its sun side than its dark side.
Ball4,
“Whats the eqn. look like for a colder temperature body radiating to hotter temperature surroundings? Say a glass of ice water 32F in the kitchen radiating to room temperature surroundings (70F).”
You demonstrate two things:
1. Asking a stupid question is a provovcation.
2. You have no idea what thermodynamics is.
To clarify more :
The irradiance of the glass of water is ε σ Tc ^ 4
There is, in the world of thermodynamics, no flow that goes from the glass of ice to the environment at 70F.
Back continuously with concepts that physics dismantled long ago is silly.
“What’s the eqn. look like for a colder temperature body radiating to hotter temperature surroundings?”
Well, some time has passed. Gordon did not respond and no other commenter answered this simple question phi calls stupid & provocative.
I did the test with a 170F glass of water in my kitchen measured by calibrated IR thermometer. I found the glass of water cooler (160F) a little while later (data could be taken but Newton’s law of cooling is already well known by many (except maybe a few around here)).
I also did the test with a 32F glass of ice water in my kitchen measured by calibrated IR thermometer. I found the glass of water warmer (40F) a little while later.
Gordon’s original 1LOT radiative balance for a higher T object (Th) in colder surroundings (Tc) like a glass of 170F water in a room temperature kitchen which is simply the ideal Planck equation integrated over all frequencies with a constant measured emissivity to get into the real world of observations found in beginning meteorology texts on atm. radiation:
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ac (W or joules/sec)
The glass of 170F water will be decreasing in temperature with q rate of change of energy positive in this sign convention.
Here’s what the eqn. looks like for a colder temperature body radiating to hotter temperature surroundings:
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ac (Watts or joules/sec)
It is the same law! Note I did NOT change the name of the objects only their temperatures. For a 32F glass of ice water (Th) in a 70F kitchen (Tc). Gordon could have used T1, T2 instead.
The glass of ice water will be increasing in temperature once the ice has all melted as shown by formula and found from test since q will be calculated opposite in sign (negative).
So, I now ask another question for the 170F glass of water for the cognoscenti around here:
Would I measure more heat in this 170F glass of water or would I measure more heat in the ocean?
Gordon Robertson says:
“WordPress has eaten my minus signs. Obviously the equation should be q = ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ac”
Gordon is wrong that this is a “one-way” heat transfer.
Heat transfers both ways, of course.
And only some of the heat from the first body arrives at the second body. That amount depends on the shape of the both bodies body, and also the distance to between them.
“That amount depends on the shape of the both bodies body”
No David the object shape is arbitrary as long as it is much larger than wavelength of interest and does not radiate to itself (positive radii), only Ac is in the eqn.
There is no heat in the 1st body nor the 2nd body, David’s level of professed accomplishment should know this.
See, the shape isn’t arbitrary — not you start giving the qualifications.
Heat is a property of any body. Like the ocean. Or a glass of water. Again, very basic physics.
I am truly sorry that my educational accomplishments intimidate you.
David Appell says, November 22, 2017 at 12:31 AM:
No. Heat is NOT a property of any body. Heat is only energy in transit BETWEEN bodies (or regions) by virtue of a temperature difference.
Thermodynamics 101.
Heat is NOT a property of any body David, heat is a measurement of the avg. KE of the constituent molecules. The ocean contains plenty of energy, has many temperatures, contains no heat.
Ball4 says, November 22, 2017 at 7:12 AM:
No, it isn’t. That’s INTERNAL ENERGY [U]. Heat [Q] doesn’t have anything at all to do with the INSIDE of anything.
Fundamentals of Thermodynamics.
Except in an ideal or perfect gas of particles without internal structure it is wrong to state that the internal energy U of thermodynamics is the average KE of the particles. In real systems and even real gases, molecules are often bi or polyatomic and moreover they always interact. Hence there is potential energy of the molecules in a system. The average potential energy is part of the internal energy U. It’s even comparable in magnitude to the KE term in condensed matter such as liquids or solids.
Heat transfer by conduction in a gas is a matter of diffusion at microscopic level. Faster (on average) molecules from hotter regions diffuse to colder regions and conversely slower (on average) molecules from colder regions diffuse to hotter regions. These carry two counter flowing energy fluxes whose net result is the thermodynamic heat flux.
Just standard statistical mechanics.
Diffusion is a random walk of molecules in ballistic motion between thermalizing collisions, i.e. collisions that tend to redistribute evenly the energy between all molecules and all degrees of freedom It is also the physical process that transports the molecules of a perfume evaporating from a tiny drop deposited somewhere to the whole room.
Thermal (as electrical) conduction in a metal is a matter of electron diffusion. Faster electrons from hotter regions diffuse to colder regions and conversely slower electrons from colder regions diffuse to hotter regions. Again there are two counter flowing fluxes at microscopic level and it is their difference that forms the thermodynamic heat flux.
Same for thermal conduction in a crystalline insulator where the heat is transported by the diffusion of phonons, the quasiparticles that describe the atomic vibrations in solids. Again two counter flowing phonon fluxes at microscopic level form the thermodynamic heat flux.
Two counter flowing energy fluxes at microscopic level is therefore merely the rule in heat transfers. Not even a specificity of radiative heat transfer !
“Heat [Q] doesn’t have anything at all to do with the INSIDE of anything.”
Thank you Kristian, we agree on that especially the oceans for example. Here Q is in units of joules/sec.
“That’s INTERNAL ENERGY [U].”
Yes, the glass of 170F water has more thermodynamic internal energy U measured in joules than the glass of ice water.
Perhaps this background prepares Kristian to answer my new question:
Would I measure more heat in this 170F glass of water or would I measure more heat in the ocean?
Ball4 says, November 22, 2017 at 12:22 PM:
You wouldn’t measure heat in either. Heat [Q] is a thermal TRANSFER of energy; nothing more, nothing less.
“You wouldn’t measure heat in either.”
Right, what can be measured is the thermodynamic internal energy in the 170F glass of water by mercury thermometer measuring the avg. KE of the water molecules at the bulb AND glass of water brightness temperature by IR thermometer.
Some of that water molecule KE is continuously transformed into EMR reducing the amount of water molecule avg. KE as the water temperature reduces towards equilibrium with room temperature where the EMR exchange results in a radiative equilibrium q of zero.
Kristian says:
Ball4 says, November 22, 2017 at 7:12 AM:
>> Heat () is a measurement of the avg. KE of the constituent molecules. <<
"No, it isnt. Thats INTERNAL ENERGY [U]."
Actually, for a gas it's the very definition of temperature.
gammacrux says, November 22, 2017 at 11:44 AM:
This is true. The internal energy [U] definitely includes both a kinetic AND a potential component. What I’m saying is simply that the kinetic component is NOT what we call heat [Q]. It’s what we would call internal KINETIC energy.
“The internal energy [U] definitely includes both a kinetic AND a potential component.”
No, the thermodynamic internal energy U only includes constituent particle KE. Potential, chemical, nuclear, elastic forms of energy are also included in internal energy but not thermodynamic internal energy. For thermodynamic discussions:
dU/dt = Q + W
dU/dt does not include dPE/dt, d(Chemical)/dt, dElastic/dt, dNuclear/dt so forth unless the author specifically includes these changes.
Ball4 says, November 23, 2017 at 2:39 PM:
Yes, it does:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/inteng.html
Ball4
No, once again, this is of course utterly wrong except in a hypothetic ideal gas.
See a good textbook on statistical mechanics.
Wiki also states it very clearly:
In a real gases and of course even more so in condensed matter the molecules or atoms systematically interact more or less strongly, in particular there are attractive Van der Waals interactions between N2 molecules in air. These internal attractive forces are actually what drives the condensation of a real gas when its temperature is decreased below its liquefaction temperature, 77 K for N2 !
Internal energy is thus a function of both temperature and volume (or better density) U ( T, V ) and not simply U ( T ) as in an ideal gas. Heat capacity, in turn, is in general a function of T and density too.
So whenever heat is transferred to (or work is done on) a thermodynamic system the relevant energy is stored in it in the form of both additional KE and change in internal potential energy and the sum of them is the increase of internal energy delta U. In other words when one heats a cup of water from T to T+1 K the amount of heat necessary ( = heat capacity) to do so must include both the relevant increase in KE energy of the molecules and the change in their internal potential interaction energy that accompanies the change in temperature.
So while the average aKE of a molecule’s center of mass motion is always a measure of absolute temperature, namely aKE = 3/2 kT with k = Boltzmann’s constant, the heat capacity in real gases or systems is not merely a constant ( namely 3/2 Nk, with N the number of molecules) independent of T and density as in an ideal gas of structureless particles.
“See a good textbook on statistical mechanics.”
Cite one gamma. Edition, page, paragraph so forth.
Kristian: “Yes, (internal energy U) does (have a potential component)”
Sure the PE changes when as the site says the glass of water is dynamically thrown across the room. However that is not the thermodynamic internal energy U Clausius was discussing and is irrelevant for climate blog. Maybe for an orbital dynamics blog but not this one.
For thermodynamics Clausius dU/dt = Q + W (not dPE/dt & not d(chem)/dt so forth).
Note that web site has no citations – no way for Kristian or any reader to find where the author obtained his claims (test, prior test, principle so forth).
gamma 4:28am, sure although no gas is strictly ideal, the gaseous atm. of Earth can be taken to a good approximation to be ideal. I have not run across any terrestrial atm. phenomenon that is solely a consequence of departure of atm. gases from ideality.
I’d be delighted to learn of such a phenomenon, but haven’t found one. So, if you are tempted to invoke departure from ideality to explain the behavior of our gaseous atm., think again. Or identify one.
gamma cites: “It is distributed between microscopic kinetic and microscopic potential energies.”
Then show or cite how the “microscopic” PE explains a phenomenon in Earth atm. which is relevant for a climate blog where gas ideality can not do so, this would be very interesting to discuss.
Sure, in some systems departure from ideality is important to explain observations but haven’t found this to date in Earth troposphere.
Ball4 challenges me:
Easy task.
1/ I think we might agree that clouds play a major role in earth’s climate. And why do you think clouds form in the atmosphere ?
Clouds form in the atmosphere precisely because water vapor is not an ideal gas but a real gas with fairly strong attractive forces ( Van der Waals and H bond) between molecules.
If water vapor behaved like an ideal gas there would be no clouds and no liquid water.
What do you think happens when water in ocean evaporates at constant temperature and a drastic amount of heat (the latent heat) is nevertheless continuously absorbed in this process ?
Since temperature doesn’t change in the process aKE of the water molecules doesn’t change either. It is exactly the same in liquid and vapor. As a consequence the heat absorbed, called latent heat, must be and indeed is entirely stored in the form of potential energy.
Thus the internal energy (more precisely here the enthalpy, since pressure rather than volume is constant in the process ) increases only because internal potential energies increase. aKE stays stricly constant !
And internal potential energies augment because the interatomic forces are attractive and the mean intermolecular distance is much larger in vapor than in liquid.
2/ Even if the attractive forces between molecules are weaker than in water vapor as for N2 or O2 the internal energy of air is not just the translational KE of 3/2 kT/ molecule. Such molecules have also internal vibrational and rotational energy that adds to the translational one and that involves again not just a kinetic part (relative motion of the N atoms) but also a potential part ( stretching of molecular bond). The vibrational mode of N2 thus contributes (at high enough T according to a property called equipartition of energy)) merely 1/2 kT of KE and 1/2 kT of PE. The PE is in the stretching and compression of the molecular bond !
Hence when heating a parcel of air one systematically stores a part of the heat in the form of intramolecular PE i.e stretching and compression of the molecular bond), not just kinetic energy.
3/ Similarly when CO2 in air absorbs IR it heats the air because of thermalization, a process where collisions systematically distribute the energy over all molecules and degrees of freedom, in particular part of it in stretching ( or bending) potential energy of the N2, O2, CO2, H2O etc intramolecular bonds.
Ball4
Fluids like air are discussed at advanced level for instance in “A Modern Course in Statistical Physics” by L.E.Reichl, University of Texas at Austin. edition 1991, ISBN 0-7131-3517-4
See the statistical mechanics expression of internal energy U, page 351, equation 11.16 and how the intermolecular pair potential energies contribute to U.
Now it’s basics in every good textbook found under topics like canonical ensemble and partition function.
At introductory level an excellent read about intramolecular potential energies is Feynman in paragraph 40.5
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_40.html
About the Van der Waals model of a real gas with intermolecular interactions the relevant internal energy ( labeled E) is calculated here.
Link to Van der Waals internal energy is
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/stat.mech/lectures/lecture_10/node3.html#SECTION00012000000000000000
gamma 10:03am et.al., long story short you are discussing meteorological phenomena in the language of steam boiler and steam locomotive design engineers. I’ll look up your cites. Thanks. Will take a while to get a copy.
I can assure you that nowhere in a meteorological text will you find a need to fully explain your 1, 2, 3 at STP in earth troposphere by correcting any ideal gas calculation to a real gas. The z in PV=znRT is needed in those other disciplines to explain observed P,V,T changes so they use the z tabulated in steam tables & steam tables corrections from ideal are not needed to explain your 1,2,3**. You wont find z corrections in a text in meteorology or cite one.
I’ll look at your cites to find if they explain meteorological texts (Bohren, Albrecht 1998 on Atm. Thermo,, Boren 2006 on Atm. Radiation) do not explain observed earth atm, phenomena correctly simply using IGL and dU/dt = Q+W* at STP.
If I get some time later, I’ll look up the ‘splains for practice. More interesting than Kristian et. al. claiming 2LOT violations that do not exist. As shown by test.
*W even though pistons and cylinders do not inhabit the atm.
**For instance, your “a process where collisions systematically distribute the energy over all molecules and degrees of freedom..” is inaccurate. If all the internal modes of motion of molecules, including their electrons, neutrons, and protons, contributed to the specific heats of gases, the world would be a very different place. In testing, one can obtain good agreement with measurements of gamma (no pun) for monatomic gases by considering them to be ideal point masses even though they are not.
To demystify water vapor, its most unusual property from a meteorological pov as you note is it alone can condense at ordinary terrestrial temperatures. WV is just another component of air, wv does not impart any special properties to air. The heat capacity of the moistest air is only about 3% greater than that of the driest possible air.
…1991 Ed. is N/A I ordered the 1998 edition.
Ok 10:03am. I had the time/interest to read through your 1) & look up the magnitude of the gas density correction from the van der Waals eqn.: density vdW/density ideal.
At a given T and P (well below the critical point for STP) the density of a real gas is larger than that of the corresponding ideal gas. As you note: to counteract the intermolecular effects, a given P requires a greater density of molecules. Here is the table using the vdW eqn. comparing real density vdW/density ideal gas at 0C, 1atm. except wv at its saturation vapor pressure (6.11mb) worst case:
A 1.0012
N2 1.00096
O2 1.0013
H20 1.000058
According vdW eqn., as I wrote earlier, meteorologists need not fret over departures from ideality of the common atm. gases at terrestrial STP. Steam boilers and steam locomotives are something else again.
Your task is not easier at atm. STP. Study of vdW proves it is made much less easy to find relevance at a climate blog.
Ball
I agree of course that VdW density or equation of state corrections to the ideal gas ones are quite negligible for air and thus irrelevant in meteorology.
We agree of course also that in air all degrees of freedom do not contribute to the specific heat at atmospheric temperatures, electronic ones are completely “frozen”, rotational and translational ones completely active. Vibrational ones (and thus intramolecular potential energies) are partly active, contribute a little bit to the specific heat that is not quite constant but increases with temperature. The contribution is small because the vibrational quantum is still about 10 times larger than kT. This effect is about 0.5 % and may perhaps be ignored too in meteorology but is actually taken into account when using measured heat capacities of air .
At any rate, what I pointed out, is that it is generally inaccurate to state that all heat transferred to a gas is just stored in the form KE.
And it is even totally wrong for a liquid or a solid as I explained in 1/ in the case of water evaporation from ocean. Latent heat is stored solely in the form of potential energy in water vapor, it is huge and thus a very important phenomenon in climate and meteorology.
Ball says
I’m simply discussing an important phenomenon that occurs in meteorology, namely latent heat and water phase changes, in the language of a physicist.
Davie keeps making a fool of himself.
Gordon Robertson
The issue here is a semantic one and not a conceptual one.
GORDON: “I dont understand why you infer there is a two-way transfer of EM. For this equation to work Tc has to be less than Th. Otherwise, the environment would be transferring energy to the body.”
The environment is always transferring energy to the body as long as it has some temperature. If the environment is hotter than the body, it will transfer HEAT to the body. It will always transfer energy. HEAT is a unique set of energy transfer, it is the NET energy transfer.
If you read how they derive the equation you posted it will explain it to you in detail. The terms in the equation are the energy lost by a body by emission. This is all one-way loss away from the body. This is the Th^4 term. It is a macroscopic flow of IR away from the body and if you want a flux, you have Q/A= the rest and you have a macroscopic flow of energy away from the hot body (Watts/m^2).
The second term (if you read the literature about it) is the macroscopic flow of energy received by the surface. The heat loss is reduced because the second term is the energy that the hot body is gaining from the environment. It is clearly stated in all established science and I have not found one source that makes different claims.
The energy emitted is a process whereas a molecule vibrating at a higher energy drops to a lower energy and IR is emitted with energy equal to the energy change (a quantum of energy). When IR is ABS it raises the vibrational state of a molecule from a lower to higher energy state equal to the energy of the IR that is absorbed, most this energy is distributed among other molecules in a solid surface and tends to increase the K.E. of the molecules of the body.
Yes of course.
Classical 19th century thermodynamics indeed could only ever talk about heat which is a spontaneous one way transfer of energy from hot to cold.
There is no flow of energy from cold to hot in its framework.
Yet the real world does by no means reduce to classical thermodynamics !
There are no molecules, electrons, atoms, photons in classical thermodynamics either.
Does it mean that molecules, photons, atoms and electrons do not exist in real world ?
Of course not.
Same with energy counter flow from cold to hot, that is merely an inevitable consequence of the motion of molecules, photons, electrons, phonons etc at microscopic level.
And the two counter flowing fluxes at microscopic level are by no means in contradiction with what classical thermodynamics tells us about heat transfer. These counter flowing fluxes make sense in and are nothing but a physical theory called statistical mechanics that includes all of classical thermodynamics but is much much more.
The dimwits here have no idea what physics is.
gammacrux says:
“Classical 19th century thermodynamics indeed could only ever talk about heat which is a spontaneous one way transfer of energy from hot to cold.
“There is no flow of energy from cold to hot in its framework.”
Not true.
How about we quote the ACTUAL 2nd law, and not your all’s misinterpretation of it; from Wikipedia:
Clausius statement:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body WITHOUT some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Principle of Carathodory:
“In every neighborhood of any state S of an ADIABATICALLY enclosed system there are states inaccessible from S.”
All of you ignore the adiabaticity condition. Which makes most of your conclusions wrong.
The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system. It exchanges heat with a high-temperature bath by absorbing radiation from the photosphere of its star and with a cold bath by emitting IR into the essentially zero-temperature reservoir of space. It therefore reaches equilibrium at a temperature intermediate between the two.
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
More ridiculous pontifications and bullshit.
There is of course no “equilibrium reached” in the climate system. Never.
Equilibrium means a very specific thing in thermodynamics and climate system can never reach equilibrium. Google Wiki since it’s you favorite source.
There may be only what’s called a steady state in an out of equilibrium thermodynamic system such as the climate system.
Google your Wiki for Out of equilibrium or Far from equilibrium thermodynamics.
A climate system is a dissipative structure ( google for it ) and all dissipative structure dissipate energy and thus steadily produce entropy i.e. respect the second law of thermodynamics.
gammacrux says:
“There is of course no equilibrium reached in the climate system. Never.”
Of course not, since that takes ~ 1 M years.
But climate is always REACHING towards equilibrium, given the forcings and other influences upon it.
Since we don’t know the long-term future, long-term equilibrium is all we can assume……
Instead of spouting even more bullshit, why not shut up for once and learn something ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
“Equilibrium” implies ( for instance ) same temperature everywhere in a system !!!
As I said, you’re an idiot who readily confuses concepts as different as thermodynamic equilibrium and thermodynamic steady state
Period.
Laughable pontifications, as usual.
DA, as a ridiculous alarmist, every now and then proves to be even more idiotic as all the GHE deniers together,.
We’re talking here about spontaneous heat fluxes, not active heat transport as in a refrigerator.
So once more, repeatt after me; There is no counter flow of energy known to be associated with the spontaneous heat flux in classical thermodynamics.
I never said there was.
Hypocrisy.
As a ridiculous moron you pretended to teach me something about thermodynamics and physics…
You’re not in a position to do so.
Gordon Robertson says:
November 21, 2017 at 1:55 AM
“No way EM transfers heat physically between bodies via radiation.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273240
Then how does the Sun heat the Earth?
In a sense he is correct. EM radiation carries energy. Heat is one form of energy that manifests itself as vibrational or translational energy of the molecules within a substance. When a photon of EM radiation is absorbed, EM energy is converted into heat energy.
But that is just semantics. It still carries energy, and this energy does become heat when absorbed.
Where he is wrong is in stating that this heat energy is related to a change in electron states. That process happens at much shorter wavelengths and is not considered to be ‘thermal’ energy.
Des says, November 22, 2017 at 2:08 AM:
*Sigh*
No. That’s INTERNAL ENERGY [U]. Heat [Q] is a spontaneous thermal transfer of energy from hot to cold.
Seriously, people. This is Thermodynamics 101.
