It’s been an eventful weather week in some portions of the globe. In fact, it is always an eventful weather week – somewhere.
But what really drives the narrative is when weather extremes — which always have, and always will, occur — happen to hit major metropolitan areas. Many people are already aware of the relentless guffawing resulting from Al Gore’s tweet that Michael Mann says the Northeast’s current cold wave is just what global warming predicts. (As I recall, Mann is a mathematician, not a meteorologist. Correction: Mann is a geologist/geophysicist, which is equally uninformed on atmospheric dynamics.)
Yesterday, Kristine Phillips of The Washington Post wrote about the recent “bomb” snowstorm in New England, the ensuing cold wave, and the extreme heat (110+ deg. F) that has just hit Sydney, Australia.
To her credit, she did not explicitly put the blame on climate change for these events, but her legal-background prose came pretty darn close… just close enough so that the casual reader would make the connection. Wink-wink, nod-nod.
The trouble is that neither of these two events are exceptional from a meteorological perspective. That is, they have happened before (Sydney’s 117 deg. F peak was exceeded in 1939), and they will happen again.
It is only when we can demonstrate that such events are increasingly occurring over, say, 50 to 100 years that we can begin to invoke climate change. (And even then we must debate the various causes of climate change.) So far, that evidence is sorely lacking.
The Sydney Heat Wave
Here’s the GFS forecast model analysis of surface temperature departures from average for about the time that peak temperatures were reached in Sydney yesterday. Maybe you can tell me which of these cold and warm patterns are consistent with global warming theory and which aren’t? (Hint: Warming should be occurring basically everywhere):
See that hotspot in the Sydney Basin? That is a localized effect of downslope winds from the highlands to the west which causes enhanced warming of the air, as well as bushfires. It clearly does not represent what is happening across Australia as a whole. Australia is exceedingly hot this time of year anyway, heat which is made even worse since the sun is closer to the Earth in January than in July (leading to a 7% range in solar radiation reaching the Earth).
The “Bomb” Blizzard
Meteorologist Fred Sanders coined the term “bomb” in 1980 to refer to a non-tropical cyclone whose central pressure drops by at least 24 millibars in 24 hours.
They happen every year.
But what doesn’t happen every year is them influencing major metro areas. So, the recent nor’easter snowstorm to hit the Mid Atlantic and New England was also a “bomb” because the low pressure center intensified so rapidly. These events happen every year in, for example, the North Atlantic and North Pacific.
We meteorologists used to talk about “bombs” fairly regularly in the 1980s, but not so much in recent years. I wonder if maybe climate change is making winter storms weaker? Hmmm…
And to attribute every winter cold wave or heat wave to global warming is just plain silly. These things happen even without global warming (which, by the way, I do believe is occurring, just not very strongly, dangerously, or maybe not even mostly due to human causation). Seasoned New Englanders can tell you that.
Meanwhile, The Weather Channel (aka “The Disaster Channel”) serves up a steady stream of weather porn to titillate the senses.
And before you believe that warmth in January is unusual, “January thaws” are a routine phenomenon, too, which is why the term was coined. According to the Glossary of Meteorology:
“The daily temperature averages at Boston, computed for the years 1873 to 1952, show a well- marked peak on 20-23 January; the same peak occurs in the daily temperatures of Washington, D.C., and New York City. Statistical tests show a high probability that it is a real singularity. The January thaw is associated with the frequent occurrence on the above-mentioned dates of southerly winds on the back side of an anticyclone off the southeastern United States.”
Nevertheless, the weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.
Climate Crisis? Al Gore and Michael Mann Fail Science 101
Ignoring the facts that the current cold is a weather phenomenon, not a change in climate, the problem Michael Mann and the climate alarmists face is that the only mechanism defined by which CO2 can affect climate change is be trapping outgoing IR radiation between 13 and 18. That is the only defined mechanism, and the only result possible is the thermalization of those wavelengths resulting in atmospheric WARMING. There is no way for thermalization to result in coolingnone. How then, does Michael Mann address this issue?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/climate-crisis-al-gore-and-michael-mann-fail-science-101/
Indeed.
And, to boot, not one of the anti-human climate alarmist say a word to Gore and Mann regarding “predictions”, “weather as climate”, etc.
Surely you’ve seen this article – but I wanted to be SURE you did so here is a real “choker” if you’re having your favorite beverage!
Alarmists Find New Excuse: Sea Levels Arent Rising Because Melted Glaciers Are Crushing the Sea Floor!
From a [almost] daily reader of your articles:
Alvin Palmer
Monroe LA 71201
lease excuse me for using “reply” to your post but I can’t get Dr. Roy’s email to work and I wanted to be sure he gets this bit of “news”[?].
Thanks.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Doc. Roy;
Surely you’ve seen this article – but I wanted to be SURE you did so here is a real “choker” if you’re having your favorite beverage!
Alarmists Find New Excuse: Sea Levels Arent Rising Because Melted Glaciers Are Crushing the Sea Floor!
From a [almost] daily reader of your articles:
Alvin Palmer
Monroe LA 71201
The first three sentences of the abstract:
“Present-day mass redistribution increases the total ocean mass and, on average, causes the ocean bottom to subside elastically. Therefore, barystatic sea level rise is larger than the resulting global mean geocentric sea level rise, observed by satellite altimetry and GPS-corrected tide gauges. We use realistic estimates of mass redistribution from ice mass loss and land water storage to quantify the resulting ocean bottom deformation and its effect on global and regional ocean volume change estimates.”
I especially enjoyed “We use realistic estimates. ..”
WOW, “realistic estimates”!
(It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy.)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075419/abstract
Last time I looked, sea level rise was 75% Paulson Glacial Isostatic ‘adjustment’.
Sounds pretty similar. The ocean is not rising rapidly due to thermosteric effects, so how do you stop the Earth’s rebound?
Dunno?
As the land surfaces rise, it makes sense that the ocean floor would have to correspondingly drop. I just briefly scanned the actual “paper”, but it is filled with estimates, excuses, qualifications, and admitted uncertainties. There’s really no value in such work.
Mmmmm.
Sounds strangely familiar.
What a tangled web they weave, when they conspire to deceive.
Dr. Roy Spencer
On January the 9th 2018 the Sydney Morning Herald published an article by Will Steffen (a member of tte Climate Council of Australia) on climate disruption with the headline: ˋ Why its sweltering in Penrith (Sydney) while Florida is in deep freeze. I could not belive what I was reading and ask myself is Will Steffen ignorant of past climatic events or is he outright lyling. Hope you get a good laugh out of the content. Regards Joe
Michael Mann is a million times smarter than you are.
You’re jealous at all the attention he’s getting…..
1000000 * 000000 is still zero. But i’ll grant you mann is 1000000times more devious
“Michael Mann is a million times smarter than you are.”
Is he? Really? A million times?
Time and time again, anti-human climate alarmist hysterically protest about… everything, no matter how trifle or trivial. Of course, when one of their own tribe errs brutally, not a word from them is heard.
Let’s see. What would an anti-human climate alarmist say if this “million times smarter than you” claim would have been made by a normal person? Perhaps they would have pointed out that even a genius does not have twice the IQ of an average person.
And what about Mann’s IQ? Of course, the truth of it will never be any more available than the truth about Trump’s IQ.
So, let’s guesstimate.
I would advance that Mann’s IQ is shy of a standard deviation above average. After all, who (but Mann) would fancy himself able to get away with falsely claiming to have a Nobel Prize.
Really you’re taking the million literally?
You are the punctilious one… when it suits your interests.
Why the double standard?
Just kidding. Everyone knows why.
This may seem like a novice level question (to some) but has anyone done an experiment where CO2 is injected into a large natural catchment basin on a clear sunny day at various levels and measurements taken? Or in a large stadium? Or a lab with identical spectrum lighting as the sun? Pump some co2 in and see if temps suddenly spike upward as though it’s some crazy insane gas that rebounds IR heat.