When a photon of EM radiation is absorbed, EM energy is transformed into kinetic energy of the object molecules. For the glass of ice water not measured as heat KE, would be measured as cold KE. This is why faucets are labeled with C and H measurements.
Heat does not exist in an object, heat is a measure.
So you think the H on a faucet means ‘HEAT’. ‘Cold’ and ‘heat’. Those are the opposites according to you …
Heat is not a measure of anything INSIDE anything. It is a thermal TRANSFER of energy, and that’s it.
Kristian: “(Heat) is a thermal TRANSFER of energy”
As I wrote above, those that admit heat does not exist in an object anymore, insist by a strange and subtle alchemy that which does not exist (heat) is transformed into that which does (motion).
Much less confusion just to discuss a thermodynamic internal energy transfer from one object to another by conductive, convective and radiative physics.
Kristian says:
“Heat is not a measure of anything INSIDE anything.”
That’s not how science uses the term.
Example: Ocean heat content.
They really mean Ocean Energy Content; in context meaning ocean thermodynamic internal energy content.
This is an example of the modern misuse of the heat term David, one of the relics of the ancient caloric theory.
No, not really. They don’t include internal energy, or mass energy, or potential energy, etc.
But that’s how the word “heat” is used in science and by scientists, and has been for centuries.
This argument is only about semantics, not physics, and so it’s meaningless — people will keep on using “heat” in the colloquial sense, and scientists will too, because they understand the distinctions and what they’re talking about.
You and Kristian should think more and argue about semantics less.
ball4…”When a photon of EM radiation is absorbed, EM energy is transformed into kinetic energy of the object molecules”.
The photon will only be absorbed if it has the required intensity to raise the absorbing electron to a higher energy level. If it lacks that intensity it will not be absorbed.
Everything in science AFAIK is subject to potential energy. Electrons do not flow willingly against a potential energy field, water does not run uphill, boulders do not raise themselves up onto cliffs. In the same manner, if a potentially absorbing electron is at a higher potential energy level than the source of the photon, it will not absorb the photon.
That explains the 2nd law.
There is no reason why a photon should negotiate a potential energy hill when it lacks the energy to do so. Electrons won’t, water won’t, and boulders won’t, why should photons?
Heat was defined by Clausius as the kinetic energy of atoms in motion. Heat has to have something to do with atomic motion, whether it molecules zipping around in a gas, molecules rotating due to collisions, or atoms vibrating in molecular bonds.
If you heat a gas in a constant volume, the pressure increases and so does the temperature. What could possibly explain that? The pressure increases because the gas molecules absorb energy and they exert more force on average to the container walls. The temperature increases because the more energetic molecules collide more frequently.
What was applied to cause this change in pressure and temperature…heat. If it was due to a flame being applied, the flame is a gas ignited to a very high temperature.
Why are you denying heat exists when it has already been defined as atoms in motion. Heat is not energy in transit, HEAT TRANSFER is energy in transit. Heat is the energy being transferred.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The photon will only be absorbed if it has the required intensity to raise the absorbing electron to a higher energy level.”
Wrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.
There are other quantum excitations that can absorb the photon, such as rotational and vibrational states in GHG molecules.
These transitions do not have an electron changing an energy level, but the entire molecule attaining a new rotational or vibrational quantum state.
This is quantum science 101.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Heat was defined by Clausius as the kinetic energy of atoms in motion.”
Clausius was right for his time, but new science came along (quantum mechanics) that, like it did to so much other existing physics, required new and expanded definitions.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
Seriously, I’d like an answer, finally.
DA…”There are other quantum excitations that can absorb the photon, such as rotational and vibrational states in GHG molecules”.
So you think some invisible mechanism in a molecule absorbs and emits energy. What do you think the word molecule means? It’s two or more atoms BONDED together by electrons. In some cases the bonds are shared electrons and in others the bonds constitute charges due to electrons being donated or absorbed.
Vibration involves electrons in the bonds. Rotation is due to the alignment of the atom due to electrons.
Never mind quantum science 101, they spoon feed idiots in 101 level courses. Get real and learn something about atomic structure.
DA…”Clausius was right for his time, but new science came along (quantum mechanics)…”
Quantum mechanics is mathematical hocus pocus. As Feynman claimed, it works but no one knows why. Planck admitted it cannot be visualized.
You keep your fudged math, I’ll stick with Clausius, who could not only write the equations he could explain it subjectively. I get sick listening to the quantum idiots and their mysterious claims.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Quantum mechanics is mathematical hocus pocus.”
Gordon, you can always be counted on to be the fool.
Quantum mechanics has never made a wrong prediction. It was one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Feynman knew that too (and added amply to it).
You don’t understand quantum mechanics, and there’s no reason anyone should give the slightest consideration to your opinion of it.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Planck admitted it cannot be visualized.”
Gordon, Nature does not care if you can visualize her or not. Quantum mechanics works, far beyond anything Clausius ever proposed.
What a shame you don’t understand it — it’s a fascination subject….
Gordon Robertson says:
“Vibration involves electrons in the bonds. Rotation is due to the alignment of the atom due to electrons.”
No they aren’t, dummy. They’re due to the alignment of the atoms in the molecule, whose energy levels are quantified. Those don’t involve any electron transfers.
Gordon, your ration of understanding/confidence is lower than anyone I have ever met in my life.
Gordon Robertson says:
“So you think some invisible mechanism in a molecule absorbs and emits energy.”
It’s not invisible — it’s very easily understood.
If a molecule rotates faster, does that take more energy?
If it vibrates faster, does that take more energy?
See Gordon again avoiding any and all questions. He’s (sadly) happy to keep his head in the sand and fingers in his ears.
“They don’t include internal energy, or mass energy, or potential energy, etc.”
Not sure what David means by internal energy as that would mistakenly mean they don’t include any ocean energy content. As I wrote, writing about ocean thermodynamic internal energy which does not include mass (nuclear) energy, potential energy, chemical energy so forth.
Writers misuse heat term when they really mean Ocean Energy Content and the energy they write about really is thermodynamic internal energy.
Gordon: “Why are you denying heat exists..”
If heat is same as energy then Gordon could write his 1st, 2nd paragraphs as:
“The photon will only be absorbed if it has the required heat to raise the absorbing electron to a higher heat level. If it lacks that heat it will not be absorbed.
Everything in science AFAIK is subject to potential heat. Electrons do not flow willingly against a potential heat field, water does not run uphill, boulders do not raise themselves up onto cliffs. In the same manner, if a potentially heat absorbing electron is at a higher potential heat level than the source of the photon, it will not absorb the photon.”
Get my drift? Heat is not same as energy, heat is a measure of the KE of constituent particles & that’s it (Kristian term). There is no thermodynamic heat entity in an object only the KE of constituent particles, the thermodynamic internal energy.
Now let’s apply Clausius defn. of heat as a measure of the KE of particles in a body to Gordon’s last 2 paragraphs:
“What was applied to cause this change in pressure and temperature…a measure of the KE of particles in a body. If it was due to a flame being applied, the flame is a gas ignited to a very high temperature.
Why are you denying a measure of the KE of particles in a body exists when it has already been defined as atoms in motion. A measure of the KE of particles in a body is not energy in transit, a measure of the KE of particles in a body TRANSFER is energy in transit. A measure of the KE of particles in a body is the energy being transferred.”
Thus Gordon is shown wrong, I do not deny the measure of KE of particles in a body exists. Though in some instances Gordon is right, uses the heat term correctly according to Clausius. The problem is Gordon puts the burden on the reader to determine if he misused the heat term or not. It is simply easier for writer and reader if heat term is dropped completely. The caloric had its day, let it RIP.
Conclusion: This shows Gordon can obviously misuse the heat term which is a common occurrence among writers on climate or any thermodynamic internal energy discourse.
Fix: eliminate heat term if you want to write clearly.
Ball4 says:
“Writers misuse heat term when they really mean Ocean Energy Content”
Again, wrong.
OHC means what it obviously means — if you stick your finger in the ocean, you experience a certain temperature.
It does not include many types of energy that are also present…. most notably, nuclear mass energy & potential energy.
David, your claims of accomplishment are suspect when you do not know that temperature is not heat.
Einstein wrote :
[classical thermodynamics] is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced will never be overthrown, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts.
Eddington wrote :
The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
Well, here, it is rather comments that collapse.
phi
I know very little about science, but that’s enough to see you have completely misunderstood the 2LOT.
Einstein, Eddington and Maxwell would have called you a nitwit too.
Sir Isaac Simpleton says, November 22, 2017 at 12:33 PM:
No need to tell us. We know. We see it in all you write.
And yet you still manage to act as though you have this deep intuitive understanding about physics and physical phenomena that no one else possesses, don’t you?
Kristian
I enjoy posting my viewpoints and getting feedback. That’s all. Sorry if they come across as arrogant.
Not much a novice like me could say that’s deep or original.
Ever think to look in the mirror, Kristian?
“And yet you still manage to act as though you have this deep intuitive understanding about physics and physical phenomena that no one else possesses, dont you?”
Sir Isaac Simpleton says, November 22, 2017 at 3:41 PM:
Problem is, when you do get feedback on your viewpoints, you absolutely refuse to adjust them, because you’re way too invested in them to begin with. The best case in point is your ridiculous idea about delay of energy escape being somehow the reason for warming. As if no one has ever tried that one before. All it does is display exactly what you point out above: That you hardly know ANYTHING about science, and apparently even less about physics and how the world works …
Sir Isaac Simpleton says, November 22, 2017 at 4:14 PM:
Oh, I’ve looked in the mirror, alright. The thing is, I don’t claim intuitive understanding of physics that no one else possesses. I simply explain the physics. People with actual knowledge about these topics KNOW how to distinguish between the MICRO and MACRO realms. Therefore they also know that even if thermal PHOTONS move from cold to hot, it doesn’t mean that a thermal radiative FLUX moves in that direction too. They know how to entertain two thoughts in their head at the same time: MATHEMATICALLY, CONCEPTUALLY, as a simplified MODEL of reality, the idea of the two-way radiative transfer works perfectly well; but it ISN’T a direct representation of reality itself. Read about how a radiation field is physically/mathematically described, already by Planck himself, and you will understand. Or not.
Kristian
You: “The best case in point is your ridiculous idea about delay of energy escape being somehow the reason for warming.”
My idea is just a simplified, “non physics” way of looking at the process. It’s perfectly logical if you UNDERSTAND THE MATH…..which should be easy even for a junior high student. Works in every situation I’ve ever considered, including the green plate experiment or a parking lot.
Kristian
You: “Problem is, when you do get feedback on your viewpoints, you absolutely refuse to adjust them, because youre way too invested in them to begin with.”
I adjusted a viewpoint just upthread, Kristian. Happens all the time. (I tried to correct a comment posted by MikeR. Turns out he knew exactly what he was talking about out and I was clueless.)
Kristian says:
November 23, 2017 at 11:12 AM
“The best case in point is your ridiculous idea about delay of energy escape being somehow the reason for warming. As if no one has ever tried that one before. All it does is display exactly what you point out above: That you hardly know ANYTHING about science, and apparently even less about physics and how the world works ”
I think delay in “energy escape” does cause increase in temperature- global average temperature.
But Sir Isaac Simpleton thinks it has to do delaying radiant energy. Or something going the speed of light.
But sunlight heats surface, surface warms molecules of atmosphere can described as “delaying energy escape”.
Or it takes time for energy of sunlight to warm atmosphere, and then at some point in time, the atmosphere reaches something one can call an equilibrium, but before it reaches
equilibrium, obviously energy is being delayed from escaping the system.
I think understand what mean by energy not being delayed in a system at equilibrium. It’s saying as with electrical energy, one electron added at one end of wire, isn’t delayed- as soon one is added, at other end of wire one electron leaves.
But earth is not in equilibrium, Earth can imagined to roughly in equilibrium, but simple night and day proves it isn’t.
Or lack of equilibrium can described as to why the speed of rotation increases average temperature. I don’t necessary think it’s correct way to explain it. It’s a simple way to explain it- but whole idea of simple is to skip the details.
Or ideal thermally conductive blackbody is at equilibrium,
and is simple way to explain why rotation doesn’t increase
temperature.
Or another way to say it, is if Earth were at equilibrium
it’s temperature would about 5 C- that’s what ideal thermally conductive blackbody is simply telling you.
gbaikie
Rate of energy entering/leaving the Earth system is close to equilibrium. Does that mean the energy stored in the oceans is not being delayed leaving to space?
gbaikie
What if you were driving to work and got stuck in a stop and go traffic jam?
All the cars are delayed, right? What if I told you, “autos are now entering the traffic jam at the same rate they’re leaving (equilibrium)”. Does that mean there’s no longer a delay?
Prior to the traffic jam, cars may have been averaging 70 MPH through the same area, also in an equilibrium.
That shows the traffic jam exists independently of equilibrium, something Kristian can’t seem to wrap his head around.
I forgot to mention the rate of cars entering/leaving the area (in cars per second, for example), could be exactly the same, where their average speed is 5 MPH or 70 MPH.
Sir Isaac Simpleton talks about delay:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273557
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273555
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273554
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273553
I said:
–I think delay in energy escape does cause increase in temperature- global average temperature.
But Sir Isaac Simpleton thinks it has to do delaying radiant energy. Or something going the speed of light.–
Or to clarify, I don’t think the delay of radiant energy is very significant, but it is a delay in energy escape.
Or insulation is delaying energy from escaping.
Or Sir Isaac Simpleton, myself, and Kristian believes insulation delays energy from escaping.
Insulation doesn’t does not increase the temperature, rather it slows the amount energy escaping. Or reduces amount something cools.
Now, oceans absorbs vast amounts of energy and delay energy
escape. But ocean do more than act like some kind of “good insulation”- ocean causes earth’s average air temperature to be higher as compared a land surface or a blackbody.
Atmospheres also can absorb vast amount of energy, but they increase the surface temperature.
The atmosphere air is warmest on average where it’s on contact with ocean surface [sea level]. One has two heat gradient of ocean and sky meeting where they are the warmest and that has global average temperature of 15 C.
Well actually the average where ocean only meets sky it’s 17 C, and when sky meets land it’s about 10 C.
The entire ocean has average of less than 5 C, but it’s warmest at the top, where is meets the highest air average temperature which is highest in temperature the lower it is
in the atmosphere.
Or earth is about 5 C, but an area of interest of humans is the surface air temperature which caused to warmer by the sky and ocean. And land surface lowers the average surface air temperature [in comparison to ocean].
Kristian says:
“Problem is, when you do get feedback on your viewpoints, you absolutely refuse to adjust them, because youre way too invested in them to begin with.”
Ha ha snort snort pot kettle black.
Take a solar pond. At equilibrium it’s highest temperature is about 80 C and it’s temperature at surface of pond is about 30 C.
Say decrease rotation rate to 12 hours or increase it 48 hours, either will have little effect upon it’s equilibrium temperature.
But 20,000 hour day would have significant effect.
Now could change the design of typical solar pond so 20,000 hour day would have little significant effect.
But typical solar pond will cool with a night 416 days long, and it’s won’t increase it’s equilibrium temperatures if it has 1000 day period of daylight. This is not allowing for huge changes in the environment outside of solar pond.
So typical solar pond requires months to reach it’s equilibrium temperature and per day it’s absorbing a large amount energy until such time as it reaches it’s equilibrium
temperature.
The definition of solar pond’s equilibrium temperature depends
on it’s heat gradient- “vertical salinity gradient also known as a “halocline” “- wiki, solar ponds.
Wind and strong rainfall can disrupt the heat gradient, but solar pond can re-establish this heat gradient. But constant wind or rain nullifies it’s “natural ability”.
But since solar pond stops gaining heat, once it reaches it’s equilibrium temperature- it’s only gains what it loses per day and night cycle.
Or wind will cause a solar pond to absorb more energy because it disrupts it’s equilibrium temperature.
A bit wind causes it to absorb more energy, but a little wind could little effect upon equilibrium temperature.
Or instead of wind, a longer night causes it to absorb more energy in following longer day and doesn’t have much effect
upon it’s equilibrium temperature.
Global speaking when solar pond loses heat via wind, it’s warming the atmosphere more, as compared to no wind. Globally it’s absorbing more sunlight. Globally a disruption of this equilibrium via wind increases global air temperature.
I should mention that when talking about the equilibrium temperature of solar pond, I am mostly talking about 1 or two meters of saltwater which is 80 C.
And basically one could say the 30 C temperature at the surface, is the tail of the dog.
One could be overly concerned about the surface temperature.
If you are frog on lily pad, the frog would care about surface temperature [and could know death awaits at lower depths].
But surface temperature is also important for other reason. One might call it the control knob, for example.
It controls related to the amount the surface evaporates.
Solar ponds evaporate a lot of water- and considered as one of many problems with them. A problem in relation to some desired uses of a solar pond. But solar ponds were “invented” for mining purposes and amount evaporation was not problem but advantage for that purpose. So wanted the water used to extract minerals to evaporate in order to get the minerals.
Also the surface water was less salty- use water again, and one could even drink it- or horses could.
Anyhow, so part of maintaining the 80 C, the rate of evaporation at surface, and small change in surface temperature at surface, reducing heat loss by a lot.
But in terms of heat content, a meter of water at 80 C, is equal to 2 meter of water at 40 C, which equal to 4 meters of water at 20 C.
And if want to talk about ocean, 4 meters of water at 20 C
is equal to 8 meters at 10 C. And 8 meters at 10 C is equal to 16 meters at 5 C.
And since ocean can have tens of meter at above 26 C [hurricanes need it], the ocean obviously works better than any existing solar pond in terms of heat content. And heat content is the dog that keeps the tail warm.
Or if talking about equilibrium temperature and oceans it’s around 5 C- globally. Though for air temperature it’s the average surface temperature of all ocean surfaces- 17 C.
“gbaikie: The glass of ice water is not radiating heat nor is it radiating cold. The glass of ice water constituent molecules are radiating EM energy transformed from their KE. The ice water molecules are also absorbing EM energy from the kitchen molecules KE transformed into EMR. Challenge is to write out the eqn. for Q similar to Gordon.”
That would a good challenge.
But maybe we should make easier.
Do we need the ice cubes for some reason
Are they there to keep temperature of water at constant
temperature?
Do you want limit the amount evaporation of the water.
How dry or wet is the air. If it’s very dry, the evaporation
should cool the water [I would guess]. And air is very wet, it should water the warm- add water [I would guess]. The glass should frost, but mean water added from the open top.
It seem to me, that since a glass has open top, you want to include evaporation- else you would talk about a bottle of water.
Put plastic bottle in freezer until has some ice in it, then put on counter.
if what to focus on evaporation, you could put plate into the freeze, then put it on a dry ceramic tiled counter, and put cold water in the plate.
It seems what you might be interested is the temperature of the wall and radiant effect. It seems to me, skip the water aspect, have warm and very dry air. Freeze a plate with Co2 ice. Put on warm floor and place and warm inverted cardboard
box over this cooled dinner plate.
Ball4
You wrote: “You are observing the EMR of objects in the night vision goggles, you perceive it as heat only in your thoughts.”
I think you’re actually seeing the difference in the rate of EMR emitted from various objects. “Difference in the rate” sounds a lot like the definition of heat, right?
An example is an overexposed photograph…., you see only light, so the photo is completely blank.
In a normal photo what you see is the “difference” between reflected light.
I personally would find evaporation part of it, interesting.
So this:
Gordon, that would be for a glass of warm water in the 1bar kitchen at say 170F radiating to room temperature surroundings (70F). The q comes out plus.
Whats the eqn. look like for a colder temperature body radiating to hotter temperature surroundings? Say a glass of ice water 32F in the kitchen radiating to room temperature surroundings (70F).”
I think 70 F is pretty cool, at first I mistakenly thought it was 70 C which quite hot.
Let’s assume a house is at 75 F [24 C], and you going to warm a bathroom to 80 F [26.6 C].
By pouring a bath and air temperature goes from 75 F to 80 F, then put 32 F dinner plate on a bathroom counter. Time how long it takes to warm to 80 F,
Then heat bathroom to 80 F without using warm water, and have the air being dry. Then put cold dinner plate on the counter, and time how long it takes to reach 80 F.
Then you could also put a warmed cardboard box over the cold dinner plate and time that. Have room warmed by hot water or
those IR lights which in some bathrooms or electric heater.
I took a bath.
Measured a counter and temperature was 77 F, before putting turning on hot water. While filling up with water, the counter only warmed by about 1 F. It seemed to warm quickly then stop and only about 78 F. So took bath got out dried off, and still has not warmed. So leaving warm water in bathtub, got dressed than blocked vents and around bottom of door. Still nothing,
so then drain the bathtub and while draining measured counter and it was finally 80 F.
Conclusion, the small amount of negative pressure from draining bathtub made a significant difference.
Then opened door, counter rapidly cooled to 74 F- colder house temperature.
I thought because I was using hotwater, it would warm the counter to 80 F quickly and easily or add 5 F and make it around 77 + 5 83 F. Maybe the air got to such temperatures, but counter didn’t.
If I was actual doing something like experiment, I probably should measure the air temperature.
And at time when I wanted to block the vents [with masking tape] it was damp and the tape didn’t stick easily.
A problem is sealing a room- and it should be done first rather than an afterthought.
gbaikie…”Measured a counter and temperature was 77 F…”
What’s a counter?
short for countertop.
Wiki:
A countertop (also counter top, counter, benchtop, (British English) worktop, or (Australian English) kitchen bench) is a horizontal work surface in kitchens or other food preparation areas, bathrooms or lavatories, and workrooms in general.
I guess I should said, measured the temperature of the surface of the counter.
Using cheap IR thermometer gun. Something like this:
https://www.amazon.com/Arctic-Star-AR550-Infrared-Thermometer/dp/B000MX5Y9C
gbaikie…”Measured a counter and temperature was 77 F, before putting turning on hot water. While filling up with water, the counter only warmed by about 1 F”.
Wonder if the problem is more complex than it seems. When you’re filling the tub, there are issues with condensation as steam reaches cooler surfaces and condenses. Much of the heat from the bath water likely covers all walls and ceiling and makes it’s way to counter top in the process.
It seems there should be a few modes of heat transfer: radiation, conduction, convection, on top of evaporation and condensation energies.
It would be interesting to point your IR gun at the bath water while measuring it directly with a thermometer. I’m wondering if steam is interfering with the reading of your IR gun.
Don’t know, just wondering out loud.
Gordon Robertson says:
“It seems there should be a few modes of heat transfer: radiation….”
Hmm……….?????
You’ve been argueing against heat transfer via radiation for months and months….
now suddenly you accept that???
There has been a lot of commentary on whether heat exists as a real entity or whether it is an obfuscated modern definition.
Clausius wrote the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. He defined internal energy BASED ON HEAT AND WORK and gave it the symbol U, and he defined entropy. Here’s what the master had to say, from his 1979 book on heat, found around page 30 or so.
Let’s at least respect the scientist who initiated these fundamentals and allow the modernists to write their own papers rather than incorrectly interpreting what the man said.
********
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 [kinetic energy] of this motion.
***********
Let any body whatever be given, and let its condition as to temperature, volume, &c. be assumed to be known. If an indefinitely small quantity of heat dQ is imparted to this body, the question arises what becomes of it, and what effect it produces. It may in part serve to increase the amount of heat actually existing in the body; in part also, if in consequence of the imparting of this heat the body changes its condition, and that change includes the overcoming of some force, it may be absorbed in the work done thereby. If we denote the total heat existing in the body, or more briefly the Quantity of Heat of the the body by H, and the indefinitely small increment of this quantity by dH, and if we put dL for the indefinitely small quantity of work done, then we can write:
dQ= dH + dL…………..(I)
The forces against which the work is done may be divided into two classes: (1) those which the molecules of the body exert among themselves, and which are therefore dependent on the nature of the body itself and (2) those which arise from external influences to which the body is subjected. According to these two classes of forces, which have to be overcome, the work done is divided into internal and external work. If we denote these two quantities by dJ and dW, we may put
dL = dJ +dW
and then the foregoing equation becomes
dQ = dH + dJ + dW……….(II)
8. Energy of the Body.
In addition to the two differentials dJ and dW, which depend on the work done, we have on the right-hand side of equation (II) a third, which is the differential of H, the total heat actually existing in the body, or its quantity of Heat. This quantity H bas clearly the property, also mentioned as belonging to J, that it is known as soon as the condition of the body is given, without needing to know the way in which the body has arrived at tbat condItion.
Since the heat existing in the body and tbe internal work are on the same footing as regards the above most important property, and since further, on account of our ignorance as to the internal work, we generally do not know the several amounts of these two quantities but only their sum, the author, in his first Paper on Heat, published in 1850, combined the two under one designation. Following the same system, we will put
U = H + J
which changes equation (II) into
dQ = dU + dW…………(III)
The function U, first introduced by the author in the above mentioned paper, has been since adopted by other writers on Heat, and as the definition given by him – that starting from any given initial condition it expresses the sum of the increment of the heat actually existing and of the heat consumed in internal work….
Please note: internal energy, designated as U in the 1st law IS ABOUT HEAT. This is thermodynamics, it’s a science related to the study of heat. There is no separate energy in question, we are talking about heat.
Does it makes sense that thermodynamics should be about the study of energy in transit? The energy in transit ‘IS’ heat.
There has been an egregious error perpetuated by certain modern scientists who have simply gotten it wrong. Heat is being transferred and someone has made a huge error and redefined energy in transit as heat. Heat transfer is energy in transit, not heat itself.
Clausis wrote one version of the 1 and 2 Thermo laws. Others have written other versions that apply to later knowledge Clausis didn’t possess.
It’s a shame you never read past the 18th century, Gordon.
DA…”Clausis wrote one version of the 1 and 2 Thermo laws. Others have written other versions that apply to later knowledge Clausis didnt possess.
Its a shame you never read past the 18th century, Gordon”.
It was the 19th century last time I looked. Clausius wrote THE versions, the rest are imposters who got it wrong.
They still use dQ = dU + dW today. They still based heat transfer on Clausius, from hot to cold. They still use his definition of entropy.
I suppose they have re-written Newton II, f = ma. He wrote that stuff back in the 17th century. A couple of decades ago I studied f = ma in an engineering course.
You might be surprised to find how much 19th century physics and chemistry still stands today.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You might be surprised to find how much 19th century physics and chemistry still stands today.”
And you might be surprised to find out how much doesn’t stand today…. if you bothered to learn any of it.
But you don’t.
PS: Even Newton knew that F=ma was wrong.
Gordon Robertson says:
“It was the 19th century last time I looked. Clausius wrote THE versions, the rest are imposters who got it wrong.”
Who the F do you think you are, Gordon Robertson, to make that kind of judgement about great physicists?
You’re no one, that’s who. You’d be lucky to get to scrape the dog sh!t off their shoes.
You are a seriously deluded person. (Who is likely just trolling for fun — you’re too ridiculous to be someone serious.)
bit of a typo, obviously “…from his 1979 book on heat…” should read “…from his 1879 book on heat…”.
Hey, what’s a century here or there?
“Please note: internal energy, designated as U in the 1st law IS ABOUT HEAT.”
This again shows Gordon confusingly misuses the heat term. Internal energy includes chemical energy, potential energy, elastic energy, AND KE of the constituent molecules so forth (as David implied above).
Which internal energy does Gordon mean? The reader has the burden to figure it out.
Clausius’ U is only the thermodynamic internal energy; Clausius is not writing of chemical, potential, elastic internal energies, he is writing symbol U for ONLY the thermodynamic internal energy.
Fix: Please note: thermodynamic internal energy, designated as U in the 1st law IS ABOUT a measure of the KE of the internal constituent particles.
Ball4
Please correct me if I am wrong. There is much debate and ridicule on this blog about heat so I will see if I have the word use correct or if I need to continue to research it.
Heat: It would be the amount of energy that is transferred from a hot object to a cold object and would be in the unit of joules. In your example, the hot water (based upon how much energy it lost to the walls as it cooled) would transfer a certain amount of total energy to the walls of the room and can be calculated by the temperature drop of the water based upon it mass and heat capacity.
The heat can be positive or negative. A positive heat means an object lost energy of certain amount, in joules, to the environment. A negative sign means the object gained energy from the environment.
Heat Flow: This is what is used in the heat transfer equation q = ε σ (Th^4 Tc^4) Ac (W or joules/sec). It is a rate of energy flow (as you have indicated in Watts). It varies based upon the temperature difference.
Norman, in a discussion of thermodynamics follow Clausius writings. His work is based on results from testing. Around here, not so much.
I used MS Word to substitute & test the def. of heat you use against Clausius 1st Memoir p.18 definition. I will let you decide if you measure up. Consider especially whether you are correct about positive and negative measures:
Please (let Clausius) correct me if I am wrong. There is much debate and ridicule on this blog about a measure of KE of particles in a body so I will see if I have the word use correct or if I need to continue to research it.
A measure of KE of particles in a body: It would be the amount of energy that is transferred from a hot object to a cold object and would be in the unit of joules. In your example, the hot water (based upon how much energy it lost to the walls as it cooled) would transfer a certain amount of total energy to the walls of the room and can be calculated by the temperature drop of the water based upon it(s) mass and a measure of KE of particles in a body capacity.
A measure of KE of particles in a body can be positive or negative. A positive measure of KE of particles in a body means an object lost energy of certain amount, in joules, to the environment. A negative sign means the object gained energy from the environment.
A measure of KE of particles in a body Flow: This is what is used in the measure of KE of particles in a body transfer equation q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ac (W or joules/sec). It is a rate of energy flow (as you have indicated in Watts). It varies based upon the temperature.
—–
Similarly, you can test the writings of anyone even text book authors (or commentators here!) against the work of Clausius.
ball4…”A measure of KE of particles in a body: It would be the amount of energy that is transferred from a hot object to a cold object…”
Why don’t you call the energy what it is…heat? Why are you so anal about this point?
Kinetic energy is a generic energy representing energy in motion. The energy can be chemical energy, mechanical energy, electrical energy, thermal energy and so on.
Why are you and others so hung up on claiming a generic energy flowing when it is plainly heat (thermal energy). Thermodynamics is about heat. The 1st and 2nd laws are about heat.
Thermos means hot in Greek and therme means heat. Maybe they should have called it thermedynamics.
“Heat Flow: This is what is used in the heat transfer equation q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ac .”
This is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and it applies only to radiation. They seem to have raised temperatures to the 4th power to allow for the constant, which is rated to the 10^-8 power.
It does not apply to heat transfer within a body. There, Fourier’s heat transfer equation is used.
Q/delta t = -kA (delta T/delta x)
It’s called the law of HEAT conduction.
Come on Bally, stop being so damned stubborn.
sorry…I sent a reply to ball4 and it should have been to norman.
“Why dont you call the energy what it isheat?”
I do Gordon, as a measure of the physical KE, and so did Clausius. Trouble is you do not, you misuse the heat term so frequently you make many false claims. Many others here also misuse the heat term leading to claims inconsistent with test results.
My main point is to get you and others to write clearly and use thermodynamics to make valid claims about temperatures consistent with test. Simply dropping the heat term will force you to write more clearly. Might even get you to make less false claims.
The 1st law is about energy and 2nd law is about entropy, neither are about a measure of internal KE defined as heat.
“σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ac .” This is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation..”
No Gordon that is the 1st law for radiative equilibrium when = 0, using the S-B law on each of 2 bodies governing their irradiation.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Kinetic energy is a generic energy representing energy in motion. The energy can be chemical energy, mechanical energy, electrical energy, thermal energy and so on.”
This is the dumbest thing you’ve ever written.
Kinetic energy is the energy in movement. Period. It is not “electrical energy” (whatever that is), chemical energy, nuclear energy, etc.
And by the way, photons are in movement, and their “kinetic energy” is their total energy (for a massless particle).
E=p, where p=momentum.
electrical energy (whatever that is) ??
E=p ??
Oh yeah, there are some factors of c in there somewhere. I put c=1.
I was actually more worried about your questioning of the existence of electrical energy.
davie believes the speed of light = 1!
G*, David has studied enough physics to be familiar with the concept of “natural units”. Apparently you have not. It is quite common in advanced theoretical settings to choose c=1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units
tim, if you believe you can cover for davie, you’ve got your work cut out for you!
In the news is all this stuff about hollywood abusing women,
Charlie Rose having 8 women speak up, woman who was executive
of Charlie Rose program realizing what bad job she did- charlie is just charlie.
US congress having slush funds or shh funds with public accuntable. etc, etc.
I was thinking at least the climate scientists don’t have such problem, but then remember the railroad engineer who was the head of IPCC. Oh well, I guess they are pigs too.
gbaikie…”but then remember the railroad engineer who was the head of IPCC”
I’m trying to forget him.
Not as big a pig as Joe Barton, the Texas Congressman who seriously harassed Mann, Bradley and Hughes over their important hockey stick discovery. He was just caught sending an obscene picture on Twitter:
http://www.tmz.com/2017/11/22/texas-congressman-joe-barton-nude-sexting-twitter/
Look if you dare.
DA…”who seriously harassed Mann, Bradley and Hughes over their important hockey stick discovery”
You mean the hockey stick study that was utterly debunked by McIntyre and McKittrick and which the IPCC dropped like a hot potato?
The IPCC has NOT ‘dropped’ this graph.
des…”The IPCC has NOT dropped this graph”.
They changed the 1000 year coverage claimed by mbb98 to 1850 onward. They re-instituted the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, so the stick no longer has a straight shaft. They added so many error bars that the new graph is now called the spaghetti graph, not the hockey stick.
I claim the changes are so enormous the original hockey stick has been discarded.
The 1000 year span was INCREASED to 2000 years.
The data from 1850 is the thermometer temperature data. That has NEVER gone back before 1850.
Anyone who refers to the “spaghetti” as “error bars” has no clue what they are talking about.
You have no problem inventing your “facts”, do you.
des…”The 1000 year span was INCREASED to 2000 years”.
And the proxy data from the hockey stick is how long???….1000 years. Would you say that’s the same hockey stick?
“The data from 1850 is the thermometer temperature data”.
The hockey stick was all proxy data. You mean the IPCC has fudged the spaghetti graph?
“Anyone who refers to the spaghetti as error bars has no clue what they are talking about”.
What do you call all the fuzz in the background? The IPCC calls them error bars.
Do you call this a hockey stick? See figure 2-21.
BTW…in your rush to answer you read the graph wrong. It goes from 1000 AD to 2000 AD+. That’s 1000 years.
From AR5:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
Look at page 409, fig 5.7
The span is 2000 years.
There is no ‘fuzz’ in the background.
The thermometer record going back to 1850 has been added as another member of the ensemble. Apparently you call that “fudging”.
And fig 2.21 is a temperature map. Apparently you have reading difficulties. I’m sure you were trying to refer to fig 2.20. Looks like you didn’t get past chapter 2.
The hockey stick is 2000 yrs long, Gordon.
But 1000 yrs was long enough.
Gordon Robertson says: “You mean the hockey stick study that was utterly debunked by McIntyre and McKittrick….”
Another clunker, Gordon.
M&M was wrong, and has faded into history. No one cites it. Meanwhile, hockey sticks have been found all over the place
http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html
and easy-to-understand physics shows how they HAVE TO be there:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-thing-is-hockey-stick-isnt.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-about-generating-hockey-sticks.html
He will now switch to addressing you and pretend my previous post didn’t happen.
Doesn’t he always?
Not to forget all the church priests.
gbalkie: and let’s not forget Trump or Roy Moore. Some very serious sexual harassment there, possibly crimes, and, for Moore, rape.
Good old fashion fun with wholesome suicidal intentions:
–This man is about to launch himself in his homemade rocket to prove the Earth is flat–
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/21/this-man-is-about-to-launch-himself-in-his-homemade-rocket-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat/?utm_term=.0ff5d89576bd
Some backstory, which may add to the fun- Washington post is owned by Jeff Bezos
Jeff Bezos is different type of madman, that actually launching rockets into space. See Blue Origins, wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin
Particularly, relevant the New Shepard rocket.
And sometime “soon” a larger rocket and with the Moon as part of longer goal.
There actually are steam powered rockets which work, though I doubt it’s the same thing.
Anyhow linked by:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
from article:
“The host talked of Elon Musks fake reality, and Hughes talked of anti-Christ, Illuminati stuff. After half an hour of this, the host told his 300-some listeners to back Hughess exploration of space.”
300 people, I could see the fun of such of spectacle.
If didn’t have drive very far and didn’t take much time.
Obviously the main concern is that the guy doesn’t hurt anyone else in his silly adventure. And other fun is wondering if the guy is vaguely serious or mostly a circus act.
Anyhow article has 3357 comments which just shows we have to put more effort making more posts.
The 2 meter anomaly over the Arctic ocean has been consistently much warmer than average since the beginning of September. Helps explain the + 0.63 C for October.
It’s never been anywhere near what it’s forcast to be next weekend:
http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/arc-lea/t2anom/2017-11-24-12z/64.png
According to Cliff Mass, a meteorologist at the University of Washington, Arctic warming is the most compelling fingerprint of AGW. Here is his argument:
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-real-signs-of-human-caused-global.html?m=1
Well it would good if arctic warms.
But I would say it’s the least measured region.
And I wouldn’t surprised if it cools in coming years- next 5 to 10 years.
And would say that generally what warms the poles is ocean currents and if warms [it’s possible] means more snow there and more snow more towards in direction of equator.
If snows it indicates warming and/or causes warming.
barry (November 23, 2017 at 4:38 PM),
“The action occurs in vacuum, so there is no thermal bath between them, only radiation.”
There is a radiative field.
By virtue of the second principle, the macroscopic transfer between the two plates is unidirectional. Hence the importance of the concept of heat.
Eli’s system is unimodal, which allows a simple calculation based on backradiations.
The situation is different if there are several transfer modes. The differences in temperatures between plates depend on the different modes and backradiations are then part of the unknowns of the system.
Once again, the constant use of backradiations in climatology does not originate in thermodynamics but in its absence. The thermal gradient before feedbacks is fixed by hypothesis, the differences of temperature are thus fixed and then IR fluxes depend only on the IR opacity. In this context, backradiations can solve the system but it is not thermodynamics.
–Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
November 25, 2017 at 2:13 AM
Kristian says,
How am I avoiding this basic fact!? The warmer object will become warmer as the cooler one becomes warmer.
And then, The disagreement is not about the EFFECT. The disagreement is only about the EXPLANATION
Your explanation is that the blue plate becomes warmer, not because of radiation revieved from the green plate, but because of the green plates temperature.
The obvious question then, is how does the blue plate know the temperature of the green plate? How do you answer?
You dont.–
It’s 2nd law.
A cold object can’t warm a warmer object.
If radiating something is cooling- a cold object can’t cool to a warmer object.
A warm object acts as insulation to another warm object.
If you are stupid one can say the cold earth surface is warming Earth molten core. But cold surface is an insulative effect. Earth has heat gradient. Going from hot to cold- a heat gradient of about 25 C per km of rock. Wiki:
“Geothermal gradient is the rate of increasing temperature with respect to increasing depth in the Earth’s interior. Away from tectonic plate boundaries, it is about 25 C per km of depth ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient
So the warmer rock 1 km down increases the insulative effect as compare to rock which cooler.
The rock which has difference of 25 C per km, is 5 C per 200 meter, 1 C per 40 meter, and .025 C per meter. Or about .008 C per foot.
So have the material of rock which is poor conductor of heat and with higher the difference temperature the more it can conduct heat. But all the rock [the distance heat has to go thru] creates small difference in temperature [a temperature gradient of .008 C per foot [a different difficult to measure or over distance of foot- it would seem like same temperature].
So you have massive molten nuclear powered Earth with thin surface layer with doesn’t transfer a lot of heat per square meter thru solid rock to the surface.
If you added 1 km of cold rock to Earth surface, it would make the old surface warmer. With enough time, 25 C warmer.
And reduce amount the interior losing heat- though won’t increase the interior temperature which is based on a few factors or you have reduce the heat loss to the amount being added by nuclear and tidal energy which is added. Though you would add to the amount time need before core cools. Add say 1/2 billion years.
Or using geothermal energy will slightly reduce the time the earth cools [by a few years].
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/?replytocom=273638#respond
Here’s a look at the year to date Arctic temp. anomalies according to the DMI. Notice summer months are normal but winter months go bonkers. Same thing happened in 2016. Random variability?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
A lecture from MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
And another on the same topic:
https://www.slideshare.net/tmuliya/thermal-radiation-iii-radn-energy-exchange-between-gray-surfaces
–Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
November 25, 2017 at 2:18 PM
gbaikie
In Elis experiment, the blue plate gets warmer as a result of radiation absorbed from a cooler object.
Its an example of how insulation works in the absence of conduction or convection.
Nate and Svante have posted this link as a real life application:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation —
Yes, and as indicated at wiki, using reflective material are best. One could keep something cold or keep it hot using reflective surface. With spacecraft at earth distance one generally trying to keep entire craft cooler plus one distribute heat to things which need to kept warm. A uniform warmth causes less stress from thermal expansion and contraction- and I would guess that why they use a lot gold foil- gold can made really thin and not it’s problem in terms of added to the mass.
Also see heat pipes at wiki
phi and Sir Isaac Snapelton
phi I think I know where you and Kristian may be incorrect on your EMR views. I have been doing some research.
This Wiki article is fairly good at explaining it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
I think the error is thinking all effects are near-field radiation and missing the big difference in far-field radiation.
Radio waves have a near-field effect at macroscopic distances whereas the near-field of IR is in the micron range and is long gone at macroscopic scales.
Willis Eschenbach stated if very well on WUWT. “You see me I see you” this is explicit real proof of two-way macroscopic energy flows from one object (one face to eyes, other face to other eyes) to another.
The gradient does not exist in far-field radiation. The field (electric and magnetic) is contained within the wave-packet (photon) it does not interact outside of itself (at least not with Mid-IR) with other fields. Each packet is independent of its source emitter.
From article: “The far-fields propagate (radiate) without allowing the transmitter to affect them. This causes them to be independent in the sense that their existence and their energy, after they have left the transmitter, is completely independent of both transmitter and receiver. Due to conservation of energy the amount of power passing through any spherical surface drawn around the source is the same.”
Norman
Interesting link, at least the parts I could understand…Lol.
Looks like the “near-field” is not radiation at all:
” Electromagnetic radiation thus includes the far field part of the electromagnetic field around a transmitter. A part of the “near-field” close to the transmitter, forms part of the changing electromagnetic field, but does not count as electromagnetic radiation.”
Obviously you could not make out individual tiles on a house’s roof (as seen in the thermal image below) if
the energy around us was ONLY a chaotic cloud, as described by Kristian. The real world is much more complicated.