Climate Change Double Standard Double Speak Proves Slimate Clience is a Fraud
Liberals can take one position, that the recent record cold is normal and natural, when they are taking the position opposite of President Trump. Liberals can then take the exact opposite position when they are defending Al Gore and Michael Mann. The position a liberal will take isnt dependent upon the science, data or facts, the position a liberal will take is dependent upon who is making the claim. If Conservative believe the facts point to climate change being a fraud, liberals will defend it to the death as scientific truth. Liberals are so oblivious to the facts that The Guardian recently published an article about global warming and defended their position by using quotes that disprove the very position they were intended to defend.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/climate-change-double-standard-double-speak-proves-slimate-clience-is-a-fraud/
No science in your comment, just muttering and grumbling.
What did you say, davie? You were muttering and grumbling so much that there didn’t seem to be much substance.
Roy,
You can certainly fault the press for over-hyping every weather event, naming snow storms ‘bombs’ etc.
However, as a scientist, are you not open-minded to the possibility that the persistently and anomalously warm arctic may alter weather patterns, the jet stream, etc at lower latitudes?
To me, it would be surprising if it did not.
Lots of things are possible in science, leading to many theories. Few of the theories end up being correct. Yes, an anomalously warm Arctic can be expected to be associated with disturbed weather patterns around it. But just where, and how frequently, and in what temperature direction (warm? cold?) is questionable. To blame something that happens anyway (January cold waves, a nor’easter) on a specific long-term cause (a warm Arctic) is pretty unconvincing unless once can at least establish a long term trend in the effect.
Agreed.
Science is an organized process of determining the truth. Observations and data lead to the formation of hypotheses to explain those observations. As more work and observations are undertaken, the various hypotheses are tested to arrive at the best explanation for the phenomena, which becomes a relatively solid theory. Non-scientists tend to confuse “hypothesis” with the Term “theory”, so think that a theory is a rather flexible idea when things are much more solid. Global Warming as a theory has acquired considerable support from many directions over decades though there’s still uncertainty.
That said, singular extremes of weather neither prove nor dis-prove the theory of AGW. Indeed, as the cold weather impacted the Eastern US, there were rather warm temperatures in the West. What’s important is the average temperature, not local excursions, as well as the relative occurrence of both warm and cold extremes over a season.
e. swanson…”singular extremes of weather neither prove nor dis-prove the theory of AGW…”
AGW is not even a decent theory. It draws on propaganda as much as science. It’s also based largely on an age old premise from the likes of Arrhenius that has never been proved.
With regard to hypothesis versus theory, in English, no one much cares. One has much the same meaning as the other. If you are going to get picky about it then AGW does not meet the criteria of the scientific method. The theory is based largely on consensus.
Arrhenius has been proved in many ways.
Not least of which is that the planet is warming from man’s GHG emissions.
The evidence is right in your face and yet still you deny it.
davie, that is maybe your most erroneous and egregious comment ever.
But, the year is still young. See if you can top it.
@Appell: Echoing *ger:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kin.550190302/full
As a Queenslander who inhabits this continent of Australia, I have never read simplistic, arrogant and ignorant statements about our climate in Australia. Dr. Roy Spencer thinks his agendas are God-given mandates and insights on climate change through his derogative put down of others in this field of research – exposing what? Errors of all the others. This is crazy. His cohort is not too far behind him with plenty of examples from his own mouth of complete disinformation or taken up poorly framed facts and spouting them off as some sort of scientific fact.
We have average temperatures and heat build up in our deserts that are 10 degrees above averages. In fact, new heat colours had to be charted by BOM for these heat build-up desert events that seem to occur more regularly with our Summers.
Extra energy (heat) is being generated in our deserts (centralised on the Australian continent and the dryest on earth). This spills outwards and towards our cooler coastlines. We have saved many a time by cooler South East and North Easters here in South East Queensland. It does not take much to get substantial rises Temperatures in these DAILY events by traveling westward past Brisbane city. for the record – it is RECORD breaking all other previous records since the occupation began (IN REFERENCE to the heat build phenomena daily occurring in daylight). This is a foretaste of what is to come to the whole world where the inland continental heat goes off the scale when the suns seasonal equinox* meets the greenhouse phenomena of our atmosphere holding in energy. Try the occasional desert/outback (often daily heat) of 50 degrees Celsius. These patterns of heat and heat wave generation “bubbles” are INCREASING. Afterall this inhabitant of Australia has lived here going on 64 years now. Roy your a youngster compared to me.
*There are two equinoxes every year in September and March when the sun shines directly on the equator and the length of day and night is nearly equal.
“Roy your a youngster compared to me.”
Yet, he can spell.
What has this got to do with the tea in China? Luara – it slipped through even a grammar checker. My experience of Roy’s SELECTIVE data is a serious disingenuous way of beating his primeval chest on this blog. He is bigger with better-thought bubble processes than all other primates in his class with their stupid thoughts and theories. He has evolved a permanent switched off to all other facts with his conservative brain. What is more troubling is the claim, his brain is touched by God – therefore it is in every way, superior. He suffers from a persecution complex as does his other primate. Get over it. As I hope you would with the nonscene over a conservative versus a liberal argument concerning climate change. It is a serious threat to humanity in the generations to come. No more tongue in cheek. But do bite very hard if you want to. It is going to hurt you. Deal with the facts – not SELECTIVE cherry picking.
“What has this got to do with the tea in China?”
You mean “What has this got to do with the tea in China” that you believe Roy your a youngster compared to me?
It’s a mystery.
Perhaps another anti-human climate alarmist can lend you a hand with your “grammar checker”.
If anything amplified polar zone warming implies an overall reduced meridional temperature gradient and thus in principle less intense weather such as storms, non tropical cyclones and lows at mid latitudes.
If this happened would it be considered negative feedback ? Though I imagine not a huge negative feedback.
Sorry positive feedback.
Of course it is negative feedback. The poles heat more than the tropics. Except its the thermal gradient that transfers the heat. Thats where the whole fiction falls apart.
stevek…”If this happened would it be considered negative feedback ? Though I imagine not a huge negative feedback”.
All feedbacks in the atmosphere are negative. Positive feedback by definition requires an amplifier.
Positive feedback:
“A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A”.
Example:
“A warmer atmosphere will melt ice and this changes the albedo which further warms the atmosphere”.
svante…”A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A”.
Straight out of mathematician Gavin Schmidt’s theory book, and it’s wrong. Positive feedback requires amplification as in G = A/(1 – AB). G is the overall gain and A is the amplifier gain with B as the feedback.
Sometimes WordPress messes with minus signs so this read G = A/(1 minus AB)
Your albedo example will not produce positive feedback. For it to be positive feedback the warming due to the albedo effect would have to exceed the solar energy input. That’s not possible.
No Gordon, A is the signal.
Positive feedback: A=1 and B=+0.5 => G=2.
Negative feedback: A=1 and B=-0.5 => G=0.66.
“For it to be positive feedback the warming due to the albedo effect would have to exceed the solar energy input.”
No, when AB > 1 the system is unstable, so does not have a well-defined gain.
svante…”No Gordon, A is the signal.
Positive feedback: A=1 and B=+0.5 => G=2.
Negative feedback: A=1 and B=-0.5 => G=0.66″
So you’re essentially telling me that if I have a 1 volt peak to peak signal, and I sample some of that signal and feed it back to the signal, I can double it’s amplitude. If you believe that it explains why you are an alarmist.
How do you feed the signal back with an electronic signal? If the signal is across a resistor and you feed the output back to the input you short out the signal. If you use half the signal via a resistance network all you do is load the signal with your network. That’s why when you used old type analogue voltmeters you had to be careful.
An amplifier is required between the input and output of the signal. Then, if you feedback a portion of the output signal ‘in phase’ with the input signal, they will add. Next time through the amplifier the signal increases.
With albedo, the signal is solar energy. You are theoretically trying to increase that signal as you have incorrectly from 1 to 2. How the heck can you do that?
You can’t, positive feedback leading to a gain is not available in our atmosphere.