Here it is:
http://www.dronesglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/featured-drones-with-thermal-camera_web.jpg
Sir Isaac Snapelton
Yes indeed, images with detail in the IR spectrum. I think Kristian took an idea, photon cloud, which exists in certain cases. To make it into his own brand of physics. If you read any established science on heat transfer, not one mentions a photon cloud as moving through a thermal gradient in one-way fashion. As Des linked above, established science teaches multiple macroscopic energy flows. This is why you can see so many different objects in a room. Each is its own self-contained energy flow that is unique and independent of all other energy flows. Photons move through each other with no interaction, no loss of energy or change in motion. Only matter effects the path.
You want to prove Kristian wrong, just look around a room and see items. If you can see it you are viewing a macroscopic flow of energy that comes from on particular item which is not changed by any other item in the room. I don’t know where he comes up with his fantasy physics. He gets very upset if you ask him to prove his claims. So far he has posted about a photon cloud in a radio astronomy book. Not sure of the context and use of the term, I have never seen it used in any established science concerning radiant heat transfer.
The electromagnetic fields within a photon (wave packet) are restricted to the photon and do not interact with other electromagnetic fields. That is why light won’t bend in electric or magnetic fields. I have not read anywhere about a thermal gradient between two radiating objects. I have read much about two flows of energy, one object sends and receives energy from another. I think Kristian is blowing smoke and pretending to be an expert he just is not. He is smarter than Gordon Robertson who is much smarter than g*e*r*a*n (who is probably the dumbest poster on this blog), but they all just make up their own physics and when you ask for support of their goofy ideas from established science, they either make fun of you (like the moron g*e*r*a*n), ignore the request like Gordon Robertson, or get upset like Kristian.
I have never claimed to know it all. I always like to learn but the phony pretenders intentionally will not support their claims with valid science. I will always support my points with valid science. When I do, then I am told I don’t understand the material. When I ask what it is I am not understanding, they are silent and cannot come up with any rational answer.
“So far he has posted about a photon cloud in a radio astronomy book. Not sure of the context and use of the term, I have never seen it used in any established science concerning radiant heat transfer.”
http://www.lehman.edu/faculty/anchordoqui/problems303-12-sol.pdf
Also called photon gas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas
http://www.physics.udel.edu/~glyde/PHYS813/Lectures/chapter_7.pdf
http://users.df.uba.ar/arbo/PhotonGasAJP.pdf
Etc
hmm:
“Incidentally, a numerical evalution of Eq (11) shows the Cv is extremely, being about 10 ^-12 that of equal volume of water at room temperature.”
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Courses/PHYS4420/BlackBodyThermo.pdf
A trillionth of equal volume of water at room temperature.
Actually that could be heck of a lot energy.
They can’t mean the latent heat of freezing.
?
A liter of water is 1 kg and to change temperature by 1 K is
4.182 kJ or 4182 joules
4.182 x 10^-9 joules per liter of photon gas for change temperature per K
Miss-type. Hate it when can’t cut and paste
“…Cv is extremely,” is: “Cv is extremely small,”
“A liter of water is 1 kg and to change temperature by 1 K is
4.182 kJ or 4182 joules
4.182 x 10^-9 joules per liter of photon gas for change temperature per K”
Or cubic meter is 4.182 x 10^-6 joules
And cubic km is 4.182 x 10^3 joules or 4182 joules per K
“He is smarter than Gordon Robertson who is much smarter than g*e*r*a*n (who is probably the dumbest poster on this blog), ……”
What happens when/if Mike Flynn returns?
The con-man and the 12-year-old have combined their knowledge of physics (still less than zero) to rate others.
Thats funny enough.
But, with so little awareness, their effort just makes them that much more hilarious.
Can always bring d*u*m*m*y back by putting his online name in a post. Still your usual dunce mentality I see. Yup you the lowest IQ poster on this blog unless the dreaded Mike Flynn shows up. He is even more boring than you are.
You are the m*o*r*o*n who makes up your own physics that claims two plates with the same temperature, the powered plate of the two cannot absorb energy from a plate that is heated by the powered plate even if it is at the same temperature. And you think you know physics? I would get an A or B if I took a general physics class. You would fail since making up physics will not get you a good grade.
Well d*u*n*c*e I take your comment for what it is. Garbage from a zombie t*r*o*l*l.
I guess you want someone to pat you on the back for repeating the made up physics of Postma. Sorry you need to post on his blog to get the pat on the head. Here we have actual science minded people who research actual science. Go play with your toys on Postma’s blog. Leave the science to the adults.
The yelping castrated chihuahua responds.
Hey Con-man, does pounding on the keyboard help to ease the pain?
g*e*r*a*n
I just like to troll the troll. Your posts are usually boring, mostly comprised of low grade insults. Also highly repetitive indicating a lack of original thought process and creativity.
When you do try to make some science point (which is very rare) it is usually so incorrect that it is of no value.
No you don’t know any physics. You repeat crap from crap blogs (GIGO) that you don’t even understand yourself.
I just like to put your name in posts once in awhile to get a knee-jerk reaction from you. Other than that you are not a very interesting or valuable poster.
I guess I could write Con-man a hundred times instead of getting you to post it.
Just can’t stop pounding that keyboard, huh Con-man?
g*e*r*a*n
I guess no more than your inability to come up with new insults. I think you have used “pounding the keyboard” several times. You might be a bit above Mike Flynn in creative thoughts but don’t get a big head, your lack of original thought is not much above his. Come up with new insults if you want to be a troll. Same old same old is boring!
Con-man, your reasoning ability matches your understanding of physics, both at the bottom of the barrel.
It takes me about 1/20 of the space/time to totally debunk each of your wandering, laboring, floundering comments.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
You are unable to debunk anything using established physics. What you call “debunk” is to use the made up physics of Claes Johnson or your Master Joseph Postma (you are not s*m*a*r*t enough or c*r*e*a*t*i*v*e enough to make up your own physics…that is why I consider Kristian and Gordon Robertson much above your level. They like to make up physics but they are original and creative, you must rely on others for your ideas since you are unable to think enough to make up your own).
Har! Har! I still laugh at your ludicrous fantasy that a hot object is not able to absorb incident radiant energy that reaches its surface from a colder object in its view. Absolute made up physics that goes radically against established physics and violates an established law of physics called Kirchhoff’s Law which states clearly a good emitter is a good absorber.
You should audition to work with Mickey Mouse. You would hands down do a better job than his pal Goofy.
Con-man, “rejected” photons exemplify Kirchhoff’s Law. You just don’t understand the laws of physics.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
More gobble-gook from the master of nonsense and meaningless comments. Your post is good example that you have little ability to communicate scientific information and considerable ability to spout nonsense.
YOU CLAIM: “You just dont understand the laws of physics.”
Which ones would that be? I have clearly seen you do not understand the 1st Law or the 2nd nor Kirchhoff’s Law. You make up your own physics because your brain cannot understand actual physics. It confuses you so you make up stuff you can understand.
gbaikie
Thank you for the material on photon gas.
So far it seems they are all similar as the gas will exist inside an enclosed volume with a heating source supplying energy to the container walls.
I did not see any example of heat transfer in the links you provided.
I also believe that the IR in the atmosphere behaves like a photon gas. The energy is uniformly distributed and would seem as an IR fog like the blue sky.
But in reading some of your links they do indicate a surface experiences two-way flux even at equilibrium. The amount of photons being absorbed by a wall section is equal to the photons emitted by the same wall. Two equal flows of energy that are opposite (at the equilibrium state of photon gas in a uniformly heated container).
I think your links make Kristian’s claims even more wrong with a one-way flow in a photon gas. Also all the links make the clear distinction photons do not interact with each other. They do not exchange energy, alter momentum, change direction of other photons…only matter causes changes in the photons. That means flows of energy can and do move right through each other.
Any size of any part of the enclosed structure will have a continuous two way flow of energy. It will be emitting energy at a certain rate (depending upon the temperature) and it will be absorbing the same amount of energy it is emitting. Both of these amounts would be in Watts/m^2, macroscopic fluxes. I am not sure you can get away with anything else.
Can you come up with a one-way flux explanation of what you read in your links about photon gas?
If you have surfaces at different temperatures you still get the two-way flux it is just that the hot surface is now emitting more than it is absorbing. Always two-way flow at a surface. In the middle of the cloud there is not directional flux. The two-way flux is when photons interact with matter and it will always be this way. Emit or absorb.
“I also believe that the IR in the atmosphere behaves like a photon gas. The energy is uniformly distributed and would seem as an IR fog like the blue sky.”
I think that Co2 maybe increases kinetic energy of gases of atmosphere. It seems like small effect. And that not an insulative effect.
And think CO2 is part of insulative effect of atmosphere.
A larger effect, but still not much.
I tend to think photon gas might more exciting in a star, but think exists and maybe relevant to detecting IR wavelengths and probably a bit of nuisance in that regard also.
On topic of blue sky. That’s Shortwave light and should absorbed by oceans. A small effect.
And wonder about effects quite close to surface- within 500 meters of surface.
The warming ice particles and water droplets by sunlight is also interesting to me- maybe ice particles [at elevation temperature is well below freezing] more than water droplets.
Of course I made what think the main effects on global temperature known and won’t repeat them.
gbaikie rightly points out that at room temperature the Cv of a photon gas is very small (as is its the total energy or internal energy per unit volume) when compared with a sample of condensed matter such as water.
This is quite true, but note by the way that it is no longer true at all in the core of a star such as the sun.)
Yet, the important point here is that the electromagnetic energy or photons travels at the speed of light !.
This means that potentially the photon gas even near room temperatures may transport nevertheless a quite large and relevant amount of heat between bodies at different temperatures !
Let’s make a rough estimation with Cv = 4.180 10^6 Joules/ m3. K at 300 K
Energy/ unit volume in photon gas from Equ. 6 and 11 in link = 300 (10^-12) Cv / 4 = 3.1 10^-4 Joules/ m3
Speed of light 3 10^8 m/s
Max heat flux possible= .25 3.1 (10^-4) 3 (10^8) = 4 10^4 Joules/m2.s about 20 kW / m2 or 2 W / cm2 !!!
(The factor of .25 is because photons are rather isotropically distributed even off equilibrium)
Erratum;
The ratio of heat capacities of the photon gas and water at room temperature is not 10^-12 as stated erroneously in linked paper but actually even lower about 2 10^-14.
Hence the maximum heat flux possible in such a photon gas is found by above estimation to be about 400 W/m2 in good agreement with Stefan Boltzmann’s law.
— gammacrux says:
November 26, 2017 at 8:11 AM
Erratum;
The ratio of heat capacities of the photon gas and water at room temperature is not 10^-12 as stated erroneously in linked paper but actually even lower about 2 10^-14. —
Can you give some explanation or reference which shows the correction?
Yes, gbaikie, I can.
Let’s start from equation 11 in the (good) paper about photon gas properties you linked to namely http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Courses/PHYS4420/BlackBodyThermo.pdf
It reads Cv = 4 b T^3 when taken per volume unit.
The constant b is a universal physical constant that one can either calculate (see expression below equ. 3 in your link) or get directly from Wiki here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StefanBoltzmann_law
It’s apparent that b= 4 sigma /c, where sigma is the well known Stefan Boltzmann constant and c the speed of light.
One gets thus b= 7.56 10 ^-16 Joules/ m3. (K^4)
Hence Cv = 4 b T^3 = 8.16 10 ^-8 Joules/ m3.K at T= 300 K
to be compared to the specific heat of liquid water = 4.18 10 ^ 6 Joules/m3.K
Hence the ratio (8.16 10^-8) / (4.18 10^6) = 1.95 10 ^ -14
Let me back track. I had question about the statement of:
Incidentally, a numerical evalution of Eq (11) shows the Cv is extremely small, being about 10 ^-12 that of equal volume of water at room temperature.”
From:
http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Courses/PHYS4420/BlackBodyThermo.pdf
My question is the paper talking about entire heat content of a liter of water at room temperature [say 20 C]
That could would rather complicated, as what said:
“A trillionth of equal volume of water at room temperature.
Actually that could be heck of a lot energy.
They cant mean the latent heat of freezing.
?”
But not just that but it’s complicated as there variation in specific heat of H20.
For example specific heat of H20 ice:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ice-thermal-properties-d_576.html
Plus there apparently somewhere around 6 types of ices- which I couldn’t say much about.
And chart above get down to -100 C [173 K].
So does that author or any person happened to know the total
heat needed to warm 0 K H20 to 20 C [293 K] H20?
Said differently how many joules of heat does it take to heat one kg of H20 at 0 K [which will become a liter of water when warmed to 20 C]?
So I assumed the most simple, that liter vacuum at 20 C
would increase in terms of energy in same ratio as water
would. So, 10 C vacuum would be 10 ^-12 of 10 C liter of water, and 30 C vacuum would be 10 ^-12 of 30 C
liter of water.
Though maybe the total heat of water at room temperature is commonly known, is that true?
So make sense my assumption, that could roughly alter the temperature of vacuum, and it would roughly be same change temperature of water, is wrong.
But paper didn’t suggest I could do this.
And you said:
“The ratio of heat capacities of the photon gas and water at room temperature is not 10^-12 as stated erroneously in linked paper but actually even lower about 2 10^-14.”
I could accept erroneously stated by me. But not clear to me it was “stated erroneously in linked paper”
gbaikie says
But not clear to me it was stated erroneously in linked paper
Yes there is an error in numerical evaluation of the Cv’s ratio in the linked paper.
Said differently how many joules of heat does it take to heat one kg of H20 at 0 K [which will become a liter of water when warmed to 20 C]?
That’s the enthalpy change of water from at 0 K to 293 K.
To obtain it you have to measure the heat capacity at constant pressure as a function temperature, Cp (T), from 0 K to 293 K as well as the latent heat of fusion L.
Enthalpy change or heat content is then the integral ( Sum of the Cp(T) dT) of Cp(T) from 0 to 293 plus L.
An exemple:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STURzRg7LDQ
–gammacrux says:
November 28, 2017 at 2:12 AM
gbaikie says
But not clear to me it was stated erroneously in linked paper
Yes there is an error in numerical evaluation of the Cvs ratio in the linked paper.
Said differently how many joules of heat does it take to heat one kg of H20 at 0 K [which will become a liter of water when warmed to 20 C]?
Thats the enthalpy change of water from at 0 K to 293 K.
To obtain it you have to measure the heat capacity at constant pressure as a function temperature, Cp (T), from 0 K to 293 K as well as the latent heat of fusion L.
Enthalpy change or heat content is then the integral ( Sum of the Cp(T) dT) of Cp(T) from 0 to 293 plus L.
An exemple:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STURzRg7LDQ —
You say there is error in numerical evaluation.
My question is regarding the unknown values of H20 heat capacity of Ice at temperature below -100 C and enthalpy change of ice below -100 C.
Plus the the amount of specific heat of H20 at same pressure
changes depending on temperature and whether H20 is ice or water.
Such complexity seems at odds with basic throw away comment
the proton gas energy is same in liter of volume as liter volume of water at room temperature. And “room temperature”
is vague term. Of which is said it’s 1 trillionth of.
Or said differently you claiming numerical evaluation
of liter water being 1 trillionth of photon gas is wrong it’s ^-14. Yes?
Your linked paper talks about the ratio of the Cv’s of photon gas and water at room temperature.
NOT THE RATIO OF ENTHALPIES
Right ?
Period.
So not counting latent heat of melting.
To heat 1 kg of H20 at 0 K to 293 K [room temperature of 20 C.
Requires somewhere around 440,000 joules.
paper said liter gas was trillionth:
Which would be 4.4 x 10^-7 joules
And your correction would be 8.8 x 10^-9
The latent heat of melting for 1 kg of water is
334,000 joules. Not included.
Specific heat Cv at a given temperature has nothing to do with latent heat, you appear to be fairly confused about physic’s basics.
One may of course compare total heat contents or enthalpies rather than Cv’s at 293 K for photon gas and water, but you have yet to acknowledge that is not what’s done in your linked paper.
Yet let’s do it:
– From equation 7 in paper the enthalpy par unit volume of the photon gas is 4/3 b T^4 = 7.42 10^-9 Joules/ liter at T=293 K
– For ice a rough integration of Cp from 0 to 273 K yields: 0.5 x 2090 x 273 Joules/kg ( factor 0.5 to account for the Cp decreasing to 0 with T, it’s approximate but a good approximation)
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/bulletin/12/nbsbulletinv12n1p49_A2b.pdf
Latent heat of fusion = 334000 Joules/kg
Liquid from 273 to 293 K = 4180 x 20
Total is around 700 000 Joules/kg
Ratio = 7.42 10^-9 / 7 10^5 which is again around10 ^-14.
” gammacrux says:
November 29, 2017 at 9:08 AM
Specific heat Cv at a given temperature has nothing to do with latent heat, you appear to be fairly confused about physics basics.”
Specific heat is the amount joules of heat to increase a substance by 1 K.
Latent heat is amount joule needed to change to different state of matter, Ie change from solid into liquid and doesn’t increase the temperature, unlike specific heat which amount joules needed to increase or decrease the temperature.
At 0 K there is zero energy of substance that it could transferred [conduction, convection or radiate] and there is no photon gas in a box which interior side are 0 K.
Whereas if box is 1 K or 200 K the photon gas has blackbody spectrum of 1 K or 200 K. The photon gas has more total energy in a 200 K box as compared to 1 K box.
Were box at temperature where gaining heat and energy was used to change it’s state matter into a liquid, the temperature remains the same and photon gas energy remain the same.
“One may of course compare total heat contents or enthalpies rather than Cvs at 293 K for photon gas and water, but you have yet to acknowledge that is not whats done in your linked paper.”
What was and is my question as we comparing total energy of liter of water to a liter of proton gas.
Or saying there are the same amount of energy- other than liter of water has trillion times more energy as photon gas.
Or liter of copper and liter of water are close to same amount of specific heat [water has more] at room temperature.
But water and copper don’t have similar specific heat at different temperatures, say both are 250 K or 500 K.
It seemed to me, the paper was merely saying photon gas which was volume of one liter has same energy but 1 trillionth of 1 liter of water [or liter of copper] at room temperature but had nothing to do total energy of water needed to raise H20 from 0 K- and that specific heat of water would be familiar to the readers. But my problem was I didn’t think the total amount of heat of liter water would familiar, though possible, therefore if familar, my question
of whether it would include all energy needed to warm water to room temperature.
So thought why said liter of water is trillion times more than liter photon gas is because the change of temperature of water from 10 to 30 C would about the same as change proton gas from 10 to 30 C. Or you roughly count photon gas energy if around room temperature act like water in terms of water’s specific heat.
Anyhow you are saying a liter of photon gas is 1.95 10 ^ -14
of liter of water.
So leaves me same question is photon gas going to change similar to liter water if photon gas is near room temperature. Or are talking about entire heat content of liter of water at 20 C [but not including latent heat].
Or why is 1.95 10 ^ -14 of liter of water regarding proton gas, significant or something to keep in mind.
Photon gas energy content per unit volume u is very small around 300K.
.
Yet, the important point is that the electromagnetic energy or photons travels at the speed of light c !.
So radiative transfer (about u times c) is nevertheless potentially large about 400 W / m2 at 300 K
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-273672
— gammacrux says:
November 27, 2017 at 11:38 AM
Yes, gbaikie, I can.
Lets start from equation 11 in the (good) paper about photon gas properties you linked to namely http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/Courses/PHYS4420/BlackBodyThermo.pdf —
I have not read it, except beginning part where is says it’s basically, it’s “different” than typical way.
So going to guess it applies to energy of sunlight.
And I won’t cheat by looking.
Did I guess correctly?
Nevermind the above.
Or I guessed incorrectly.
I make another post.
Norman,
“phi I think I know where you and Kristian may be incorrect on your EMR views.”
“I think the error is thinking all effects are near-field radiation and missing the big difference in far-field radiation.”
Certainly not. First, you should not prejudge the existence of an error.
The fact is that the two hypothetical flows are never detected independently.
A bolometer is a device for measuring the power of incident electromagnetic radiation via the heating of a material with a temperature-dependent electrical resistance. (Wikipedia)
All instruments detecting radiation are dependent on the temperature of the sensor. To imagine that there are two flows is a pure theoretical assumption; to imagine that there are two independent flows violates the second principle.
And you do not say anything about what is by far the most significant here :
Once again, the constant use of backradiations in climatology does not originate in thermodynamics but in its absence. The thermal gradient before feedbacks is fixed by hypothesis, the differences of temperature are thus fixed and then IR fluxes depend only on the IR opacity. In this context, backradiations can solve the system but it is not thermodynamics.
“All instruments detecting radiation are dependent on the temperature of the sensor.”
Then phi should explain how instruments detecting radiation from two independent sources that do not contain a thermometer actually work. The reason some commercial instruments use a thermometer is the same observational results were developed and calibrated at much lower cost.
Sure, just more phignoramus nonsense.
In fact all instruments detecting radiation and by far are not even bolometers that convert simply incident radiation into heat !!!
Detectors based on semiconductor devices such as InSb convert directly the incident photon into electric charge by creating electron hole pairs in a junction. No heat involved and the temperature of the detector is irrelevant as long as it is low enough to forbid sizable thermal excitation of electron hole pairs;
phi
I still do not see you being correct. First all established science on heat flow considers two flows of energy at a surface. Energy emitted and energy absorbed.
I have already discussed the radiant detectors with Kristian. He makes the same claim you are making about the IR detectors.
YOU: “All instruments detecting radiation are dependent on the temperature of the sensor. To imagine that there are two flows is a pure theoretical assumption; to imagine that there are two independent flows violates the second principle.”