Perpetual motion is essentially getting something for nothing. That’s what you have just described. You have doubled the amplitude of a signal without an amplifier.
I am not asking you or debating you. This is my field, I have worked in it and studied it formally for decades. You are wrong, but I can see how alarmists come to their stupid ideas about catastrophic warming and tipping points.
A is the amplifier, the gain stage. Without gain, positive feedback that would produce an amplification in any signal requires an amplifier.
It’s corroborated here by an engineer:
http://rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html
Under Gavin Schmidt on Positive Feedback, Glassman says:
“Next under the heading “Positive feedback”, Gavin begins,
A positive feedback occurs when a change in one component of the climate occurs, leading to other changes that eventually ‘feeds back’ on the original change to amplify it.
Leaving room for some climate jargon, this is almost a valid and workable definition. But it omits, among other things, the necessary control system context, and the concepts of gain, ordinary feedback, open loop and closed loop. Regardless, Gavin next attempts to explain what he thinks positive feedback means:
A simple example leads to a geometric series for instance; i.e. if an initial change to a parameter is D, and the feedback results in an additional rD then the final change will be the sum of D+rD+r2D…etc.
This explanation and Schmidt’s understanding of positive feedback, or even feedback, are fatally flawed”.
He goes on “Climatologists need to rid themselves of this Delicate Blue Planet misapprehension. They need to abandon their pursuit, however attractive, of knife edges over catastrophes. They should reconfigure their models to account for stable states, past and present, of all the parameters in their domain. These include not just global climate, but gas mixtures, the water cycle, the carbon cycle, and the ozone layer. They should be modeling these phenomena in their natural, closed-loop states to discover the controlling parameters and their dynamic ranges”.
Gordon and Svante, if you limit yourselves to only the electronic concept of gain/feedback, you may just be arguing past each other, and end up being frustrated. You need to look at the larger picture of engineering control theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory
And consider that Earth’s average temperature is a “setpoint”, within Earth’s control system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setpoint_(control_system)
Which all translates to the fact that minuscule changes in atmospheric CO2 can NOT raise Earth’s average temperature.
(But, you already knew that, right?)
In reply to your first post above, having worked for a few years as a control systems analyst, I submit that you are missing the point. In a man made control system, the forward gain supplies energy to the output, call it an amplifier if you will. In the Earth’s climate system, the Sun provides the energy and the atmosphere and surface modifies the outgoing flow of short wave and long wave energy which produces our experience of climate. Given some initial climate state, changing the surface albedo may produce a positive or negative change in surface temperature. More snow and ice cools and less warms the surface under clear sky conditions, thus the effect of an overall warming resulting in less snow and ice would be a positive influence, which can be termed a “positive feedback” within the overall system. There are several pathways which modify the overall energy flow, operating within the “system”, each with differing effects.
The albedo effects involve non-linear process, so the use of a simple linear model does not directly apply. Consider the simple thermostat which runs your heating system. It’s a threshold and deadband system which switches on at a set temperature and off at a higher temperature. The heating system supplies the energy to balance the heat loss thru the walls, windows and roof, with enough power to offset the largest heat loss on very cold days. But, conceptually, is the thermostat acting to stop the energy flow, once the desired temperature is met, thus being a negative feedback, or does it act as a positive feedback in demanding that the heat be turned on at the lower set point, thus increasing the temperature inside the structure? And, due to the discontinuity, it’s not a linear system.
Gordon,
“I sample some of that signal and feed it back to the signal, I can double its amplitude”
Of course there is no feedback if B subtracts the same amount as it adds.
“If the signal is across a resistor and you feed the output back to the input you short out the signal.”
How do you short out the signal when it is the solar input?
Back radiation?
“With albedo, the signal is solar energy. You are theoretically trying to increase that signal as you have incorrectly from 1 to 2.”
My examples with your formula were not the actual snow/ice albedo feedback, both were just examples.
“How the heck can you do that?”
The earths albedo is about 0.7, so maximum input is nearly +50%.
Snow/ice is a fraction of that, although it would operate under clouds too.
I don’t know the actual numbers, can you make an estimate?
How much snow/ice is there in North America, central/north Eurasia, the Arctic/Antarctic, and all southern mountains, and how much does it reflect?
“D+rD+r2D…”
This is a fine way of explaining it, although the end result is captured in your formula.
It is a convergent series if AB < 1.
Thank you g*e*r*a*n and Swanson for helping out.
e. swanson…”Given some initial climate state, changing the surface albedo may produce a positive or negative change in surface temperature”.
WordPress censors have struck again, I have to post in parts. Sorry about that.
That’s OK provided the entire system is operating without a gain in temperature that does not exceed the solar energy input. AGW claims the opposite, that solar energy can be exceeded by positive feedback.
I have already conceded your point under control theory as applied to servo-systems. In a servo-system, positive feedback refers to the sign of a feedback voltage and amplification does not enter into the equation. In that case, yes, a signal fedback can affect the final behavior of a system without amplification.
part 2…However, catastrophic climate change is based on amplifier feedback, where G = A/(1-AB) applies. If the sign of B is such that it adds to the input signal, then the amplified output increases exponentially each cycle. The amplifier becomes unstable, as the climate would with a tipping point.
svante…”D+rD+r2D
This is a fine way of explaining it, although the end result is captured in your formula.
It is a convergent series if AB < 1".
We are not talking of an additive series, that's the mistake Gavin Schmidt made. We are talking about a multiplicative series where an amplifier multiplies the input signal by a gain factor. There is no multiplication in your series other than rD + 2rD, etc.
Sure, the series will expand exponentially but you have not explained how that can happen in our atmosphere. Tell me what D means and r, and how they interact to increase the surface temperature beyond solar energy. And show me how that could ever run away as in a tipping point.
If you look at G = A/(1 – AB) in the wiki article they talk about gain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback
"If the functions A and B are linear and AB is smaller than unity, then the overall system gain from the input to output is finite, but can be very large as AB approaches unity.[8] In that case, it can be shown that the overall or "closed loop" gain from input to output is:
G = A/(1 – AB)
There is a diagram beside that part of the article in which they show the symbol for an amplifier, the triangle) and that is preceded by an adder. They call A and B arbitrary causal functions but that is mathematical nonsense.
In electrical engineering we were presented amplifiers as functions. Some guys did not get it for a couple of years that the functions were real electronic amplifiers and that the L in Ldi/dt was actually an inductor (a coil).
When you see that triangular symbol for an amplifier it's because it has to be there. If you have a purely passive circuit, with just resistors, you cannot get the gain from
G = A/(1 – AB) you talked about when B – 0.5 and G = 2. That 2 came from A, the amplifier.
g*r…” You need to look at the larger picture of engineering control theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory ”
I understand what you’re saying, control theory covers a diverse field. For example, if I want to control motor speed, I can attach a tachometer to a motor shaft. The tach puts out a voltage comparable to RPM. If I feed that voltage back to a control centre, it can compare the tach voltage to a reference value it can decide whether the motor RPM needs to be dropped or raised to maintain a constant RPM.
I have made it clear I am not talking about that kind of control theory. I am talking about a positive feedback in an electronics system that can become unstable. In general servo-system control design situations a runaway signal due to an increasing voltage is of no concern.
However, Hanson raised the issue of a tipping point, meaning the Earth’s atmospheric temperature would runaway to a tipping point. That’s where the kind of PF I am talking about comes in.
Hansen, and now Schmidt, at GISS, have maintained that certain feedbacks can cause an amplification of surface temperatures. That is totally wrong, feedbacks cannot cause amplification of temperature. The feedback would have to be positive and an amplifier would be required.
In the wiki drawing here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback#/media/File:Ideal_feedback_model.svg
The situation is seen clearly. Feedback is not an amplifier, it operates in conjunction with amplifier A. This diagram could never operate as a servo-system because the adder is a passive device. That means the input and FB signals will be combined in a resistor network. There is no provision for generator error correction.