If you read material on the subject you will find that the room temperature sensors are good to within a few watts/m^2 of super cooled detectors and much cheaper and easier to use and get nearly the same results.
In the past they super cooled sensors to get just a direct flow of energy to the sensor from the source in question.
If you have liquid helium for you coolant you will have almost no energy to the detector from anything but the source.
http://www.infraredlaboratories.com/Bolometers.html
I have no clue why you believe that a two-way flow of energy violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I have seen it stated by so many Skeptics but I have never seen a good explanation of why they strongly believe this to be true while mainstream science does not.
You misread or misunderstood, I never said that two-flow modeling violates the second principle. What violates the second principle is, in such a framework, to forget the strict dependency between the two flows.
This strict dependency is put aside in the quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect by forging the notion of radiative forcing. This is actually a trick that bypasses thermodynamics by hypothesising the temperature gradient. This hypothesis allows a non-thermodynamic resolution of the climate system on the basis of backradiations. It’s wily but arbitrary.
“What violates the second principle is, in such a framework, to forget the strict dependency between the two flows.”
There is no such dependency. The photons emitted from object A are independent from the photons emitted from object B in A’s view. At temperature equilibrium of the two objects, the independent photons emitted are balanced in the two hemispheres of directions (toward and away).
Yes, of course.
Moreover as with all phignoramus statements this one:
The fact is that the two hypothetical flows are never detected independently.
is again utterly wrong. Just plain ignorance.
Such a thing is done routinely in physics and the two flows are by no means “hypothetical” since they can be measured !
With a detector held at liquid helium temperature it’s own emission is completely negligible and one measures strictly only the energy flux emitted by any body at around room temperature or higher.
In this way one can infer the radiative energy flux from body 1 at temperature T1 to body 2 at temperature T2 by measuring body 1 and quite independently infer the radiative energy flux from body 2 at temperature T2 to body 1 at temperature T1 by measuring body 2.
phi
I agree with Ball4 and find nothing in current physics to disagree. Where do you find evidence for dependency between two flows of radiant energy. All sources clearly state that photons are independent entities and do not interact with each other.
What source of valid established science do you use to come up with this dependency of radiant energy flows?
As I stated above, how do you see objects if energy flows interact?
If you can link to a valid source of physics that supports your claim please do so, I would like to read about it. I have found nothing of the sort in any material I have read.
My dear Norman,
If there were two independent flows, you could concentrate the backradiations and use them to heat your home.
If you do not know how to do it, get help from Ball4 and gammacrux.
Good luck.
phi
Backradiation does heat your home when compared to much colder space. You would need a lot more energy and insulation to keep you warm at night if no backradiation did this for you.
Have you looked at Roy Spencer thread where he shows how fast night would cool without backradiation, so it is helping keep you warm at night.
The con-man attempts another con: “Back-radiation does heat your home when compared to much colder space.”
Notice “when compared to much colder space.”
Just one more attempted con.
phi
Go to this link. Roy does a simple calculation to show what would happen in summer without a Greenhouse effect (backradiation effect).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/why-summer-nighttime-temperatures-dont-fall-below-freezing/
Norman says, November 26, 2017 at 3:42 PM:
Hahahahaha! Another Norman gem! And the best part is, he doesn’t even see it himself … What a clown!
phi says, November 26, 2017 at 3:01 PM:
phi,
These people seriously believe that they experience two separate net (macroscopic) fluxes when immersed in a thermal radiation field (a photon gas/cloud) simply from facing in two different directions. They look toward the warmer object and “see” photons coming in. Then they turn around 180 degrees and look toward the cooler object and, don’t you know? they “see” photons coming in from there as well. Gosh! HAS TO be two SEPARATE macroscopic fluxes of radiative energy, then, right?
Where’s the sense of logic? I fail to comprehend how these people even made it through school.
“If there were two independent flows, you could concentrate the backradiations and use them to heat your home.”
No phi, the irradiation needs to be (very near) collimated as the suns rays are in order to bring them to a focus, diffuse radiation such as the night time sky shine can not be concentrated nor focused.
By virtue of being diffuse though, night sky shine is sure to be absorbed by your house from a hemisphere of directions unlike the narrow beam from the sun adding to a high enough number to make a difference in its T over that of space. Research cloudy v. clear sky night temperatures v. amount of DWIR.
“I fail to comprehend how these people even made it through school.”
There were lab courses which it seems Kristian must have skipped as he posts comments without the backing and learning benefit of doing field testing, observations or lab work.
Is this a photon gas/cloud made up of two separate and oppositely flowing radiative fluxes? Or have we just arbitrarily chosen two directions in which to look?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-1.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hulromsstrc3a5ling-2.png
Think it through, people. Pure logic. Two thoughts in your head at the same time. Try it.
norman…in your link to Roy’s experiment, he claims this: “Ive used a handheld IR thermometer to directly measure its effect (the temperature of the surface of a thermopile in the device increases as you scan from pointing straight up in a clear sky to pointing at an angle….”.
I think Roy is wrong here. There is no thermopile in hand-held IR scanners. They detect the frequency of incoming IR then compare it to a table in ROM of known temperatures for that frequency. More elaborate IR detectors used in astronomy cool the detectors so it can absorb IR from a cooler source. However, if the hand-held detector is warmer that the source, it won’t detect it.
Hand-held scanners do not respond to temperature change and when they indicate a temperature they are detecting the colour temperature, the temperature the source ‘would’ represent were the source a heated iron bar.
When physicist Craig Bohren pointed a temperature detector at clear sky, he got -50C. When he pointed it to clouds, he got around -3C. Neither of those temperatures is heating anything on the surface.
Gordon is wrong, not Roy. Gordon should obtain a basic IR thermometer; here is one and how it works:
Infrared (IR) thermometers work by focusing the infrared radiation emitted by a surface onto a detector called a thermopile. The thermopile turns the heat into electricity, which is measured and converted to a temperature reading. The reading is then displayed on an LCD display.
https://www.mokeyinternational.com/item/?id=B0093QIJEQ
Bohren p.26: “Later that same day, after sundown, as clouds thickened, the overhead brightness temperature had increased to 2-3C even though air temperatures had dropped.”
So what do you know, Bohren measures “something” did warm from adding more & cooler clouds. Perhaps Gordon should re-read his atm. radiation sources.
The answer as Bohren points out is “the difference between clear and cloudy skies lies in their emissivities. This difference lies mostly in the markedly different spectral emissivities of water vapor and of liquid water.”
norman…”I still do not see you being correct. First all established science on heat flow considers two flows of energy at a surface. Energy emitted and energy absorbed”.
Change that to “energy emitted ‘OR’ energy absorbed” and you have a point. Emission/absorp-tion is unlikely to happen between bodies of significantly different temperatures simultaneously.
Shows me an equation that suggests otherwise.
Gordon Robertson
I am trying to respond to your request but the censors on this blog are preventing the post. I will try and break it up to find the offending items.
Gordon Robertson
I would go by Kirchhoff’s Law. This is what it says for gray bodies (normal real world objects).
“It is worth noting that the emissivity does not appear in the radiation conservation law, but for black bodies, e = a = 1 and for any body in thermal equilibrium, e = a.”
emissivity (what a hot body emits) equals it absorbitivity at thermal equilibrium (temperature of neither object is changing).
Gordon Robertson
I think the problem is the tiny URL to the source material of the quotes so you can read it yourself.
https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=tightropetb&p=radiant+heat+transfer+between+objects&type=37781_062417
In this Yahoo search page, if you want to see my source click on the link “Introduction to Heat Transfer-University of Cincinnati”
Gordon Robertson
The same source also states:
“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”
norman…”I have no clue why you believe that a two-way flow of energy violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics”.
The 2nd law talks about HEAT transfer, not a generic energy, or EM. HEAT cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body without compensation. That applies equally to radiation as it does to conduction and convection.
The two way flow of energy is a flow of EM. Electromagnetic energy is NOT thermal energy. EM does not have heat as a property.
You cannot sum EM energies and claim they satisfy the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson
Is this the source of your posts? Andrew Mason talks almost identical to what you post.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/difference-between-ir-and-heat.836555/
barry says, November 24, 2017 at 5:38 PM:
Amazing.
I’ve answered this so many times now, barry. However, unlike Svante you apparently haven’t got the WILL to get what I’m saying. Either by just not reading it in the first place, or by going Lalalalalala, looks foreign, don’t understand, moving on.
# From the outset I’ve stressed the fact that thermal photons do indeed reach from the cooler object to the warmer. That has never been in dispute. And still you keep coming back to them as if they somehow prove you’re right and I’m wrong (or afraid to admit something) about the thermal (oh, yes, thermal) “impact” on ‘warm’ of radiation from ‘cool’.
# At the same time I have explained what a thermal photon gas/cloud is and how it works. A thermal photon gas/cloud is ALWAYS created and sustained by the TEMPERATURE (microscopic motions) of matter. The radiative energy contained by the photon gas/cloud is just THERE – contained. Individual photons pass in and out of the gas/cloud all the time, but the radiative energy ASSOCIATED WITH them doesn’t. There is simply no MOVEMENT of radiative energy inside the gas/cloud. Only a CONTENT of radiative energy. UNTIL you establish a GRADIENT of some sort THROUGH the photon gas/cloud. What kind of gradient? A gradient in (radiative) energy density (look it up), in associated radiation pressure (look it up), and in radiative intensity (look it up). Such a radiative gradient is always THERMALLY based. If parts of the photon gas/cloud span across a vacuum, there is STILL a spontaneously established, thermally controlled radiative gradient through it, from the warmer end/object to the cooler end/object. The MOVEMENT of radiative energy is the FLUX, and it always ‘falls’ DOWN the gradient only.
# Which is to say that the thermal photon gas/cloud, AND all the photons constituting it, are simply a thermal (BY)PRODUCT, not itself a driver or cause of anything.
# I have thus naturally gone on to say that it is a change in the cooler object’s TEMPERATURE that will “impact” the warmer object, not its thermal radiation. Its thermal radiation is itself directly impacted by the object’s temperature, just like the temperature of the opposing object is.
# Yes, the thermal radiation is definitely a useful TOOL for the cooler object to relay its message of a temperature increase to the warmer object across a vacuum, no doubt.
So why, then, is it so important to me to point out that it is in fact the TEMPERATURE and not the thermal radiation of the cooler object that “impacts” the warmer object? Isn’t this purely a matter of semantics, of ridiculous nitpicking? No. It makes all the difference. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Because if you think that the thermal radiation itself, a simple consequence of temperature, is in fact the ultimate “impactor” (the ‘driving force’ of change) here, then you will inevitably also end up thinking that “back radiation” from cool to warm is somehow the direct CAUSE of the warmer object having its temperature raised and therefore putting out more photons. And once you fall victim to such a warped thought process, that’s when you start defending the blatant violations of the 2nd Law habitually perpetrated by those who seek to EXPLAIN the “GHE” by way of atmospheric “back radiation”, simply because their explanation SOUNDS so reasonable to you, on the face of it.
But what you’re doing is simply mixing up a distinctly QUANTUM MECHANICAL phenomenon with an inherently THERMAL (thermodynamic) effect. You can’t do that.
I’m addressing a particular confused world view, barry. One that seems incapable of separating between the MICRO and the MACRO realms. That’s all. I’m not saying that an hypothetical “GHE” is itself in violation of the 2nd Law. Not at all.
It’s as simple as this:
You see the thermal radiation from cool (the ‘hammer’) and think you thereby see the cause of rising temps in warm (the nail being driven into the wall). And from a (too) narrow perspective, you’d be right. It IS the hammer actually and physically driving the nail into the wall. But it is only a TOOL of the real driver. There is no force in the hammer itself. The hammer is wielded BY someone. That someone (the cool TEMPERATURE) is what applies the force to drive the nail into the wall. It simply NEEDS the hammer in order to effectively execute its mission.
This is an essential distinction to make, barry. Otherwise you will remain confused as to cause and effect. You will think it’s somehow the opposing thermal radiation that causes the thermal effect, when it is in fact simply the opposing temperature, being the cause of the thermal radiation as well.
The atmosphere insulates the solar-heated surface by being WARMER THAN SPACE. Period.
“Individual photons pass in and out of the gas/cloud all the time, but the radiative energy ASSOCIATED WITH them doesn’t.”
is untested, incorrect assertion semantics disproved by observation:
“The atmosphere insulates the solar-heated surface by being WARMER THAN SPACE. Period.”
Supporting test data show real objects satisfying Planck’s experimental law limitations that are at higher temperatures (~235K, warmer atm.) emit independent EMR in each hemisphere of direction more energy than real objects at all frequencies at all colder temperatures (~3K, space) all the time.
Ball4
Yes that is what the established science is saying. So far nil on Kristian’s view. All sources so far clearly state photons move independently. Even in material with photon gas or clouds. Also, it seems the cloud is a distinct formation of EMR, required an enclosed space. This is because photons only interact with matter and require matter walls to create and sustain it. If you open the enclosure the photons are up up and away, none are returning to the surface. Similar analogy to a molecular gas cloud inside a container in space. Open the container and the cloud is gone the molecules move away from the container all of the them disperse the cloud is no more.
I do not know of where this gradient comes from in his hypothesis. There is no photon gradient, they all move away from the emitting surface and don’t interact at all, where does a gradient come from?
Norman,
There cannot be a gradient of energy density u in a photon gas in vacuum in contrast to an ordinary gas. Note that such a gradient in energy density would systematically imply a related gradient in temperature because u is a function of T.
The reason is very simple, a photon gas ( around room temperature) is stricto sensu an ideal gas, IR photons do not interact at all, do not undergo collisions. In other words the mean free path of an IR photon is infinite in vacuum, in practice here it is the distance L between the radiating bodies.
This is in sharp contrast with an ordinary gas such as air where the mean free path of a molecule is about 1000 A i.e. much much smaller than L. This permits to establish a local thermodynamic equilibrium and thus there exist a local temperature T(r) and local internal energy density u (r). In this way a temperature and internal energy gradient establish in ordinary thermal conduction in air between bodies at different temperatures.
Nothing like this is even remotely possible in the (out of equilibrium) photon gas in vacuum between bodies at different temperatures. Local temperature or energy density are meaningless concepts.
gammacrux
If photons are units of energy, then wouldn’t more photons within a particular volume mean the energy density has increased, even in a vacuum, where there would be no change in temperature?
In any case, I imagine a gradient in the NUMBER of photons extending away from an object with a higher temperature than it’s environment, simply as a function of geometry. The photons would spread out with distance…….more closer, less farther away from the source.
That’s in contrast to Eli’s imaginary set-up, where the energy emitted by the two plates radiates in parallel lines, rather than moving apart. Here, there’s no reason for emitted photons to create any kind of gradient.
gammacrux
Thanks for you thoughtful post. These are the type that are useful and informative.
Sir Isaac,
Certainly when considering a radiating source such as the sun energy conservation merely demands that (if there is no absor.ption) the number of photons decreases as the inverse squared distance from source. Simple geometry as you rightly notice yet such a radiation field is not at all a photon gas with well defined meaningful global or local thermodynamic properties. There is indeed a gradient in local density of photons and energy but these things are by no means a thermodynamic internal energy, nor is there any meaningful concept of temperature or useful concept of photon gas even remotely associated with this. Only the emitting body has well defined thermodynamic quantities.
Eli’s set up, for pedagogic reasons, just avoid’s this kind of “gradient” and relevant complications with his infinite plate geometry.
The concept of a photon gas, with associated global thermodynamic quantities such as temperature, pressure, internal energy and entropy is basically only useful and meaningful at thermodynamic equilibrium. That’s just the radiation that builds up in a cavity held at uniform temperature T. The global equilibrium can be reached by means of the photons interacting with the walls, yet local thermodynamic equilibrium (since photons do not “collide” in a vacuum) is meaningless even at global equilibrium.
Radiation transfer between bodies at different temperatures, in contrast, is definitely a problem of out of equilibrium thermodynamics not equilibrium thermodynamics. Since there is then neither global nor usually local thermodynamic equilibrium among photons the mere concept of a photon gas (in contrast to the situation in an ordinary gas) is inappropriate.
That’s why the appropriate way to address radiation transfer be it in a star or in an atmosphere must invoke the work by K. Schwarzschild summarized in Schwarzschild’s equation.
Sorry, one should read
The concept of a photon gas, with associated global thermodynamic quantities such as temperature, pressure, internal energy and entropy is basically only useful and meaningful at thermodynamic equilibrium. That’s just the radiation that builds up in a cavity held at uniform temperature T. The global equilibrium can be reached by means of the photons interacting with the walls, yet local thermodynamic equilibrium (since photons do not “collide” in a vacuum) is meaningless even at global equilibrium.
Radiation transfer between bodies at different temperatures, in contrast, is definitely a problem of out of equilibrium thermodynamics not equilibrium thermodynamics. Since there is then neither global nor usually local thermodynamic equilibrium among photons the mere concept of a photon gas (in contrast to the situation in an ordinary gas) is inappropriate.
That’s why the appropriate way to address radiation transfer be it in a star or in an atmosphere must invoke the work by K. Schwarzschild summarized in Schwarzschild’s equation.
Gammacrux
Thanks. I see I need to do some homework.
It’s been a pattern. Every small idea I come across in science seems to be attached to a whole subject I’m ignorant of.
Sir Isaac,
Well it took mankind centuries to work out and grasp such ideas. And it takes years to learn them and get a trained physicist.
gamma…”The concept of a photon gas, with associated global thermodynamic quantities such as temperature, pressure, internal energy and entropy is basically only useful and meaningful at thermodynamic equilibrium”.
You left out the most important parameter in statistical mechanics, the probability factor. I know you were referring to thermodynamics quantities but in the context of photon clouds, you are talking statistical mechanics. The basis of statistical mechanics is probability.
Planck pointed out that once a probability factor is applied to thermodynamic quantities, the science cannot be visualized. I think that is the weakness in statistical mechanics, that the science is reliant purely on math with no reality to back it. Boltzmann tried to prove the 1nd law using statistical mechanics and failed.
I think the reason he failed is obvious. Hhe did not have the information at the time about electrons and their role in absorp-tion/emission of EM. He presumed a two way transfer of heat between bodies of different temperature and he was wrong. No one has proved heat is transferred two ways between bodies of different temperature and the Stefan-Boltzman equation does not do that. Stefan admitted the equation could not be proved experimentally.
Also, what is entropy in reality? Planck associated entropy with probability but in his book I did not see him explain what he meant by it. Clausius, who coined the term was very clear that entropy is the sum of infinitesimal change in heat into or out of a body at the temperature T, at which those changes take place. Form what I read in Planck’s book on heat, he had modified the definition of Clausius.
Entropy has no values to speak of, it is either zero for a reversible process or +ve for an irreversible process. Exactly how does one relate entropy to probability in statistical mechanics when entropy has such a loose definition?
gamma…”Here, theres no reason for emitted photons to create any kind of gradient”.
I agree. A gradient, like a temperature gradient, would only apply to matter, not EM. If you have a temperature gradient in a solid, there is a gradient of heat change atom to atom. In a gas like our atmosphere, gravity creates a pressure gradient which translates to a temperature gradient in an idealized system.
I am not comfortable with the notion of a photon cloud or gas. Photons were invented to particalize EM and I think they are carrying the concept of EM as particles way too far. No one knows as yet whether EM is a wave or a particle front.
Of course what we have yet to learn is whether seemingly empty space is really empty. There was a debate between Einstein and Dayton Miller to that effect circa 1930, Miller claiming space is not empty, calling it an aether through which EM could propagate. Einstein conceded that if Miller is right, then his theory of relativity is wrong.
Very recently, studies have proposed that empty space may be teeming with neutrinos.
gammacrux says, November 27, 2017 at 5:15 AM:
No, such a scope is way too narrow. There is ALWAYS a photon gas/cloud. Simply by virtue of there BEING photons. Whenever there are photons within some region of space. Just like, whenever there are gazillions of water droplets gathered, they make a water cloud. Just like, whenever there are gazillions of air molecules gathered, they end up forming … air. It really isn’t much more complicated than that.
The photon gas/cloud concept is simply based on the realisation that once you move from the MICRO to the MACRO realm, there are no longer any individual photons to see or track. You only ‘see’ a gas or cloud of them. The total of ALL the photons moving through and/or filling some macroscopic part of space. I really don’t know why this should be so hard to fathom.
“An important related point is that photons are everywhere. That is, because all matter radiates, it is literally impossible to have a region of space that is free of photons. In this sense, the photon gas has the distinction of being ubiquitous, another point that can pique the intellectual curiosity of students.”
http://users.df.uba.ar/arbo/PhotonGasAJP.pdf
It seems a common mistake, that there is no water droplets unless they are in clouds.
Kristian exactly how relevant is this to any of the situations in question? You unfortunately seem to have gone missing in action with regard to the the thread above regarding the Eli Rabbit thought experiment.
Consequently do your ruminations about photon gases in cavities have any bearing upon the analysis of the blue and green plates? In particular does it address your belief that the increase in temperature of the blue plate does not result in an accompanying increase in the internal energy of the blue plate?
I know it is hard for Kristian to face the cold hard truth that, in this context, the colder green plate is increasing the temperature and internal energy of the warmer blue plate.
Maybe Kristian’s avoidance and obfuscation with photon gases is also due to the possibility of him having to face the wrath of Joe Postma for letting the side down. This is totally understandable as Joe’s tantrum are legendary as evidenced by the content of Joe’s wonderful Web site (just ask Roy Spencer) .