This diagram obviously represents an amplifier with an input and output with a portion of the output fed back to the input. It represents:
G = A/(1 – AB) and that formula cannot be applied to situations involving albedo. All those systems are negative feedback systems.
So if all ice and snow disappeared, temperatures would go down because total absorbed solar radiation goes up?
svante…I replied to your earlier thread with a new post.
As far as this post, “So if all ice and snow disappeared, temperatures would go down because total absorbed solar radiation goes up?”
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Obviously with no ice and snow the temperature would rise but that would mean something had happened to the tilt of the planet or its orbit.
I think climate alarmists are grasping at straws with this Arctic albedo thing. I don’t think it’s significant. The temperatures are largely determined by the lack of solar energy much of the year.
Getting back to the initial argument, CO2 has no measurable effect on the Arctic, IMHO. You guys defending the alarmist POV seem to be missing the forest for the trees.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Obviously with no ice and snow the temperature would rise but that would mean something had happened to the tilt of the planet or its orbit.
Tilt/orbit was the initial perturbation for the ice ages. They where enhanced by positive feedbacks, for example the snow/ice albedo. Positive feedbacks make a system unstable, that’s why you get these big temperature swings.
I think climate alarmists are grasping at straws with this Arctic albedo thing. I dont think its significant. The temperatures are largely determined by the lack of solar energy much of the year.
The lack of sun in the winter is offset by the midnight sun in the summer.
Swanson’s link says:
“The albedo loss (1979 to 2008) has been estimated as equivalent to a global forcing of 0.22 W/m2. Together with snow albedo loss, the global forcing is approximately double this figure at 0.45 W/m2 (Flanner, 2011, Radiative forcing and albedo feedback from the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere between 1979 and 2008). If the sea ice is allowed to disappear at the end of summer, and the terrestrial snow cover continues its sharp decline, the forcing could rise to a level of 1-2 W/m2.”
Getting back to the initial argument, CO2 has no measurable effect on the Arctic, IMHO. You guys defending the alarmist POV seem to be missing the forest for the trees.
It does not strictly have to start in the arctic, it can be transported by weather.
The forcing has been measured many times, this is a Canadian result:
“our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
“This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
https://tinyurl.com/9cg8qzc
svante…from your link.
“These measurements have been used to quantify the radiative flux associated with a number of greenhouse gases. It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planets surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate. We have provided the first direct measurements of the greenhouse effect for a number of trace gases in the atmosphere”.
This is typical alarmist blather. They are presuming the down-dwelling IR is absorbed by the surface and warming it. There is no proof of that and the 2nd law forbids it.
I have enjoyed this interchange with you but you are refusing to consider evidence I have presented to you. When I offered the formula for positive feedback, G = A/(1 – AB), you immediately interpreted it your own way even though the wiki article from which I retrieved it states there is gain involved.
I am an expert in electronics, having studied electrical engineering at university, and I have worked directly with circuits employing positive feedback. I know for a fact that the A in the formula mean the gain from an amplifier, otherwise the circuit won’t function as a feedback system of any kind.
You cannot take a signal in a passive network and feed it back as AB if A is just the signal. All you’ll accomplish is inserting the proposed feedback resistor in parallel with the signal resistor rendering a parallel resistor network.
Please try to get this: feedback is not possible with such a network. However, if A is an amplifier with gain 100, the amp will provide the required isolation to isolate the input signal from the output signal, then feedback is possible provided the feedback signal is selected correctly wrt amplitude and phase.
You and e. swanson are missing the point of my electrical analogies. I am trying to demonstrate one requirement of positive feedback and why it cannot exist in the atmosphere. There is nothing in the atmosphere around which you can build a feedback network.
Back-radiation from CO2 is NOT a feedback. It’s radiation, pure and simple. The fact that the head of NASA GISS thinks it is a feedback shows me he doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to feedback. That applies to most modelers, they have no idea what they are talking about with regard to FB.
svante…ps. I meant there is a new post for you further down this thread posted around January 12th.
Sounds reasonable, but longer-deeper heat or cold waves are not storms, per se.
svante…”So if all ice and snow disappeared, temperatures would go down because total absorbed solar radiation goes up?”
The process you describe above has nothing to do with positive feedback. That’s what started this debate.
With the snow and ice, it is claimed solar energy is reflected and the atmosphere becomes cooler than what it was with no snow and ice. With the snow and ice gone, the surface and atmosphere returns to normal temperatures for that amount of solar radiation. With the ice and snow there is a loss of surface heat but with no reflection there is not a gain over and above that produced by solar energy.
Positive feedback as used by Hansen and Schmidt suggests you can exceed that normal state of solar warming by adding back-radiation to the solar energy. Schmidt calls that a positive feedback but he is confused in thinking feedback causes amplification. He has not explained how his version of positive feedback works yet modelers are programming that pseudo-science into models to get catastrophic warming.
It’s the same with albedo, you can never get more than what is put into the system by solar energy. All you can do is return to a normalized state when the ice and snow melt.
Don’t forget the Arctic receives no significant solar energy for 5 months of the year. I don’t see how albedo can affect that reality unless something happens to the planet’s orbit and tilt.
I don’t understand how people claim a feedback situation for albedo unless they redefine the traditional meaning of feedback. It comes down to context. I can give you verbal feedback if you ask me a question. With servo systems, voltage of a certain sign is fed back. However, catastrophic climate change depends on an amplification of heat and no one has proved how that is possible via positive feedback.
I don’t begin to understand what has been going on since 1998, with 3 major El Ninos. I do know it has nothing to do with alleged positive feedbacks from ACO2. It’s just not possible and the other theory about heat trapping is ridiculous.
GR, I think you are being blinded by your electrical engineering ideas of a control system. Recall that the Brits used to call a vacuum tube a “valve”. An electrical amplifier of the sort to which you reference controls the flow of electrical energy based on some input signal. The device is designed to increase the voltage output to supply some “load”, which is to say, electric power is provided to the output in proportion to the input. Your model includes such a device because that’s what’s inside the box.
With climate, one must model the physical processes in a different way to capture these processes in a realistic fashion. The power source is the Sun, not a plug in the wall, and there’s no separate box called “albedo” around which one may draw a line. The “system” is the Earth, with solar energy flowing thru the atmosphere and infrared streaming outward in all directions. The atmosphere and surface effects moderate these flows with different effects both geographical and seasonal. As things are now, the system is stabilized by the fundamental process of infrared radiation, which is a function of the fourth power of absolute temperature. Your mental model assumes a neat linear system, which excludes the stabilizing effects of IR emissions at TOA. The energy leaving the Earth is roughly equal to that entering, but the daily and seasonal variation in distribution produces wide variation in local temperatures.
Here’s another analogy. Consider a dam on a stream forming a lake with a valve at the base of the cam used to regulate the water level. The flow thru the valve is a function of pressure and as the water level rises, the flow thru the valve increases. The valve is adjusted to balance the water flowing into the lake to keep the level at some desired point. This is somewhat similar to what happens in the atmosphere, which retards the flow of energy back to deep space, resulting in a surface temperature than would occur without the atmosphere, as on the Moon. Now add another valve upstream to divert some of the incoming water around the dam. This lowers the water level, similar to the way the snow and ice albedo lowers the temperature by reflecting short wave sunlight before it’s absorbed by the surface.
But, what if it turns out that the upstream diversion valve is set by the water level, with the rate of diversion reduced as the level rises, as happens to temperature with snow and ice? That’s positive feedback, IMHO?
Yes, but you can’t leave it there, Swanson. Unless you are trying to imply the Earth has positive feedbacks that can lead to a runaway condition.
In your dam analogy, forget the valve upstream. Just put additional valves in the dam. Each valve responds differently to different control signals. Some valves close, as lake level drops, some valves open as lake level rises. Now, you are getting close to a model of how Earth controls its temperature.
e. swanson…”Thats positive feedback, IMHO?”
I have already alluded to the fact that positive feedback can have several meanings. However, when you talk about a thermal energy gain in a system produced by a poorly defined feedback, as in the explanation of climate modeler Gavin Schmidt, who claims feedback causes gain, I disagree entirely.
Let’s get back to brass tacks. There is no known system on the planet that can increase it’s energy on it’s own. That’s what prompted Clausius to write the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Carnot, who did stellar work on heat engines, maintained that a heat engine had no losses. Clausius perked up his ears and went, eh?
All systems have losses and no system can produce energy to increase the energy in the system. Even with positive feedback using transistors and ‘valves’, you don’t get something for nothing. The gain, or amplification, comes from external power supplied by a power supply.
You used the vacuum tube as an example. The basic triode has a heater/cathode to supply electrons to the system by literally boiling them off the tungsten heater. It has a plate, which is a cylinder around the heater/cathode, and it has a positive potential applied of typically 400 volts.
Between the heater/cathode and the plate there is an intermediate cylinder comprised of a screen through which the electrons can freely move. The entire rig is in a vacuum so gas molecules from air wont interfere.
With no negative bias on the grid, electrons will flow freely to the +400 volt plate. However, a small negative bias of a few volts will cutoff the plate current completely. Intermediate values of grid bias will allow current to flow.
If you apply a small AC voltage around the negative grid bias, it will allow a much larger current to flow cathode to anode. That is what we call amplification and the amplification factor depends on how closely the grid is designed to control the cathode-anode current.
Please note that the amplification does not represent something for nothing, you supply the amplified current from an external power supply.
It’s the same with any kind of transistor. When that amplifier uses positive feedback, it means that a very small in-phase signal from the output is applied to the small input voltage at the grid. That enhances the grid signal each cycle resulting in an ever increasing voltage at the plate. Eventually, the plate current will exceed the ability of the power supply to sustain it and the system will cut itself off.
I repeat, there is no known system that can increase its energy by its own means, especially the atmosphere.
Hansen and Schmidt at NASA GISS are claiming a similar positive feedback due to IR fed back from ACO2 in the atmosphere. They are not talking about the simple positive feedback you have described which applies to linear control in a servo system. They are talking about back-radiation from CO2 causing an amplification of heat in the atmosphere.
That is not possible. It contradicts the 2nd law and the concept of perpetual motion. There is no such thing as a self-sustaining process that increases its energy content.
g*r…”Each valve responds differently to different control signals”.
That’s the whole point of a servo system. It is designed to automate what a human could do. A human could stand there, watch the water level, and open the valves to reduce the level.
As you point out, AGW is claiming a positive feedback in the atmosphere that increases the heat content of the atmosphere. Not possible under present conditions even with an ever increasing level of CO2. You could increase the present level of CO2 ten fold and it still wouldn’t cause thermal runaway.
A tenfold increase in CO2 would raise the level to 0.4% (4000 ppmv). Argon would still be higher (9340 ppmv) so I don’t know if that level of CO2 would make us a bit woozy or not.
No one knows what caused the conditions on Venus. The surface temperature is far too hot to have come from thermal runaway conditions.
e. swanson…I mentioned transistors then reverted to my vacuum tube example, mentioning a grid. I am aware that transistors don’t have grids, although the field effect transistor work on a similar principle to vacuum tubes.
The bipolar junction transistor does not. However, it uses a similar principle in that a much smaller current through the emitter base junction controls a much larger current through the emitter collector junction. Again, the larger current is supplied externally and not manufactured by the transistor/tube.
You mentioned a load resistor. It serves two purposes. It limits the current through the device, so it won’t burn out, and it allows the device to act as a variable impedance. That controls the voltage at the junction between the device and the load resistor and that variation can be used to control a following stage or drive something like a speaker.
Without the load resistor, with a device connected directly to a power supply, no amplification would take place and the device would burn out and short circuit the power supply.
Amplification is really smoke and mirrors. Nothing gets amplified in an overall sense without the amplified current being supplied externally. There is nothing in a vacuum tube or a transistor that will produce amplification of electron current and neither is there anything in the atmosphere that will provide an amplification of thermal energy.
That is, AGW is smoke and mirrors as well.
GR, you seem to be forgetting that there’s a power supply providing the energy for your amplifiers. In the Earth climate system, the energy comes from the Sun as electromagnetic energy equivalent to black body radiation at about 5500K. That energy flows into the atmosphere and drives processes which result in a temperature at the surface that is above that on the Moon, which has no atmosphere. There’s no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics, energy is conserved.
What happens is that the atmosphere changes the balance of the flows of energy leaving the Earth’s surface. At TOA, things must still balance, it’s getting the energy to TOA which is changed by changing the composition of the atmosphere. I submit that you need to think outside of your amplifier box.
E. Swanson, I agree.
Gordon, you are all over the place, let’s focus.
You said:
“All feedbacks in the atmosphere are negative. Positive feedback by definition requires an amplifier.”
Your electronic amplifier uses a power supply.
The sun is the power supply for the albedo feedback.
Earth absorbs about 70% of incoming total energy, so the max power increase is 42%.
Snow/ice albedo is a fraction of that, but can we please agree that this is a positive feedback?
Forget about the runaway effect, T^4 will prevent that.
Swanson claims: “That energy flows into the atmosphere and drives processes which result in a temperature at the surface that is above that on the Moon, which has no atmosphere.”
Swanson, where do you get nonsense like that? The Moon’s surface temperature gets to its S/B temp, boiling point of water at 1 atm. No place on Earth anywhere near that hot.
What planet are you on?
e. swanson…”GR, you seem to be forgetting that theres a power supply providing the energy for your amplifiers. In the Earth climate system, the energy comes from the Sun as electromagnetic energy equivalent to black body radiation at about 5500K. That energy flows into the atmosphere and drives processes which result in a temperature at the surface that is above that on the Moon, which has no atmosphere. Theres no violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics, energy is conserved”.
I pointed out in my analysis that my amplifier is powered externally. That’s the whole point, you cannot get amplification from nothing, except perhaps in a system employing natural resonance. The Tacoma Narrows Suspension Bridge collapsed due to wind vibrating it’s suspension cable and the natural resonance caused amplification. An electronic amplifier like a transistor cannot amplify on its own.
The Sun is the warming signal on Earth, no argument. However, it warms the surface and the surface in turns converts the solar radiation to heat then back again to infrared. How do you get feedback into a system like that? You can’t, it’s not a feedback system.
Where’s the output? You can’t claim the surface IR as an output since it is less than the solar input. That would be an attenuator, not an amplifier. We are not feeding back energy to the Sun, at least, most of us, excepting David Appell.
AGW theorists have added a wrinkle, straight out of the annals of pseudo-science. They claim radiation from the surface is collected by water vapour and CO2 then radiated back to the surface, where it warms the surface even further than it is warmed by solar energy.
They call that a positive feedback. I call it pseudo-science. That system is riddled with losses. Most of the radiation that warmed the GHGs has been lost in the process and has to be made up before the back-radiation could warm the surface at all. Furthermore, the radiation would have to come from an atmosphere warmer than the surface. The 2nd law says so.
An amplifier would be required to overcome the losses in the system then amplify the warming. In essence, you would need to replicate the Sun using an independent source of heat. You cannot recycle heat and claim it as a warming agent. The back-radiated heat came from the Sun in the first place.
There’s your external power again. The Sun is external power and to add energy to warm the surface more you’d need another independent, external power source. The implied feedback as back-radiation cannot amplify.
svante…”Your electronic amplifier uses a power supply.
The sun is the power supply for the albedo feedback.
Earth absorbs about 70% of incoming total energy, so the max power increase is 42%”.
Yes, and my amplifier has an input, an output, and a feedback loop with provisions for mixing it with the input signal. That’s a classic feedback system.
Ok, the sun is the input, where is the output and the feedback loop? What is there that is feeding back to the input of solar energy? For feedback, you’d need a system that could limit the amount of solar energy, or in the case of AGW, add to it.