Just putting it out there.
miker fantasizes: “I know it is hard for Kristian to face the cold hard truth that, in this context, the colder green plate is increasing the temperature and internal energy of the warmer blue plate.”
The green plate can NOT increase the temperature of the blue plate. miker is just now starting to learn, but he has problems with attention span. He keeps wandering off on Monty Python, dragons, etc.
MikeR says, November 28, 2017 at 7:06 AM:
What “situations” are you referring to?
I’m afraid that rather than going MIA, I have never taken part in that particular “action” in the first place. I see that some folks are DESPERATE for me to join in and comment and give my opinion, like barry. But I find it a complete waste of time, so will not. Let’s rather discuss the real-world relationship between the solar-heated surface of the Earth and the massive atmosphere resting on top of it, insulating it.
I have no idea. Since I don’t know what the issue is about and frankly don’t care. However, it DOES have a bearing on – in fact, it is essential to – the relationship that I’m discussing.
And a photon gas/cloud doesn’t just exist in a cavity. Just like a blackbody also doesn’t just exist in a cavity. It’s the ideal instructive case. The starting point. To make people understand what it’s all about.
What? Blue plate, blue plate. It seems you forgot a green plate somewhere. Either way, I think you’ve got me mixed up with someone else here, MikeR. I’m not saying that a cooler object getting warmer won’t affect the U and T of an already warmer (and constantly heated) one. Insulation works.
It’s all about how you EXPLAIN the process.
No, the less cool PRESENCE of the colder green plate forces energy to accumulate inside the warmer (and constantly heated) blue plate. Because less moves OUT. If that’s the setup you’re talking about.
A rising temperature of a constantly heated object from insulating it doesn’t work by even more energy being ADDED to the (warmer) insulated object from the (cooler) insulating layer. That would be exactly equivalent to what we call HEATING. And explaining it like that would directly violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Notice, the thermodynamic process of insulation ITSELF doesn’t violate the 2nd Law. But describing it as if it were instead the thermodynamic process of HEATING does …
Again, MikeR, you’re obviously mixing me up with someone else. Postma is an idiot who doesn’t understand at all how insulation works:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/postmas-confusion/
It simply appears you don’t know (or understand) what I’m talking about, MikeR.
Kristian it appears your web site has been hacked.
It contains as of September 2, gushing praise for Joe Postmas understanding of thermodynamics. This was the basis of my misunderstanding of your relationship with Joe. I think you need to check the security settings on you blog but I am surprised you have not noticed the obvious hack.
I am glad you still think Joe is an idiot . Please convey this message to g*e*r*a*n.
In your comment that launched a new thread you stated- A cooler system can NEVER (!!!!) directly make a warmer system even warmer by adding energy to it.
Kristian again I must apologize I missed the word directly in your comment. Perhaps you should have also put this word in capitals with accompanying exclamation marks. Unfortunately , my attention span is limited due to the dementia induced by my exchanges with g*e*r*a*n * and I have had difficulty sorting through the 6500 comments that accompany the past 2 months discussions of UAH temperatures.
To cut to the chase , we agree that the green plate causes the temperature and energy to increase.
However you avoid using EM radiation physics? Why? It provides a perfectly adequate explanation for both heating and insulation. The closest you get is your introduction to photon gas which appears to merely a smoke screen to obfuscate. The use of energy balances, Stefan- Boltzmann equation is straight forward despite some peoples inability to add numbers up.
In the end your objection to the word heat also seems to be philosophically based. The reality as is that temperature and energy of the blue plate increases due the green plate but according to you heat is not involved. In practice it is not really important what you want to call it (insulation, heating or whatever). I have to repeat the line again. A rose smells just as sweet irrespective of what you call it.
p.s. Regarding your statement – Im afraid that rather than going MIA, I have never taken part in that particular action in the first place.
This is particularly curious, in that your comments started the entire lengthy thread which evolved into a discussion regarding plates which you also participated in! It appears I am not the only one that has memory lapses.
Kristian
Thanks for that. It’s fun to look for holes in your hypothesis – a different take on “where’s Waldo?”.
You wrote:
“UNTIL you establish a GRADIENT of some sort THROUGH the photon gas/cloud. What kind of gradient? A gradient in (radiative) energy density (look it up), in associated radiation pressure (look it up), and in radiative intensity (look it up). Such a radiative gradient is always THERMALLY based. If parts of the photon gas/cloud span across a vacuum, there is STILL a spontaneously established, thermally controlled radiative gradient through it, from the warmer end/object to the cooler end/object. The MOVEMENT of radiative energy is the FLUX, and it always falls DOWN the gradient only.”
Yes, there will always be more photons moving in one direction (left to right) than the other way around. OTOH, once a steady state is reached, the distribution of photons between the two objects is exactly the same, even though the two objects have different temperatures.
So where’s the gradient?????
There is no difference in energy level from one end to the other! Same number of photons next to the green plate as next to the blue plate.
Try again.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 26, 2017 at 1:45 PM:
Your thought process on this whole thing is all warped and confused.
Snape, how many times have I shown you this?
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/radiation-sfc-atm.png
The gradient (hence, the net movement of radiative energy) is found across each singular point of the radiation field. The probabilistic average of all photon directions and frequencies through each point. This is standard radiative transfer theory, Snape.
In what direction will the net photon momentum, the net radiation pressure, the net radiative intensity through the field point?
Of course the gradient looks different in a vacuum than in a material medium. But it is still thermally BASED.
Kristian
I wrote, “Yes, there will always be more photons moving in one direction (left to right) than the other way around.”
This is true at any point between the two objects. It is ALSO true that each point has exactly the same number of photons, hence the same energy level.
There is no difference in “energy density”, or “radiative intensity”, as you explained it, between any two points within the two objects. EVERY POINT IS EXACTLY THE SAME.
So if by “gradient”, you simply mean more photons are moving from left to right than from right to left, then DUH, I agree.
(More accurately, each point would have “on average” the same number of photons.)
So if by gradient, you simply mean more photons are moving from left to right than from right to left, then DUH, I agree.
And if any of the ridiculous morons spouting their bullshit day after day here indeed really “means” such a thing it’s tremendously hilarious !
Since a photon carries energy, it implies that more radiative energy is moving from left to right than moving from right to left?
But wait, the energy moving from right to left is a counter flowing flux of energy from hot to cold !!!!
A thing that doesn’t exist according to the ridiculous dimwits !
So funny.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says, November 26, 2017 at 3:36 PM:
Thank you. You have just confirmed what I’ve been saying all along. There aren’t two oppositely flowing macroscopic FLUXES inside one and the same thermal radiation field. There are simply two opposing DIRECTIONS in which you happen to look, being immersed in the thermal radiation field in question.
If you’ll notice, the individual photons do NOT all fly either directly upward or directly downward, like inside collimated laser beams. This is THERMAL radiation we’re talking about here. There’s NOT just two directions for thermally emitted photons to fly in. They fly everywhere, in all spatial directions, completely random. Many of them are even directly absorbed again by the matter that emitted them just before.
In order for you to ‘see’ two opposing macroscopic fluxes, you will HAVE TO choose two opposing spatial directions in which to look. IOW, you will HAVE TO mentally divide the thermal radiation field into two hemispheres:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/radiation-sfc-atm.png
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/radiation-sfc-atm.png
This is where you go all wrong in your thinking. When it comes to RADIATIVE transport, direction is part of the analysis. For each spatial point of the thermal radiation field, there’s always a higher energy density, a higher associated radiation pressure, and a higher radiative intensity coming IN from the warmer side than from the cooler side – there’s a thermally driven radiative “gradient” across the point.
https://tinyurl.com/yc3rshmq
(Michael F. Modest: 1.16, pp.27-28)
“The evaluation of radiative energy transport follows a similar pattern: Knowledge of radiative properties is required (emittance ϵ, a.b.s.o.r.p.t.a.n.c.e α, and reflectance ρ, in the case of surfaces, as well as a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n coefficient κ and scattering coefficient σ_s for semitransparent media), and the law of conservation of energy is applied to determine the energy field. Two major differences exist between conduction/convection and thermal radiation that make the analysis of radiative transport somewhat more complex: (i) Unlike their thermophysical counterparts, radiative properties may be functions of direction as well as of wavelength, and (ii) the basic variable appearing in the law of conservation of radiative energy, the radiative transfer equation introduced in the previous section, is not temperature but radiative intensity, which is a function not only of location in space (as is temperature), but also of direction. Only after the intensity field has been determined can the local temperatures (as well as the radiative heat flux vector) be calculated.”
(My boldface.)
Kristian
You: “there’s a thermally driven radiative “gradient” across the point.”
What????
Let’s say we have 10 objects lined up. The first radiates at 200 w/m2. The second at 201 w/m2. The third at 202 w/m2, ……and so on. This would be an example of a radiative gradient across ten points. It is directional – left is lower, right is higher.
With this in mind, what on earth is a radiative gradient across “the point”?
Do you think a gradient is created just because more photons move in one direction than the other?
Kristian says,
“Thank you. You have just confirmed what Ive been saying all along. There arent two oppositely flowing macroscopic FLUXES inside one and the same thermal radiation field. There are simply two opposing DIRECTIONS in which you happen to look, being immersed in the thermal radiation field in question.”
????????
The blue plate radiates energy to the green plate. The green plate radiates energy to the blue.
They are independent and non interfering one-way flows.
The blue plate is always warmer, so the difference between the two creates a NET FLOW from blue to green.
Isaac, you seem interested in physics, but get a lot of it wrong. You would benefit by taking a good freshman level class on the subject.
David
Yes. I’m thinking about taking an entry physics and/or chemistry course at our local community college.
Kristian wrote:
“In what direction will the net photon momentum, the net radiation pressure, the net radiative intensity through the field point?”
“Net” is the sum of two different fluxes: to and fro.
Energy flows both ways. Net flow is the difference. Very basic physics.
As I have said the TEST is on by next summer we will see.
Yes – have have said this … and said it … and said it …
What is the point of continuing to say it?
Especially when I KNOW you are going to use La Nina cooling to support your claim, despite saying you won’t.
I looking for some reference about amount earthshine.
But came across older article: Published 4:00 am, Friday, May 28, 2004
And wondering whether you use it:
“Now a team of scientists at a California observatory is monitoring Earth’s ever-changing albedo with a highly sophisticated telescope and instruments that precisely measure the intensity of earthshine on the crescent moon night after night.
The scientists see the earthshine effect as a kind of sentinel, warning that the pace of global warming may have speeded up in recent years. ” And
“But scientists have not been able to explain why the albedo brightened the last three years, he said. ”
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Earthshine-could-shed-light-on-global-warming-2772188.php
“He and his colleagues continue to monitor the changes in earthshine at the Big Bear Solar Observatory, located on an island in Big Bear Lake, 6,500 feet high in the San Bernardino Mountains and 75 miles northeast of Los Angeles. They share their data in a network with other scientists at a similar Ukrainian solar observatory in the Crimea and another in Yunnan, China.
With NASA support, Goode’s team is also testing a “robot” telescope equipped to measure earthshine precisely and automatically each month. The group hopes to place eight of the robots at solar observatories around the world to form a global network for continuous earthshine observations, he said. ”
And wonder if they actually did this over last dozen years.
April 7th, 2016
“Somehow, strangely, even though Life on Earth depends on calculating our Energy Balance, the golden river of climate gravy is not running through the land of Earthshine research. The researchers shifted from a meagre one telescope up to two in 2006. Theres a big gap in the global data in Figure 2 when that happened (see below). But even two telescopes are barely adequate. Palle et al estimate that with eight automatic robotic stations they could achieve 2 3 times the precision they have now. But while we can find funds to subsidize 225,000 wind towers, we cant afford to do the proper basic research that might tell us whether we needed those 225,000 wind towers. Crony-renewables anyone?”
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/04/earthshine-reflected-off-the-moon-shows-no-trend-during-the-pause/
Well appears to have added one.
Of course a satellite could probably do better job and could be cheaper.
“Abstract: Proposal Summary The Earth’s albedo has been measured from space for a quarter century using carefully calibrated data from weather satellites (International Satellite Cloud Climate Project -ISCCP), from the ground for more than a decade (Project Earthshine) and over more recent years from satellites like CERES. Changing cloudiness is the dominant factor in terrestrial re-flectance variability -a critical climate parameter. New generation cloud data products, such as the ISCCP-FD, open the opportunity to fundamentally ad-vance inter-comparisons among cloud data, so that at last we can determine the true role of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) in the evolution of cloud cover, and their effect on the Earth’s reflectance and climate. At the same time, the inter/comparison of multiple datasets may solve the inconsistencies among the albedo data, such as those between ISCCP-FD and CERES mea-sures of global albedo changes. We propose to examine and model earthshine data from our two station robotic network (Big Bear, CA and Tenerife and Canary Islands) to compare and cal-ibrate with cloud cover data from satellites to deter-mine the evolution in cloud cover as a function of al-titude through an entire solar cycle of GCRs. It is es-sential to know the relative roles of such changes in the terrestrial energy …”
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/12041761_E_Palle
Do you have a copy of this paper? If so, what does it say about the albedo trend?
I’d be surprised if the albedo wasn’t decreasing, because of melting ice. I’ve been curious for a long time what the trend in albedo actually is.
More than half of sunlight arrives in 40% of earth surface which is the tropics.
More watts and a greater intensity of sunlight.
When I was thinking about a 100 meter copper cube at 1 AU, I realized that the cube side facing the sun also has more watts and greater intensity of sunlight.
Or everywhere on the cube side facing the sun has the sun at zenith.
Now I would say a rotating sphere is more like cube with one side facing the sunlight- more watts and a greater intensity of sunlight as compare to sphere which doesn’t rotate in relationship to the sun.
And with rotating sphere it’s region near where the sun is at and near zenith [the tropics] which get most watts and most intense sunlight.
Any how at moment I am wondering about intensity of sunlight and photon gas.
Do anyone have any comments about that?
Meanwhile, David mentioned the effective sunlight reaching a sphere. That’s useful term because I want to talk about the ineffective sunlight reaching a sphere.
A non rotating sphere has more effective and “ineffective” sunlight reaching it as compare to a cube.
100 meter cube: 10000 square meter of very effective sunlight
vs 100 diameter sphere: 31415.93 / 2 = 15707.96 square meter of effective and “ineffective” sunlight.
David said 1/4. Or the effective area of 100 diameter sphere is 7854 square meter leaving 7854 square meter “ineffective”.
One could argue about it, I would say simply there more “ineffective” area, though one could add up the non zero areas to increase area being effective.
But if area “unadjusted” one has larger area which ineffective
and want to count or consider or compared the effect of “photon gas effect” of sunlight in effective area vs ineffective area.
Please define “ineffective sunlight”.
Des
I think that’s my fault. In some past comments to gbaikie/Gordon I brought up this idea:
If a square was facing directly towards the sun, the angle of light it received would be at a 90 degree angle – most effective.
What if you then rounded the square’s corners and bent it backwards such that it formed a sphere? Light would fall on a much greater surface area, but the added area wouldn’t at all increase the total energy the object recieves. More surface would be illuminated but the angle of sunlight would be less effective at heating.
Des
i realize “angle of incidence” is a very common idea and something you know a lot more about than me.
— Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
November 27, 2017 at 8:41 AM
Des
I think thats my fault. In some past comments to gbaikie/Gordon I brought up this idea:
If a square was facing directly towards the sun, the angle of light it received would be at a 90 degree angle most effective. —
If Earth was flat, and if the sun was at zenith at a location, it would at zenith in all the locations of this flat earth.
Or every 15 longitude on our spherical planet has a difference [in relation to the sun] of an hour.
There is 360 degree of circle/sphere and 360 / 24 hours is 15.
“What if you then rounded the squares corners and bent it backwards such that it formed a sphere? Light would fall on a much greater surface area, but the added area wouldnt at all increase the total energy the object recieves. More surface would be illuminated but the angle of sunlight would be less effective at heating.”
I would say you could add 8 odd corners to a sphere you can get a cube. And most of the mass of cube is a sphere within it.
And if you heating into a the body of a cube the energy will radiate as a sphere.
And such things would related to the question, what would be the average temperature of a 100 meter solid cube of copper
at 1 AU distance from the sun if one side of cube faced the sun?
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
“What if you then rounded the squares corners and bent it backwards such that it formed a sphere? Light would fall on a much greater surface area, but the added area wouldnt at all increase the total energy the object recieves. More surface would be illuminated but the angle of sunlight would be less effective at heating.”
This is a very simple problem that is discussed in every climate science textbook in the world in Chapter 2.
For a stationary planet the effective TSI is S/2. For a rotating planet it’s S/4.
David
I felt stupid for stating the obvious. That’s why I added, “Des,
I realize “angle of incidence” is a very common idea and something you know a lot more about than me.”
David
BTW, I mentioned earlier that I think a rotating sphere would be warmer than a stationary one because a rotating sphere would constantly present a cooler surface – increasing rate of heat transfer.
But what does ROTATION (other than being wobbly) have to do with IRRADIANCE?
I asked you for an explanation or a link and haven’t seen one yet.
I suspect you don’t know what you’re talking about.
David
I guessed that if 1/2 of a sphere is illuminated, an equal amount of energy would fall on the face of a circle of equal diameter, if it was facing directly towards the light source.
Correct or not?
David
You’re not understanding the problem. I was comparing the total energy a cube would receive from the sun (shining directly on one of it’s sides), compared to a sphere of equal height/diameter.
My answer: the sphere would receive 78.54 % of what the cube receives.
Rotation, absorb – tion, etc. have nothing at all to do with this comparison. It’s only about geometry……. angle of light/surface area.
Basically, a 10″ cube would receive the same total energy as a 10″ square. Likewise, a 10″ diameter sphere would receive the same as a 10″ diameter circle. Only two dimensions are relevant.
Again, sorry if I’m stating the obvious.
Isaac:
If a planet of radius R is rotating:
The sunlight hitting the sunny side is S*pi*R^2, where S is TSI. The albedo A reflects back A times this, so the amount absorbed by the planet is (1-A)*S*pi*R^2.
This is distributed over the planet’s entire surface, which has area 4*pi*R^2. So the “effective sunlight” per unit area is
(1-A)*S*pi*R^2/(4*pi*R^2) = (1-A)S/4
A simple climate model then sets this equal to sigma*T^4 and solves for T.
Sir Isaac Snapelton says:
“BTW, I mentioned earlier that I think a rotating sphere would be warmer than a stationary one because a rotating sphere would constantly present a cooler surface increasing rate of heat transfer.”
It depends on how well the planet distributes heat to its dark side, which requires something more than a simple TSI consideration. For example, the Moon’s dark side is 90-100 K.
I go through a calculation for the Moon here, and derive an average equatorial temperature of 212, indeed much lower than Earth’s.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
“But what does ROTATION (other than being wobbly) have to do with IRRADIANCE?”
Because it means all of the planet’s surface (and not just half) receives the heat provided by TSI.
ineffective sunlight is not or less effective sunlight.
definition of prefix: 1n- is:
“Prefixes are key morphemes in English vocabulary. The prefix in, which means in, on, or not, appears in numerous English vocabulary words, for example: inject, influx, and insane. Prefixes do tend to have different meanings, which can be divined by context, common sense, and the process of elimination.” Or:
“in-
not or no: used with some adjectives and nouns
inoffensive
inaction (=lack of action)”
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/in_4
Or as said the term “effective sunlight” as used by David Apell is was useful.
If understand effective sunlight, I coin a word/term
ineffective sunlight. [by adding prefix in- ].
So understand the term “effective sunlight” and can you understand the term “ineffective sunlight”
Just in case, the word “term” means:
“a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept, especially in a particular kind of language or branch of study.”
Here something related to “effective sunlight”:
“Given the theoretical maximum of daytime duration for a given location, there is also a practical consideration at which point the amount of daylight is sufficient to be treated as a “sunshine hour”. “Bright” sunshine hours represent the total hours when the sunlight is stronger than a specified threshold, as opposed to just “visible” hours. “Visible” sunshine, for example, occurs around sunrise and sunset, but is not strong enough to excite the sensor. Measurement is performed by instruments called sunshine recorders. For the specific purpose of sunshine duration recording, CampbellStokes recorders are used, which use a spherical glass lens to focus the sun rays on a specially designed tape. When the intensity exceeds a pre-determined threshold, the tape burns. The total length of the burn trace is proportional to the number of bright hours.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_duration
The big slide in renewable energy tells the real story
No, renewables are not taking over the world anytime soon.
Guest essay by Bjrn Lomborg
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/26/the-big-slide-in-renewable-energy-tells-the-real-story/
“Oh, and to achieve this 3.7 % of energy from solar PV and wind, you and I and the rest of the world will pay according to the IEA a total of $3.6 trillion in subsidies from 2017-2040 to support these uncompetitive energy sources. (Of course, if they were competitive, they wouldnt need subsidies, and then they will be most welcome.)”
And:
–Jim Hansen, put it bluntly:
Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and [the] Tooth Fairy.–
What could you do with 3.7 trillion dollars?
One thing you do is not take 3.7 trillion from poor people.
What has been done with such vast wealth, is Apollo, Shuttle, and ISS programs. Plus hundreds other various things like a flyby of Pluto. Plus have a lot pocket change left over.
What could be done in future is exploring the lunar polar poles to determine if and where there is commercially minable lunar and explore Mars to determine if and where there could be towns on Mars. That could done in same time period and cost .2 of trillion dollars.
So that’s 3.7 / .2 = 18.5 so 1/18th the cost.