You could argue that ice limits solar energy by reflecting it away. However, that is not a feedback system unless something is sensing an upper and lower temperature and acting on the system to control it. There are no sensors, it’s either there is ice or there is no ice.
Here’s one. You have a greenhouse with shutters on it driven by a motor. You have a thermostat/thermocouple in the greenhouse. When the temperature gets too high, the thermostat sends a signal to a motor control that turn on the motor to close the shutters and cutoff the solar energy reaching into the greenhouse.
Take away all ice and snow. The sun warms the surface to a certain temperature which is an equilibrium temperature existing after the surface has rid itself of heat via conduction, convection and radiation.
Now let it snow and allow ice to form. The ice reflects away solar energy to reduce the surface temperature. How is that a feedback back never mind a positive feedback? There is no system with a feedback loop.
e. swanson’s example of a lake with a valve to drain it is better. You could have a float on the lake with a long arm that rises with the lake water. At a certain level, the float arm contacts a limit switch which turns on a pump to pumps out the water. Or maybe open a sluice gate till the float loses contact with the contact switch, or contacts a low level limit switch.
BTW…that’s exactly the system used with sump pumps.
That’s a viable feedback system. The float is feeding back information to a controller about the lake water level. The input is the lake, the output is the river draining the lake. The float is the feedback mechanism.
Where is such a feedback mechanism in the albedo example? If you are talking about warming due to the melting of ice, there is an upper limit to the warming. When the ice has gone, the Earth’s temperature is limited by solar energy only.
Most of the planet operates like that, however. We have already established an equilibrium temperature based on non-ice areas.
I don’t think it is a positive feedback system, if anything, it’s a negative feedback system that has cooled the planet. A positive FB system would have to increase the planet’s temperature beyond the level it is warmed by solar energy.
ps. what I am talking about in my last post is a servo system. In general, a servo system samples an output, like temperature, motor speed, etc., and sends the info back to a controller. A setpoint is the desired output and the feedback tells the controller how far off the output is from the setpoint.
The controller has a reference voltage or some other kind of reference to indicate where the output should be. The feedback signal is either dead on the reference or leading/lagging it, in which case an error correction is generated to adjust the output.
These feedback systems are called closed loop systems. Open-loop systems have no feedback. I don’t see how the albedo example fits either.
The amplifier examples I have used are for a reason. The tipping point theory that lies behind catastrophic global warming theory invokes a positive feedback that is of a different kind than the servo or closed loop systems above. It is a positive feedback with gain. Servo and closed loop systems don’t use gain (amplifier) unless the latter is used for bandwidth control in an amplifier system.
The hysteria behind catastrophic global warming is based on a mysterious amplification of heat and that has been based on amplification from positive feedback. My amplifier examples are of positive feedback with gain, which is highly unstable. Negative feedback with gain is stable.
Climate models are programmed with a positive feedback with gain. I am trying to demonstrate that cannot happen without an amplifier. The theorized AGW system is neither a servo system nor a closed-loop system. What they are describing is an amplifier with gain.
The 2nd law says that cannot exist in the atmosphere, basically because the alleged feedback as back-radiation cannot warm the surface.
Gordon,
Taking one step at a time does not seem to work, I’ll try a long message.
Yes, and my amplifier has an input, an output, and a feedback loop with
provisions for mixing it with the input signal. Thats a classic feedback
system.
OK.
Ok, the sun is the input, where is the output and the feedback loop? What
is there that is feeding back to the input of solar energy? For feedback,
youd need a system that could limit the amount of solar energy, or in the
case of AGW, add to it.
No, the sun is the power supply.
The output parameter is the temperature.
The feedback function is the albedo, i.e. the amount of abs-orbed solar radiation, which affects the temperature.
Abs-orbing more solar energy is like drawing more energy from your power supply.
You could argue that ice limits solar energy by reflecting it away.
Heureka!
However, that is not a feedback system unless something is sensing an upper
and lower temperature and acting on the system to control it. There are no
sensors, its either there is ice or there is no ice.
This is not a control system, just a simple feedback.
Correct, no sensors, just variations in the amount of snow/ice.
Heres one. You have a greenhouse with shutters on it driven by a motor.
You have a thermostat/thermocouple in the greenhouse. When the temperature
gets too high, the thermostat sends a signal to a motor control that turn
on the motor to close the shutters and cutoff the solar energy reaching
into the greenhouse.
This is a control system applying a negative feedback (B 0).
Take away all ice and snow. The sun warms the surface to a certain
temperature which is an equilibrium temperature existing after the surface
has rid itself of heat via conduction, convection and radiation.
Yes, the runaway effect is prevented by increased radiation to space, T^4.
That is something else, a negative feedback.
There are many other feedbacks, but let’s do one at a time.
Now let it snow and allow ice to form. The ice reflects away solar energy
to reduce the surface temperature. How is that a feedback back never mind a
positive feedback? There is no system with a feedback loop.
Heureka! Yes, the ice albedo feedback works in reverse.
It is still a positive feedback because it amplifies the initial change.
A negative feedback counteracts the initial perturbation.
e. swansons example of a lake with a valve to drain it is better. You
could have a float on the lake with a long arm that rises with the lake
water. At a certain level, the float arm contacts a limit switch which
turns on a pump to pumps out the water. Or maybe open a sluice gate till
the float loses contact with the contact switch, or contacts a low level
limit switch.
You are still stuck on a control system with a negative feedback.
Not applicable to ice albedo.
BTWthats exactly the system used with sump pumps.
Thats a viable feedback system. The float is feeding back information to a
controller about the lake water level. The input is the lake, the output is
the river draining the lake. The float is the feedback mechanism.
A control system with a negative feedback, not applicable to ice albedo.
Where is such a feedback mechanism in the albedo example? If you are
talking about warming due to the melting of ice, there is an upper limit to
the warming. When the ice has gone, the Earths temperature is limited by
solar energy only.
Positive feedback described above, by yourself in the reversed case:
More snow => less abs-orp-tion => lower temp => more snow, repeat.
Yes, there is an upper limit set by other mechanisms (T^4).
There is a lower limit too – see snowball earth on wikipedia.
The CO2 thermostat saved us, but please don’t respond to that on this thread.
Most of the planet operates like that, however. We have already established
an equilibrium temperature based on non-ice areas.
Yes.
I dont think it is a positive feedback system, if anything, its a
negative feedback system that has cooled the planet. A positive FB system
would have to increase the planets temperature beyond the level it is
warmed by solar energy.
You are confusing a runaway feedback with a positive feedback.
There are different feedbacks, some negative and some positive.
A positive feedback can be limited (AB < 1).
The ice albedo feedback stops when there is no ice, and can not exceed total solar irradiation.
ps. what I am talking about in my last post is a servo system. In general,
a servo system samples an output, like temperature, motor speed, etc., and
sends the info back to a controller. A setpoint is the desired output and
the feedback tells the controller how far off the output is from the
setpoint.
OK, not applicable to ice albedo.
The controller has a reference voltage or some other kind of reference to
indicate where the output should be. The feedback signal is either dead on
the reference or leading/lagging it, in which case an error correction is
generated to adjust the output.
OK, not applicable to ice albedo.
These feedback systems are called closed loop systems. Open-loop systems
have no feedback. I dont see how the albedo example fits either.
It’s a closed loop, or better still, the basic definition:
“A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A”.
Replace ‘more’ with ‘less’ for a downward spiral.
The amplifier examples I have used are for a reason. The tipping point
theory that lies behind catastrophic global warming theory invokes a
positive feedback that is of a different kind than the servo or closed loop
systems above. It is a positive feedback with gain. Servo and closed loop
systems dont use gain (amplifier) unless the latter is used for bandwidth
control in an amplifier system.
Servo system not applicable to ice albedo.
Tipping points are a different topic, not needed for this discussion.
“Catastrophic” is a normative word, let’s stick to facts for now.
The hysteria behind catastrophic global warming is based on a mysterious
amplification of heat and that has been based on amplification from
positive feedback. My amplifier examples are of positive feedback with
gain, which is highly unstable. Negative feedback with gain is stable.
OK, but let’s avoid hysteria, stick to facts.
The positive feedback is caused by the change in albedo.
Climate models are programmed with a positive feedback with gain. I am
trying to demonstrate that cannot happen without an amplifier. The
theorized AGW system is neither a servo system nor a closed-loop system.
What they are describing is an amplifier with gain.
Yes, described above.
The 2nd law says that cannot exist in the atmosphere, basically because the
alleged feedback as back-radiation cannot warm the surface.
Wrong but off topic for this discussion, please don’t reply here.
“Climate models are programmed with a positive feedback with gain.”
Are they? There are numerous ways of climate modeling, and the ones generally referred to are those that do not impose positive feedbacks and gain, but try to model the physics as well as possible and let that play out with perturbations to various components – such as the concentrations of ‘greenhouse’ gases in the atmosphere.
I should like to see the quoted bit properly referenced. There may be some models that do this, but generally, to my knowledge, they do not.
GR, You continue to be blinded by your continued insistance to use a mental model which defines the system as a box which has an electrical amplifier inside which provides power to operate some electrical device called a “load”. In the climate system, the boundary is the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and the processes within do not operate like your electrical analog. One must understand the physical processes to build a model and the snow/ice albedo process is just one of several which operate continuously. That’s “processes”, which is plural, meaning that there several working together at the same time with both positive and negative aspects.
For example, you break the albedo into two separate modes, first with then without snow and ice. In reality, the driving force at the high latitude surface is a continuous variation, like a sine wave, which continuously modifies the ice cover and the ice cover lags the forcing solar energy input. How would your amplifier system if the power supplied to it varied with a sine wave input from zero to some max value? I don’t care how good is your amplifier or what it’s gain, the output with zero power input would still be zero.
Temperature is an instantaneous measure of the energy within a medium at a point. One might model temperature as the voltage between two resistors in series with a constant voltage supply providing current and the other end grounded. The measured voltage is the balance of the two voltage drops across the resistors Use a variable resistor between the two outer resistors and one can vary the output voltage without changing the current thru the combination and a constant power dissipation within the series (power = V x I). Temperature is an instantaneous measure of the balance of all the energy flows converging thru the atmosphere at that point.
BTW, “catastrophic” climate change does NOT mean “runaway temperature”. Have you actually read Hansen et al. (2016)?
https://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/C6684/2015/acpd-15-C6684-2015.pdf
e. swanson…”GR, You continue to be blinded by your continued insistance to use a mental model which defines the system as a box which has an electrical amplifier inside which provides power to operate some electrical device called a load”.
Note to svante…I’ll get back to you, I need to sort out what you said and edit the overall response.
With regard to e. swanson’s reply, I am not using a mental model, I am implying straight out that positive feedback cannot exist in our atmosphere and I am using the electrical circuit reality (not mental model) to show exactly what positive feedback means.
continued….
In physics, positive feedback is associated with gain whereas negative feedback is associated with attenuation. Even in an amplifier, negative feedback serves to attenuate the gain across a frequency bandwidth.
In the wiki, positive feedback is described as a gain and given the formula G = A/(1 – AB). Although svante argues the meaning, calling A the signal rather than the gain, the wiki makes it clear the A is for amplification. G is the overall gain, which allows for the sign of the feedback to be -ve or +ve. Depending on the sign and intensity of the feedback, the overall gain will vary and that cannot happen unless A means amplifier.
In a passive system, with no active devices like amplifiers, positive feedback is not possible.
continued….
“Temperature is an instantaneous measure of the energy within a medium at a point”.
More accurately, temperature is the average kinetic energy of air molecules at a point.
“In reality, the driving force at the high latitude surface is a continuous variation, like a sine wave, which continuously modifies the ice cover and the ice cover lags the forcing solar energy input. How would your amplifier system if the power supplied to it varied with a sine wave input from zero to some max value?”
I don’t see the connection vis a vis positive feedback. What you describe is not a positive feedback system. I get it that the temperature can vary sinusoidally over the long term and you can put that down to the interaction between ice/no ice and intermediate conditions thereof.
My initial point is that such an albedo system does not constitute positive feedback. Nothing is being fed back to the Sun to control its output. I don’t see where anything is being fed back to anywhere.
All that’s varying is the reflection of solar energy. There is no feedback mechanism. In system vernacular you might call that an open loop system as opposed to a closed loop system. Open loop systems don’t use feedback while closed loop systems do.
GR, An amazing reply which totally ignores the physical reality. Sure, the Sun provides the energy input and the Sun’s output is nearly constant. But, the tilt of the Earth’s axis delivers this energy to high latitudes with a seasonal cycle, which in today’s situation causes freezing conditions with wide spread snow and ice. The area of snow and ice expands over time, it’s not an instant flip, so the Arctic sea-ice coverage grows to maximum in March, long after the minimum inflow of solar energy on 22 Dec. As the snow and ice area increases, the reflection of high energy, low entropy sunlight also increases, reducing the net amount of sunlight absorbed by the surface and atmosphere. The area coverage of snow and ice is a function of temperature, so warming results in less coverage, thus an increase in the energy absorbed. You have already admitted that this process could be called a positive feedback.
But you wrote: I am not using a mental model, I am implying straight out that positive feedback cannot exist in our atmosphere and I am using the electrical circuit reality (not mental model) to show exactly what positive feedback means.
Then you claim: In a passive system, with no active devices like amplifiers, positive feedback is not possible.
And, you continue, stating: My initial point is that such an albedo system does not constitute positive feedback. Nothing is being fed back to the Sun to control its output. I dont see where anything is being fed back to anywhere…All thats varying is the reflection of solar energy. There is no feedback mechanism.
Are you really so blind as to fail to recognize that you are assuming that your electrical amplifier analog isnt a mental model? Must I remind you that theres no electrical circuit with wires running to and fro, operating within the climate system. The climate system is composed of multiple physical processes, all operating together. The snow/ice albedo process reduces the solar energy input as a function of temperature, cooling results in more reflection and warming causes less. You have not yet presented any evidence that you understand the basic physics of the situation and thus your conclusions are dangerously wrong.
e. swanson…”You have already admitted that this process could be called a positive feedback”.
I did not. I made no reference to the albedo effect as feedback at all, in fact I stated clearly that I did not see how it could be regarded as feedback. You even corroborated that in your reply.
You have failed to establish any feedback whatsoever in that system. I am fully aware that the planet’s tilt causes the cooling in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere and in other posts I have claimed there is no way for CO2 to have any effect in the Arctic where significant solar energy is absent 5 months of the year.
******
“Are you really so blind as to fail to recognize that you are assuming that your electrical amplifier analog isnt a mental model? Must I remind you that theres no electrical circuit with wires running to and fro, operating within the climate system. The climate system is composed of multiple physical processes, all operating together. The snow/ice albedo process reduces the solar energy input as a function of temperature, cooling results in more reflection and warming causes less. You have not yet presented any evidence that you understand the basic physics of the situation and thus your conclusions are dangerously wrong”.
***********
The snow/ice is NOT a cause of the cooling, it’s a product of the cooling. It’s little wonder you are failing to understand the distinction between positive and negative feedback. The cooling is caused by the tilt of the planet as the Earth moves further from the Sun in its orbit.
Admittedly, the snow/ice does reflect energy, but how much? And what difference does the reflection make when the Sun is absent or very low in the sky?I fear alarmists are making far too much of the albedo effect just as they grossly overstate the effect of CO2.
My electrical example is a model while I am talking to you but I have built and repaired the real circuits for decades. Electrical circuits are not models to me, they are very real and comprised of very real parts.
The difference between an electrical model and a climate model is that electrical models can be easily validated. Just build one and test it. That has never been done with a climate model, which are programmed with egregiously incorrect physics, such as a highly inflated warming effect for CO2 and a positive feedback that has no business in a climate model.
Modelers are notoriously blind to real physics, such as the 2nd law and feedback systems. They make up their own jargon by taking words and ideas from physics and presenting them is such a manner as to enable their views on global warming/climate change.