That just US, Europe and others [India, Japan, China] could have lunar bases and other things on the Moon and if spend way too much money it might cost as much a .2 trillion over same time period [2017-2040]. Such things could even make money [these countries are socialist and think business should be run by a government- as for example with Arianespace, which used to be largest commercial satellite launch service. SpaceX:
“By November 2014, SpaceX had “already begun to take market share”[23] from Arianespace. Eutelsat CEO Michel de Rosen said, in reference to ESA’s program to develop the Ariane 6 ”
“A 2017 industry-wide view by SpaceNews reported: By 5 July 2017, SpaceX had launched 10 payloads during a bit over 6 months”outperform[ing] its cadence from earlier years”and “is well on track to hit the target it set last year of 18 launches in a single year.” By comparison, “France-based Arianespace, SpaceXs chief competitor for commercial telecommunications satellite launches, is launching 11 to 12 times a year using its fleet of three rockets the heavy-lift Ariane 5, medium-lift Soyuz and light-lift Vega.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition
Anyhow, it crazy for governments to spend as much 3.7 trillion within time period of 2017-2040. But at small fraction of such a cost government spending could result in commercial lunar water mining and people living on Mars due to the governments exploring the Moon and then Mars.
I just posted this upthread for MikeR to see, but I thought others might appreciate the irony too:
Joseph Postma wrote a book called, “Slaying the Sky Dragon.”
Interestingly, when I did a google search for Don Quixote/Dragons, this link showed up:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills
Coincidence?
You can’t kill the stupid.
“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”
-Albert Einstein
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
– Albert Einstein
“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/stupidity
Humans are most dangerous creature on the planet Earth-
perhaps, in the universe.
And having the terrifying weapon of being stupid.
“Mostly harmless” is being excessively optimistic.
David Appell…”Gordon Robertson says:
Kinetic energy is a generic energy representing energy in motion. The energy can be chemical energy, mechanical energy, electrical energy, thermal energy and so on.
This is the dumbest thing youve ever written.
Kinetic energy is the energy in movement. Period. It is not electrical energy (whatever that is), chemical energy, nuclear energy, etc.”
***********
Electrical energy??? When you pay the electrical utility for your electrical power, what are you pay for??? Electrical energy!!!
Kinetic energy works in tandem with potential energy. If you have a boulder sitting on a cliff, it represents potential energy. If you push it off the cliff it has kinetic energy as it falls.
A boulder will not move itself back onto a cliff. There is a potential energy gradient it cannot overcome. The same PE gradient is involved with heat transfer.
If you have electrons stored in a battery that is not attached to a circuit, they represent potential energy. If you connect the battery to a circuit and turn on the switch, the electrons move and have kinetic energy.
Kinetic energy applies to the form of energy in question. Speaking of heat as kinetic energy is a generic reference to thermal energy. In the case of heat, kinetic energy is the motion of atoms/molecules, whether freely in a gas or as vibrations in the bonds in a solid.
In an electrical circuit, kinetic energy is basically the motion of electrons in a conductor and devices since nothing else is moving. The electrons have a charge but they also generate heat through collisions with atoms. In a copper conductor, the resistance is very low and not much heat is generated. However, in a resistor, there is considerable resistance and the electrons generate considerable heat.
You plainly fail to understand physics at the atomic level. Your ignorance is blatant, yet you continue to talk as if you understand energy. You’re a plain idiot.
Where did you get to Gordon? Was it something I said?
Waiting for your reply to my “hockey stick” link in the IPCC AR5 report.
Energy is more than kinetic or potential, Gordon.
You write like your only physics class was in 6th grade. Continue to keep your head buried, or you might learn something from people (most everyone) who knows more than you.
GR wrote:
“Speaking of heat as kinetic energy is a generic reference to thermal energy. In the case of heat, kinetic energy is the motion of atoms/molecules, whether freely in a gas or as vibrations in the bonds in a solid.”
IR is also heat. Of course.
It seems that Gordon believes that in a piece of electrical wire that is not connected to a voltage source, all the free electrons sit frozen in place.
Gordon also believes that a battery works by “storing electrons”.
I wonder how Gordon thinks burning gasoline creates heat. He must think it comes from the kinetic energy of gasoline molecules….
Look out below global temperatures should be at or below 30 year means by next summer.
In the meantime this winter will be wild and extreme due to -qbo/low solar combination. -AO/-NAO
SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES will continue to fall overall,- now at +.275c
Major volcanic activity ,global cloud coverage, snow coverage should increase.
Solar is finally entrenched in the values I said is needed to have a climatic impact following x years of sub – solar activity in general.
How long do you expect this solar effect will last?
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/data/english/long_term_sst_global/global_rngmn_e.png
salvatore del prete says:
March 10, 2013 at 1:16 PM
“By post 2014, like I have been saying, the temp. decline will become firmly established.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2013-0-18-deg-c/#comment-71361
Salvatore, dude – you’ve got to stop making predictions for crying out loud. I can’t believe you’re still doing it. No one knows what’s going to happen in year, two years, 5 years, or 50 years.
Sal does it to bother davie.
And, it works every time!
Kristian wrote:
“The photon gas/cloud concept is simply based on the realisation that once you move from the MICRO to the MACRO realm, there are no longer any individual photons to see or track. You only see a gas or cloud of them. The total of ALL the photons moving through and/or filling some macroscopic part of space. I really dont know why this should be so hard to fathom.”
You’ve completely utterly failed to produce any experimental or observational evidence of what you claim.
Completely.
David Appell
I agree with you. The photon gas Kristian talks about exists in a heated cavity.
If you look at the definition of gas it does not fit for a hot object, with no surroundings, to have a photon gas. All the photons are moving away. None are colliding and heading back to the surface to be reabsorbed. Once emitted by the surface they move away. You have a macroscopic flow of energy away from the hot object that is measurable.
In the gas definition they explain the macroscopic and microscopic world views.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas
The energy flow away from the object is a macroscopic flow of energy similar to what pressure would be in a molecular gas, can be observed at the macroscopic scale.
If you have another hot object it will also produce a similar one-way flux of energy away from this object. If the first object is in view of the 2nd, it will absorb macroscopic energy from this object. I read Kristian’s posts often but cannot find any established physics that supports his view. I went to his link above and it also shows the same two-way flux. A surface will emit a macroscopic flow of energy away from its surface and it will absorb a macroscopic flow of energy from the surroundings. The flows from the objects do not merge and affect each other. They move through each other with no interference, no exchange of energy, no redirection of photon flow. Two flows moving through each other continuously.
With a surface under an atmosphere, you have the atmosphere with clouds being another surface. Plus you have sun or sunlight being another surface.
norman…”I agree with you. The photon gas Kristian talks about exists in a heated cavity.
If you look at the definition of gas it does not fit for a hot object, with no surroundings, to have a photon gas”.
You mean a ‘theoretical’ heated cavity. The cavity refers to a cavity resonator which is another word for a blackbody. It’s all pure theory. It might work in most cases to describe an idealized situation but it can also lead to misunderstanding like heat being transferred both ways between a hotter and cooler body based on a generalized blackbody equation.
The definition of a gas is applicable to particles like atoms/molecules not to theorized entities like photons. No one knows if photons exist let alone photon clouds or photon gases.
By definition, a photon has momentum but no mass. How could a massless object form a gas?
I am sticking to the age-old definition of EM as a wave of electromagnetic energy. I am not into the particle theory although statistical mechanics could not work with particalized EM.
GR wrote:
“….but it can also lead to misunderstanding like heat being transferred both ways between a hotter and cooler body based on a generalized blackbody equation.”
This is, of course, what happens. And neither you or Kristian have provided any evidence that it does not.
Nor have you two told us what property of a photon carries the temperature of its emitter, and how the photon “knows” not to be
absorbed by a warmer blackbody, or where the photon goes in such a circumstance.
norman…”A surface will emit a macroscopic flow of energy away from its surface and it will absorb a macroscopic flow of energy from the surroundings”.
Not at the same time in most situations.
If you placed a block of ice in the sun on a hot summer’s day, the ice molecules would be far too busy absorbing solar energy to emit much themselves.
Emission only occurs when electrons in the atoms are falling from higher energy levels to lower energy levels. If the ice is being bombarded with solar energy at say 70C, not to mention the surface heat transfer from surrounding air molecules, all the electrons in the atoms making up the ice would be busily jumping to higher energy levels. They would not emit energy till equilibrium was established or the water resulting from melted ice became warmer than the environment.
The equation you supplied tells you that.
Gordon Robertson says:
“If you placed a block of ice in the sun on a hot summers day, the ice molecules would be far too busy absorbing solar energy to emit much themselves.”
So you think looking at the ice with an infrared detector will show no ice whatsoever — that it’s invisible???
DA…”So you think looking at the ice with an infrared detector will show no ice whatsoever that its invisible???”
I am curious. If you have a block of ice sitting on a surface at 30C, being bombarded by solar energy that produces an ambient temperature of 30C in the atmosphere, while the 30C air attacks the ice conductively, would the ice show up?
I suppose on the one extreme that an iceberg would show up but would a small block of ice? If so, how much radiation would reach the IR detector. Would the image be very weak?
Interesting question.
The point, however, is that norman has an on-going theory that in a two way radiation transfer between a hotter and cooler body, that the hotter body must absorb the radiation from the cooler body. I don’t think it is absorbed but you likely do because your understanding of electron theory is lacking.
Gordon: Norman is correct, and you have no evidence whatsoever that he’s not correct.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It’s time you and Kristian stopped yapping and presented your evidence.
Gordon Robertson
I need to correct what you state incorrectly.
YOU: “The point, however, is that norman has an on-going theory that in a two way radiation transfer between a hotter and cooler body, that the hotter body must absorb the radiation from the cooler body. I dont think it is absorbed but you likely do because your understanding of electron theory is lacking.”
It is not my theory. I don’t need to make up my physics like you need to do. I will accept established science until it is proven wrong by some valid experiment.
Kirchhoff’s Law is the one that claims a hot object will absorb the incident radiant energy of a cooler body.
You really do not understand the heat transfer equation even though you post it. Gordon you are too biased against GHE to be rational or even try to get your science remotely accurate. You are so far gone on your understanding that there is nothing I know of that can fix your warped version of reality.
You have some cobbled memories of some science you took a long time ago but have no desire to learn new material. Probably not a lack of desire but a lack of ability. You are not mentally able to understand any of the concepts of moderns science (even though they are products of vast amounts of empirical testing and experiment) so you just reject them and pretend they are not real. Wave/particle duality is an accepted science fact based upon many many experiments. I have linked you to some of them. You are not able to understand the material.
You may be a kind-hearted old man but science is not your specialty. I think you do much better with your political arguments. These are based upon opinion and not empirical data. You can make up ideas all you want in politics. You are much more suited to politics than science.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Emission only occurs when electrons in the atoms are falling from higher energy levels to lower energy levels”
Wrong.
You’ve been told this many times. But you still want to be stupid.
Emissions also occur when crystals change configurations and phonons emit energy. GHGs emit when their rotational and vibrational quantum states change, which do not involve electrons. And so on.
—
Gordon, do you pretend to be obtuse, or are you really actually this obtuse?
DA…”Youve been told this many times. But you still want to be stupid”.
I have been told by idiots who insist on speaking in terms of quantum states which have no existence. I have also studied the theory of electrons transitions in physics, electronics, astronomy, and organic chemistry. You are referring to all those people as obtuse as well, I presume.
Your theories of EM emission/absorp-tion are juvenile. If I was at your level I could never have understood anything in the electronic, electrical, or computer fields.
Gordon, I realize you don’t understand quantum mechanics and that it scares you.
But you, a rank amateur, an engineer, have no training in the subject. Your opinion on QM does not matter. The uneducated do not get an opinion. You are not the person who knows more than all the physicists who have worked on QM for the last almost 100 years.
You are delusional. You really are. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
DA…”Gordon, I realize you dont understand quantum mechanics and that it scares you”.
What is sad is that you have invested so much confidence in QM without understanding it’s severe limitations. Some QM advocates believe QM has completely replaced Newtonian theory even though most processes done in the world today involved Newtonian theory.
There is very little use for QM, or relativity theory, other than in theoretical physics. The basics I studied in electronics came from QM, as did some of the theory I studied in chemistry. I have no problems with such applications of QM and I applaud some of them.
Feynman put it aptly when he claimed QM works but no one knows why. It works because Planck fudged the math till it worked. He admitted that and I respected him for that. However, things went south after Schrodinger developed QM to a usable science then Bohn took it off on a tangent that makes no sense, alienating Schrodinger and Einstein.
QM is based on fudged math. It cannot be visualized and much of the theory surrounding it, like entanglement theory, is more sci-fi than good science.
It’s not just me claiming this. Physicist, David Bohm, a friend of Einstein and an expert on QM, concluded that both QM and Newtonian physics have reached the ends of their respective roads with regard to atomic theory.
We can go no further with either approach at this stage at the atomic level and the only solution IMHO is to start over with the best of both worlds. We need to find a way to observe and measure at the atomic level.
You were likely brought up with QM but I grew up with Newtonian mechanics. I have nothing in particular against QM it just doesn’t work with the scientific method. It relies far too much on probability theory and it cannot be visualized. What good is that to observational science? It puts physics in the hands of mathematicians.
The theories I am presenting in this blog come straight from basic electronics as applied to electric charge and semiconductor theory. Both are based on the Bohr model. There’s nothing unusual in what I am saying unless you missed that approach and came to rely solely on quantum theory.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“QM is based on fudged math.”
Prove it.
Prove it. You can’t.
DA…I might add that even though I was taught semiconductor theory on the basis of QM, I have never touched QM since learning it. You only need QM to understand the more esoteric aspects of how electrons behave in a semiconductor. Once that is understood you can throw it out and never look at it again.
I had a debate with someone in a blog who claimed GPS systems are an example of time dilation. Nonsense. There is nothing going on in a GPS system that cannot be explained using the basic electronics applied in communication systems. The only thing needing to be understood is that GPS systems use different time bases for the satellite and the ground station.
Time is an illusion. Both time bases rely on Greenwich Mean Time to synchronize the two time bases. GMT is based on a human invention, there is no such thing as time in reality.
Time dilation is another bit of sci-fi paralleling much of QM. You can create any form of illusion using math applied out of context. Time dilation requires moving time to the LHS of an equation and treating it as a reality, as if time is dependent on real variables. Dilation occurs in the human mind and so does much of QM.
Science should not be dependent on the human mind and it’s foibles.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“You were likely brought up with QM but I grew up with Newtonian mechanics. I have nothing in particular against QM it just doesnt work with the scientific method.”
I wasn’t “brought up” with QM — I devoted years to studying it and understanding it.
You obviously did not.
QM is one of the most tested and accurate theories of all time. It works. You comment about it not working with the scientific method is ignorant, and, as usual, you provide no evidence whatsoever to support it.
It’s hilarious that you think your opinion matters more than Pauli, Heisenberg, Born, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga, and thousands of others.
This is why you are a delusional crank.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Time dilation is another bit of sci-fi paralleling much of QM.”
Time dilation has been experimentally verified in many different studies.
You didn’t know that, being the QM Oracle that you are?
DA…”QM is based on fudged math.
Prove it.
Prove it. You cant.”
I don’t have to prove it, Planck admitted it himself. He acknowledged freely that he manipulated the math to make it fit the problem of blackbody radiation as related to the EM spectrum.
Planck did not explain why the spectrum is shaped like a bell curve. The notion pre Planck was that EM intensity should increase to infinity as the frequency increased. No one could understand why It did not.
Planck manipulated the math till it represented a bell curve. To achieve that shape he had to presume that the energy around atoms had to exist in discrete quanta.
Bohr took that further to explain why electrons don’t eventually lose momentum and spiral into the nucleus. He claimed they must be constrained to certain quantum energy levels.
Bohr also claimed that when electrons change energy levels they must absorb or emit a quanta of energy equal to the difference in energy levels. That’s the basis of my arguments.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“GMT is based on a human invention, there is no such thing as time in reality.”
No? They why isn’t my reply happening at the same instant you wrote your comment? What happened in between?
—
You probably also have the secret to World Peace, right? And unlimited wealth?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“I dont have to prove it, Planck admitted it himself. He acknowledged freely that he manipulated the math to make it fit the problem of blackbody radiation as related to the EM spectrum.”
In what way did Planck “manipulate the math,” Gordon?
Be specific.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Planck manipulated the math till it represented a bell curve.”
Planck did not derive a bell curve, dummy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_body.svg
Gordon Robertson says:
“I had a debate with someone in a blog who claimed GPS systems are an example of time dilation. Nonsense. There is nothing going on in a GPS system that cannot be explained using the basic electronics applied in communication systems”
You were wrong. He was right.
Use of general relativity is required to get GPS positions down to about 10 meters (from 150 m they’d be without it).
This is very well known and you’re woefully uneducated for not knowing it.
Notice how any questions Gordon ran away from….
Like every bullsh!t artist in the world, Gordon likes to spout off and act like he knows everything, but immediately folds and runs the minute anyone calls him out oh his BS and expects him to prove his assertions.
DA…”You were wrong. He was right”.
There is nothing…I repeat…nothing… in the electronics equipment controlling GPS systems that can deal with time as an independent entity. You can create time generators using electronics and that should tell you something about time.
There is no physical entity out there called time that can be measured directly.
Don’t you understand that ALL of our time is GENERATED by clocks of various kinds? Left to their own means they would all generate different times so we have a system to synchronize clocks in Greenwich, England.
Man, you are about as naive as they come.
DA…”In what way did Planck manipulate the math, Gordon? ”
Why don’t you ask him? Or, why don’t you research this for yourself? I am onto your ploys that involve baiting people into responding to your stupidity.
Planck admitted that he fudged the math and I admire him for admitting that. He questioned whether a physical reality existed that could corroborate his quantum theory.
I am not claiming he fudged the math so as to attack him, I admire what he did. All I am claiming is that we need to be careful not to take QM too literally as you seem to do.
You speak of quantum this and that as if it really exists. There is no proof whatsoever for anything quantum, the term is akin to the use of ‘natural selection’ to explain evolution. When something makes no sense, obfuscate it.
What I have described is the work of Bohr. It was Bohr who put forward the theory of electrons changing energy levels with the provision that they emitted or absorbed EM to accomplish the quantum jumps.
Neither you nor Norman have a clue about Bohr’s theories yet you have the temerity to criticize me for repeating them. Both of you offer completely inane theories about molecule as entities that can generate and absorb EM magically.
Your understanding of atomic physics is juvenile.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is no physical entity out there called time that can be measured directly.”
Really? Then what is your watch doing?
What is it measuring?
DA…”Planck did not derive a bell curve, dummy”.
I said ‘shaped like a bell curve’. With comprehension like yours it’s little wonder you cannot understand basic atomic theory.
BTW…I’m not responding to appease you, I am responding so the science community in general can see how really stupid you are.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Neither you nor Norman have a clue about Bohrs theories yet you have the temerity to criticize me for repeating them”
Gordon, the Bohr model is taught in freshman physics.
It’s pretty simple. It’s easy to understand. It certainly isn’t rocket science. It’s not the last word in atomic theory — not even close.
Even your attempted insults are ridiculous.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“You speak of quantum this and that as if it really exists. There is no proof whatsoever for anything quantum”
Gordon, this is why you’re delusional. And comical.
Because YOU don’t know of the evidence for quantum mechanics, you assume there ISN’T any evidence for it.
Which is just a dumb error of logic.
You like to cite the Bohr model. Did it predict anything right, Gordon?
—
Are you aware that quantum electrodynamics predicts the correct electron anomalous moment to more than 10 significant figures, Gordon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_magnetic_dipole_moment#Electron
a = (g-2)/2 = 0.001 159 652 180 73 (+/- 28 in the last two digits)
How are you ignorant of this, Gordon, being the world’s expert in quantum mechanics?
Gordon Robertson says:
“I said shaped like a bell curve.”
Liar.
In fact, you said
“Planck manipulated the math till it represented a bell curve.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-274095
And you still haven’t explained how Planck “manipulated the math.”
Why not?
Gordon Robertson says:
>> DAIn what way did Planck manipulate the math, Gordon? <<
"Why dont you ask him?"
Ha ha, Gordon, you have no idea. Clearly you have none at all. You just threw another lie out there without even considering you'd be called on it.
Man are you a poseur.
Gordon Robertson says:
>> DAPlanck did not derive a bell curve, dummy. <<
"I said shaped like a bell curve"
What's the difference between a "bell curve" and "shaped like a bell curve?"
Your completely wrong, Poseur.
Gordon Robertson says:
“BTWIm not responding to appease you, I am responding so the science community in general can see how really stupid you are.”
You avoid all — all — questions put to you about your wacko assertions.
You can’t answer them. You’re a poseur.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Planck admitted that he fudged the math….”
You can’t lie your way out of this one, lying to insult a great scientist.
Where did Planck admit that, Gordon? When? Citation?
PROVE IT.
You can’t. Because you have clearly misunderstood what Planck was doing. Because you don’t know modern physics, and you don’t know mathematics.
Prove your claim.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“You speak of quantum this and that as if it really exists. There is no proof whatsoever for anything quantum, the term is akin to the use of natural selection to explain evolution. When something makes no sense, obfuscate it.”
Gordon, I just showed you that quantum electrodynamics predicts the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment to 10 significant figures.
And, like the coward that you are, you completely ignored that.
David, Gordon – As I remember the story, Planck et. al. first arrived at the final solution after much testing. The Planck distribution was partly hard won through theory and partly testing to begin with. Later, more work achieved the Planck distribution formula from first principle theory alone.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is nothingI repeatnothing in the electronics equipment controlling GPS systems that can deal with time as an independent entity.”
You are so very determined to remain dumb, Gordon.
Read, poseur. Cure your ignorance.
http://www.ahttps://www.scientificamerican.com/video/how-your-gps-uses-general-relativity/
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/08/29/like-gps-thank-relativity/#.WiDPdEpKtRY
and many more links……
Gordon Robertson says:
“Dont you understand that ALL of our time is GENERATED by clocks of various kinds?”
Wrong. Clocks do not create time, they measure its passage.
“Left to their own means they would all generate different times….”
So you think mechanical clocks have free will and can just set themselves to whatever time they want….?
That hilarious.
And stupid.
Gordon Robertson
Wow! You really do like to make up physics on the fly. No rational reason to make the claims, no supporting evidence, not logical in the least. Who are you trying to fool. I do not go by g*e*r*a*n. This goofball could be fooled by anything that supported his world view that GHE is a hoax.
YOU: “Emission only occurs when electrons in the atoms are falling from higher energy levels to lower energy levels. If the ice is being bombarded with solar energy at say 70C, not to mention the surface heat transfer from surrounding air molecules, all the electrons in the atoms making up the ice would be busily jumping to higher energy levels. They would not emit energy till equilibrium was established or the water resulting from melted ice became warmer than the environment.”
Why do you think all the electrons in atoms of ice would be busily jumping to higher energy levels? What energy levels are they jumping from and to? Most the molecules of a surface at room temperature are at ground zero state of excitement, they are not emitting anything at all. Please just quit science and stick to your political comments. Much better fit for you. You are not a science minded person.
Gordon Robertson
I will try again. Don’t make it hopeless please. Either acknowledge that physics is above your head by many levels or do the work and figure it out.
Here is the photon calculator again.
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/converters/e_of_photon
Put in 15 microns for the wavelength. This is what CO2 primarily emits at.
Set the energy to KJ/mole. You get about 8 KJ/mole of energy for mole of 15 micron photons. 6.022 X 10^23 photons. If you had one mole of CO2 44 grams, if all the molecules were excited as you claim, if they took even as long as one second to decay (I have read it is more like a microsecond, I have not found good information on the actual time it takes to decay from an excited state to emit a photon). That means 44 grams of CO2 would be emitting 8000 Watts of energy. If it took a microsecond then the 44 grams would be emitting 8 billion watts. The point I am making is very few CO2 molecules are excited and emitting to generate a flux of a few hundred watts/m^2. Most molecules are in a ground state at room temperature and not in excited states. The probability of absorbing is equal to the emission rate at room temperature.
If a hot object has an emissivity of 0.95 and is at 300 K it will be emitting energy at the rate of 436.3 W/m^2. It will then be able to absorb 86.2 W/m^2 from a 200 K object (if the view factor is one, this takes place with a sphere inside a hollow sphere).
emissivity and absorbitivity are equal. Very few molecules are excited at room temperatures. The probability is good that the kinetic energy of the object will be able to raise a molecule to higher vibrational states since most are not already at excited states. likewise since most are in ground state there is very good probability that incoming energy will be absorbed.
You need to get over you fanatic belief that GHE is a hoax and start learning the science. It is very logical and soundly based and supported by many empirical tests.
If you need more help read some statistical thermodynamics, they spend a lot of effort on determining the probabilities of excited states of matter.
norman…”Why do you think all the electrons in atoms of ice would be busily jumping to higher energy levels?”
I told you why. The ice is being bombarded by solar energy and thermal energy directly from N2/O2 molecules with an energy representing 70F. The only error I made was saying 70 C rather than 70F. It’s unreasonable to assume a 70C ambient temperature from solar energy.
The ice at the surface would be busy changing state from ice to water, a process that required the absorbing of energy. Why should it be emitting anything of significance at the same time?
Your suggestion that I am over my head is quite humourous. My understanding of atomic level theory is apparently well beyond both you and Appell. He may have studied it but he’s bought quantum theory hook, line and sinker without understanding the physical meaning of what it implies. You are obviously not even at that level.
You supplied a formula for emission where the emitting body was at one temperature and the surrounding atmosphere was at another. Did you see anything in the formula that suggested a two way transfer of energy?
What you and Appell fail to understand is the mechanism of energy absor-ption and emission. Neither of you can see beyond the math and neither of you are very good at that.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I told you why. The ice is being bombarded by solar energy and thermal energy directly from N2/O2 molecules with an energy representing 70F.”
Does the sunlight’s energy correspond to the difference in energy in quantum levels? Prove it.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“What you and Appell fail to understand is the mechanism of energy absor-ption and emission. Neither of you can see beyond the math and neither of you are very good at that.”
Gordon, you’re grasping at straws.
Both Norman and I know about energy levels. After all, it’s hardly rocket science.
Your grand mistake is thinking that’s the ONLY way an object can absorb energy. Which is completely untrue. There are crystal oscillations, rotational bands, vibrational bands, and more.
But you ignore those because you don’t understand them.
norman…”I will try again”.
Don’t bother, you are comparing apples to oranges. I already explained that you are comparing individual CO2 molecules to a generalized flux field. What happened to your photons?
Either EM is a wave front or a massive flux field of individual photons. Photons cannot explain how EM can have a frequency and propagate through space as a unified front. If it’s a wave front then the energy front is continuous across the front. If it’s a massive flux of photons, the field will thin as the square of the radius.
Do you not get that? If you are going to particalize a surface emission area, you need to calculate the number of photons per unit area do you not? If a photon is a particle of EM and CO2 only absorbs one photon at a time, then you need to compare the number of CO2 molecules and the number of photons available per surface area. Watts per metre does not indicate the number of photons.
It’s a ludicrous problem because no one has the faintest idea whether EM is a wave front or a vector field of individual photons. I was raised on the theory that EM is a wavefront and that makes eminently more sense to me. EM has a frequency and I can visualize it as a wave traveling through space like a wave traveling on water.
However, my theory does not account for the infinite number of waves of different frequencies interacting with each other. Waves add and cancel based on their phase difference and what you’d see is a damned mess. They don’t explain how we can see individual stars and neither does photon theory.
However, if EM is a massive flux of particles it would be even more of a mess. You cannot talk about individual CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting EM, it’s nothing more than a simplified model to help visualize what is going on.
I have only suggested that the surface flux field would be massive compared to the pithy number of CO2 molecules in our atmosphere. I think most of the flux field would blow by the CO2 molecules without even noticing them. That’s basically why I think the GHE and AGW is sheer nonsense.
And why has no one ever done this one to one association? Gerlic and Tscheuscher explained it as being a highly complex many-bodies problem involving complex Feynman diagrams. Physicist Craig Bohren suggested it’s ludicrous to presume CO2 molecules collect photons of surface radiation, acting like truant officers corralling school kids playing hookey.
The problem is Norman, this is over the heads of all scientists, although you seem to think you have a handle on it. Many climate modelers seem to think the same as you.
All I’m trying to do is supply a highly simplified model of how atoms absorb and emit EM. I am not making this up, the theory comes from Neils Bohr.
Here again Gordon shows that he has no clue about quantum mechanics, or that the wave and particle views are complementary.
It messes with his common sense and so he must reject all of it to remain comfortable.
Poor Gordon.
Gordon Robertson says:
“If a photon is a particle of EM and CO2 only absorbs one photon at a time, then you need to compare the number of CO2 molecules and the number of photons available per surface area. Watts per metre does not indicate the number of photons.”
Good lord you’re obtuse.
energy flux = Nhf/area
where N is the number of photons in the photon flux, h is Planck’s constant, and f is the photons’ frequency.
Trivial.
By the way, Gordon, you didn’t tell us what math Planck “fudged” and got wrong.
Why not?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“All Im trying to do is supply a highly simplified model of how atoms absorb and emit EM. I am not making this up, the theory comes from Neils Bohr.”
That’s exactly your problem — you learn a little bit, and then stop and refuse to learn anything else.
Laziness.
The Bohr model isn’t right. Do you realize that?
It was a good first step, but it was only a first step.
The Bohr model failed to account for spin, relativity, molecules, or the physics of energy levels and emissions.
BTW, it’s “Niels,” not “Neils.”
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Gerlic and Tscheuscher explained it as being a highly complex many-bodies problem involving complex Feynman diagrams.”
Gordon, you’re really dumb.
First of all, it’s “Gerlich,” not “Gerlic.”
And the paper is widely known to be horsesh!t:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/
But you don’t know nearly enough to critically evaluate it. You just swallowed it because you liked it emotionally.
And in fact, the paper says the OPPOSITE of what you claim about Feynman diagrams:
“Things are pretty much more complex and cannot be understood even in a (one-)particle-wave duality or Feynman graph picture.”
Gordon, you can’t get ANYTHING right. Not one single thing.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Physicist Craig Bohren suggested its ludicrous to presume CO2 molecules collect photons of surface radiation, acting like truant officers corralling school kids playing hookey.”
Never heard of him, but why wouldn’t a CO2 molecule absorb a photon if its energy was right to cause a jump in a quantum level, electronic, vibrational or rotational?
A little extract of what Craig Bohren thinks about correlations between CO2, fossile fuel burning and planet’s warming effects.
…
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This increase is most likely a consequence of increased burning of fossil fuels.
Carbon dioxide is an infrared-active gas (I hate the term “greenhouse gas”), and hence all else being equal (an important qualification) we expect more downward infrared radiation (and a heating effect) from the atmosphere with an increase in carbon dioxide.
The detailed consequences of this, however, are unknown and possibly unknowable. By consequences I mean length of growing season, distribution and amount of rain, distribution and amount of sunshine, etc. And the economic and social consequences are even more uncertain.
However the climate changes, it is likely that some regions of the planet will gain, others will lose.
…
The pronouncements of climate modelers, who don’t do experiments, don’t make observations, don’t even confect theories, but rather [in my opinion] play computer games using huge programs containing dozens of separate components the details of which they may be largely ignorant, don’t move me.
I am much more impressed by direct evidence: retreating glaciers, longer growing seasons, the migration of species, rising sea level, etc.
Source: https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm
An interesting person.
Trolls can’t understand his message, that’s evident.
Notice how Gordon again runs away from all relevant questions.
He’s a scientific wimp.
You mean a NON-scientific wimp.
Yeah, you’re right. +1
David Appell
I read through your responses with Gordon Robertson. It is obvious that he is over his head. He has very little science background by his writings. It is painfully obvious his science comes from reading article on the internet (highly simplified versions of textbook material taught at higher education levels) and going to blogs dedicated to anti-science in the name of disproving GHE, these blogs come up with any hair-brained idea to prove GHE is wrong. When I read the papers they make me cringe. People like Gordon believe these to be irrefutable facts even though the writers have done zero experiments and generally have the physics so scrambled that you can’t really follow the illogical thought formation.
He tries to seem philosophically superior with his proclamation “Time is an illusion. Both time bases rely on Greenwich Mean Time to synchronize the two time bases. GMT is based on a human invention, there is no such thing as time in reality.”
In philosophy or religion time may be an illusion but in science it is a concrete rate of change of a system. The units are arbitrary but the rate of change is fundamental to a system. Even with time dilation, the rate of change within any frame does not change. The dilation is only relative when other frames are compared. A person going near the speed of light will still measure the rate of change the same as a person going at a slower rate because all the measuring instruments are also affected.
Norman, I agree with you about Gordon, 100%.
But just to clarify this:
“A person going near the speed of light will still measure the rate of change the same as a person going at a slower rate because all the measuring instruments are also affected.”
The person moving near the speed of light will indeed measure the same rate of change for things, but according to a person at “rest” that rate will appear to change much slower.
It seems paradoxical, but it’s true.
I’m currently reading “Now: The Physics of Time” by Richard Muller (of the BEST project). It’s pretty good.
He’s just great, I think this is the best condensed summary of the issue at hand, five minutes full of great quotes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w&t=142s
David, I dont know if it is wise, in this context, to mention a book with the term Physics in its title . If it a suggestion for reading matter for Gordon I doubt it will be accepted .
Frankly I am amazed at Gordons lack of intellectual curiosity as to how the items he uses every day in his career as an electrical or electronics engineer actually work.
I have worked alongside many electronic engineers and they have been familiar, at least with some of the underlying mechanism behind lasers, semiconductors etc. . Gordon in contrast seems to be totally disinterested and dismissive of anything that involves physics post 1930s. He clearly also believes that he is the fount of all wisdom and knowledge on any topic , which then obviates any need for further reading.
For these qualities I think he may have pipped g*e*r*a*n for the crank of the month award, but it was a close run thing.
That is my personal opinion and others may differ.
Mike, I am glad to hear that engineers like you are indeed interested in the details of the physics. I never really doubted that — much of electrical engineering would not occur with a detailed understand of quantum physics, for example — but Gordon sets a very bad example for engineers. He knows nothing beyond circuit theory, and worse, he seems proud of that.
THanks.
Gordon is not an electrical engineer. He is an electronics technician.
You’re righ. He specializes in plugging component A into outlet B.
Or, he once did specialize.
MikeR,
your opinion here is all but a single voice in the desert.
Not much less amazing than this troll’s nonsense is the fact that some skeptics manage to propose other people to read a textbook like
A Heat Transfer Textbook, 4th edition
John H. Lienhard IV, University of Houston
John H. Lienhard V, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
but don’t understand even the first basic remark in it:
We begin our study by… seeing why thermodynamics is not adequate to the task of solving heat transfer problems.
That namely you see in nearly all their comments.
On page 8 of this excellent textbook (paragraph 1.2 in the introduction) the discrepancy between what is written and what they interpret out of it becomes far more interesting.
+.245C overall sea surface temperatures – trend is down.
“Dont you realize that, the warming that has now ended, that took place last century was one of the weakess warming periods the earth has undergone ,lets take a time period ,of the last 20,000 years.”
– Salvatore del Prete, April 7, 2011
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/roy-spencers-non-response/
When I have time enough to do, Salvatore, I will download e.g. the stuff below (sea surface temperatures by HadISST):
http://tinyurl.com/y76yjr29
and show how far you are from the reality.
Like all rather unsound skeptics, you pretend things you can’t prove, do not want to do any proving work nor a fortiori to see its result, as it would contradict your narrative.
A citrom dita fogyshoz
Milyen sport hatkonyabb a fogysbank. Melyik orszg f_vrosa Damaszkusz?
Szezonlis kedvenceink: a legegyszer_bb bolognai spagetti.
Fit percek Fit percek Drival – A yacon fogyni szolgl.
Hogyan vehetek bikarbontot a fogyshoz?. des grntalma fogys el_tt s utng.
Tojs s olajos gymlcsk enni disszocilt trend.
Dita antioxidnsokban gazdag hogy lefogyjonya. Szoptats fogys tea.
A fogyshoz szksges lpsek. Xambo hogy lefogy ahogy veszites.
Uborka petrezselyemmel a fogyshoz. Ha egy nap anlkl, hogy megeszne,
mennyi a fogysa. Te kamilla hogy lefogyou. Mit kell enni naponta a fogyshoz?.
Hogyan lehet lefogyni vagy lellni az tkezs
dj. Mert nem tudom elveszteni a combjaimatu.
A citromkra segtsgvel lgosthatunk, mregtelenthetnk a citrom dita fogyshoz fogyhatunk a citrom dita fogyshoza vrhat fogys
kg kztt vrhata kezd_ testslytl s persze a kiegszt_ trendt_l
fgg_en. A krt maximum vente ktszer javasolt elvgezni.
A mreganyagok tisztulsa miatt az albbiak a citrom dita fogyshoz fejfjs, hnyinger, kitsek,
pattansok. Ha a citromot felvgs el_tt egy percre meleg vzbe ztatjuk vagy tenyernkben melengetjk,
tbb levet tudunk kinyerni bel_le. A citrom hjt a nagyfok vegyszeres kezels miatt semmikpp sem
tancsos elfogyasztani, termszetesen ez csak akkor
rvnyes, ha nem biocitromot vsrolunk – vagy termesztjk magunk.
A kra folyamn nem ajnlott hs fogyasztsa, nvnyi tpllkot vegynk csak
magunkhoz, ezzel is segtjk a szervezet mregtelentst.
A citrom elvonja a szervezetb_l a kalciumot?
Hogyan lehet lefogyni 60 nap alatt fortnite. A citromos fogykra nem jkelet_
dolog, mr sokszor bizonytotta, utn szeretnnk mg fogyni, akkor
folytassuk egy htig a citromditt. Dita s fogykra Ezek a hressgek a
citrom-ditra esksznek. A citromnak megdbbent_ hatsa van a fogysra, ezrt ha szeretnd.
A citromdta sorn nem citromot kell enned, de a citrom zsrget_ A citromdita roppant egyszer_, csak annyi a dolgod, hogy minden reggel mg a reggeli.
A citromkra segtsgvel lgosthatunk, mregtelenthetnk s fogyhatunk is, a vrhat fogys kg kztt vrhat a kezd_ testslytl s.
A citromos vzr_l tbb dolgot is lehet hallani: nemcsak a fogysban segt,
Az eredmnyek szerint a citromos vzzel tmogatott ditt
kvet_k. Knai gyakorlatok a lbak karcsstshoz.
Nagyon fradt zleti fjdalom hirtelen fogys.
A citromkra segtsgvel lgosthatunk, mregtelenthetnk s fogyhatunk
a citrom dita fogyshoz, de vajon a kpzelt a citrom dita
fogyshoz vals a citrom dita fogyshoz tpllkozstudomnyi szempontbl is helytllak-e?
Lssunk nhny gyakran felmerl_ lltst a citrommal kapcsolatban.
A dehidratci lasstja az anyagcsernket s bizonytottan negatv hatst gyakorol
szmos lettani folyamatra. Egy pihentet_ jszaka utn idelis frisst_ ital a citrom dita fogyshoz citromos
vz, hiszen alacsony kalriatartalommal rendelkezik, de
a tudomnyos a citrom dita fogyshoz inkbb a vz s
nem a citrom mellett szlnak ebben az esetben. A megfelel_
napi folyadkbevitellel nem csak az emszts serkentst tudjuk segteni, de a ditban fontos b_rfeszest_ hatst is a a citrom dita fogyshoz ksznhetjk.
A citromban tallhat rost, a pektin tbb fronton segti az emszt_szervrendszer
munkjt, azonban kifacsarva a rosttartalom egy nagy rsze elvsz, gy ezen a terleten nem vrhat t_le szmottev_ hats.
Ha a citromos vz a magas cukortartalommal rendelkez_ dt_ket vltja ki
az trendnkben, akkor kifejezetten jl vlasztottunk!
Sokkal jobban itatja magt, mint az zestetlen vz, gy a folyadkbevitelnk
nvelshez is hozzjrulhat. A C-vitamin napi ajnlott bevitele 80 mgamely a citrom fajtjtl fgg_en kb.
Ugye nehezen tudjuk elkpzelni, hogy mrett_l fgg_en citrom levt is elfogyasszuk egy nap?
A citrom remek antioxidns forrs, az antioxidnsok
rkellenes hatsa pedig rgta ismertde fontos,
hogy ne egy-egy alapanyagtl vrjunk hatst a betegsgek
megel_zse rdekben, nem beszlve arrl, hogy
a megfelel_ mennyisg elfogyasztshoz ugyancsak nagy mennyisg_ fogyasztsra
lenne szksgnk. A szervezetnk mregtelentst kt szerv;
a mj s a vese vgzi, az telek pH rtke nem gyakorol
klnsen nagy hatst az egszsgnkre. Az zleti gyulladsokban sem nyjt szmottev_
segtsget a citrom, s_t reflux esetn nagymrtk_ fogyasztsa kifejezetten nem ajnlott.
ptsk be a citromot vltozatosan az trendnkbeolykor
citromos vz formjban, de kivlan felhasznlhat hsok-halak zest_jeknt is, nem beszlve a frisst_, dits citromos desszertekr_l.
A felszaladt kilk elleni kzdelemben legnagyobb fegyvereink a megemelt rost, megfelel_ folyadk,
gymlcs- s zldsgfogyaszts s a testmozgs legyenek.
Dita a turmixokat, hogy gyorsan lefogy. Torna gyors
fogyshoz. Hogyan gondoskodott santiago a fogysrl remix.
A madrmag fogyasztsnak eredmnyein. Szmtsa ki a
korrzi miatti slyvesztst. Hogyan lehet lefogyni egy ht
alatt 10 kil pubg. Teljes folykony trend receptek.
Dita az 1 ves csecsem_m szmra. A legjobb
termszetes trend fogyni. Egsz hti dita az izomtmeg nvelse rdekben.
Hogyan lehet fogyni hasn fahjjal s mzzel lyrics.
Ha citromos vzzel indtjuk a napot, knnyebben beindul a
fogys zest_jeknt is, nem beszlve a frisst_, dits citromos desszertekr_l.
Dita s fogykra Ezek a hressgek a citrom-ditra esksznek.
A citromnak megdbbent_ hatsa van a fogysra, ezrt ha szeretnd.
Egszsges trend Dita s fogykra
radsul langyos pohr vz elengedhetetlen a fogyshoz, azrt n nagyon kvncsi voltam:
ez csak. A citromos fogykra nem jkelet_ dolog, mr sokszor bizonytotta, utn szeretnnk mg
fogyni, akkor folytassuk egy htig a citromditt.
A citrom ditnak nemcsak fogyasz hatsa van hamem egszsges is a lgost hatsa miatt.
Fontos, hogy vzet elegend_ mennyisgben fogyassz a
dita. Knny_ gyors fogys receptek.