Modelers actually believe that heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed the atmosphere. When the 2nd law is raised, they present blarney about a net energy flow, confusing heat transfer with electromagnetic energy. There is no such thing as a net energy flow with radiation between bodies. Each body radiates isotropically with a small fraction of the radiation from each body intercepted by the other.
When modelers and alarmists are not engaged in net energy flows they are incorrectly applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to represent a two way flow of EM. S-B present only a one-way flow representing the cooling of one body only.
Correct those errors and the exaggerated warming disappears, along with the hysteria about catastrophic climate change.
Why are my conclusions dangerously wrong? You have absolutely no scientific facts to back your accusation, you are going misguided consensus and bad science.
In a recent post I made from engineer Jeffrey Glassman, he berated alarmists for their views on Earth as a fragile planet. You alarmists have some seriously strange ideas about your role in protecting Mother Earth. She will go merrily on orbiting the Sun long after we are gone.
We will kill ourselves off fighting over the planet based on monstrous egos and arrogance. That’s what spurs me on, being a voice in the dark against mindless climate alarm.
GR, you surely are a stubborn fellow. Decades ago, I took a course called “Radiation Heat Transfer”. You don’t understand radiation heat transfer, as even your incomplete description of the process results in a different conclusion than what you give. Given two bodies, one at higher temperature due to energy input from another source and another at lower temperature, both emitting IR, each absorbs some of the other’s radiation, the net effect is that both are warmer than either would be without the interaction. For the Earth, the higher temperature body is surrounded by a shell, which is the other mass in the equation. Also, you are ignoring the physics of gases, which absorb and emit at discrete wavelengths. Try doing some math, as Eli did with his simple Green Plate model, which shows that your conclusions are wrong:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
Climate models are related to weather models and in each instance, the testing is by comparison of model results with real world measurements. For example, how well do the models reproduce the history of the Earth’s average temperature and the seasonal cycle, do they reproduce the declining temperature with altitude (the lapse rate) in the Troposphere and the increasing temperature with altitude in the Stratosphere (due to another greenhouse gas) and is the seasonal precipitation close to reality? Even a one dimensional model provides a reasonable semblance of reality. Your assertion that the models are incorrect ignores many decades of improvements in the models and the continual efforts to test them.
If you refuse to do the math, you automatically lose the “debate”. Your obstinate display of your ignorance is either a sign of pathological illness or you are just a troll enjoying the fight without ever entering the ring
E. Swanson…
I would recommend you buy a new pencil and take a few more courses but I am not sure if that will work out well for you. Gordon presented basic scientific principles you are unable to understand.
It would seem to me (and I’m just a layman,so what do I know) that, if severe weather is caused by a clash of air masses and the cold mass is getting warmer faster than the other air mass, generally one should be able to conclude that severe weather would be (statistically, anyway) less common and less severe?
Yes, the Arctic is warming much faster than the tropics, so the thermal energy available for extratropical cyclones should have gone down.
It’s well documented by now that the Arctic region is warming faster than the tropics. Even the UAH data shows this, though less so than the RSS and NOAA STAR data. The question is what’s the mechanism of this difference. Is it the snow/sea-ice albedo feedback during the melt season, changes in cloud cover during the year, increased down welling IR, particularly during the freeze season or changes in tropic to pole circulation bringing more warm air and water to high latitudes? The simplistic notion that the albedo feedback will suppress meridonal circulation only applies during the summer months, as there’s no sunlight at the North Pole from the Fall Equinox until the Spring. Then too, the warming during Winter may be due to a different feedback from that during Summer.
It’s all rather complex, don’t you agree Dr. Roy?
The most obvious reason is that the percent coverage of the Earth by land increases as you go northward. The Arctic ocean is relatively small, and cannot escape this influence from the surrounding land masses.
The Arctic Ocean certainly covers less area than the Atlantic or the Pacific, but at 14,056,000 km2 (5,427,000 sq mi), it is considerably larger than the US Lower 48 states which comprise 8,080,464.3 km2 (3,119,884.69 sq mi). And, the Arctic Ocean has exhibited a different seasonal response compared with that of the high latitude land, as is evident in satellite data.
Roy
Not sure if that idea holds water. The land masses surrounding the Arctic Ocean receive almost no solar heating in winter, but winter is when we see the lion’s share of anomalous warmth (it’s not even close).
e.swanson…”Its well documented by now that the Arctic region is warming faster than the tropics”.
It’s more accurate to say that pockets of warming in the Arctic that move around are more prevalent. The Arctic as a whole is not warming.
Here’s a UAH global temperature map for December 2017:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/december/DECEMBER%202017.png
Here’s December 2016:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2016/december/DECEMBER_2016.png
Entirely different scenario. It appears Arctic warming is more weather related than it is to global warming.
GR, you present UAH LT data for 2 months in different years. Monthly data is still in the realm of weather and does not “prove” anything about the long term changes to climate which are underway.
Not only that but the use of a calendar month in presenting results ignores the fact that a month is not tied to geophysical reality, it’s just a human defined division of the days of the year, a division which doesn’t even use equal spans of days. As a result, real astronomical variation from the lunar full moon cycle is aliased into the calendar month results. Because of this obvious fact, comparing one month with another likely presents a bogus conclusion. A prime example is this January, when there are 2 full moons.
The appropriate comparison should be regional averages over years and even these data are confusing because of natural variation, such as that from the ENSO cycle. The trend for the UAH TMT NH polar land is 0.16 K/decade and ocean is 0.20 while RSS TMT results show an overall trend of 0.24 K/decade. The trend for the UAH LT NH polar land is 0.23 K/decade and ocean is 0.20 while RSS TMT results show an much larger overall trend of 0.45 K/decade…
e swanson…”GR, you present UAH LT data for 2 months in different years. Monthly data is still in the realm of weather and does not prove anything about the long term changes to climate which are underway”.
You have entirely missed my point e. I am trying to show that the hot spots in the Arctic move around month to month and year to year. Yes, there is warming in the Arctic but, no, the warming is not an overall, persistent effect.
It is weather related.
Robertson claims:
“Yes, there is warming in the Arctic but, no, the warming is not an overall, persistent effect. It is weather related.”
No, your very point that the Arctic is warming puts the lie to your quote. Climate is the statistics of weather and average temperature is one such statistic. Over many years, various data sets show a warming trend, including the data from 38 years of satellite MSU/AMSU measurements. One can not call this trend “weather”, it’s clear evidence of a change in climate. AGW is the only plausible cause for these changes, as other influences have been shown to be deficient.
Swanson declares: “AGW is the only plausible cause for these changes, as other influences have been shown to be deficient.”
This statement falls in the category “the science is settled”. This worn out tactic hasn’t worked for 10 years. But, maybe if Swanson keeps doing the same thing, over and over, hoping for different results. ..
So, g*e*r*a*n, what’s your explanation for the warming which appears in the various records? How does your theory match the minimal change in solar output, the fact that warming is greater at night than day and the high latitude loss of sea-ice during the summer melt season? Not to mention all the measurements of up welling infrared spectra in the atmosphere and on orbit. Don’t forget to include the impacts of aerosols, such as the massive increase in pollution from burning coal by developing nations such as China and India. Scientific references required. Go for it!
The “null hypothesis” is natural variation. It is YOUR task to “prove” otherwise.
Go for it.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I am trying to show that the hot spots in the Arctic move around month to month and year to year. Yes, there is warming in the Arctic but, no, the warming is not an overall, persistent effect.”
UAH LT NoPol trend = +0.25 C/dec since 12/1978
Amazingly, on this blog you can’t even give a link to UAH’s own data.
The blog rejects it.
g*e*r*a*n, define “natural variation”.
Do you mean the Little Ice Age, such as it was, for which an explanation could be an increased incidence of large volcanic events. Or, would you accept an average of the “Medieval Warm Period” and the “Little Ice Age”. Perhaps you have a metric covering a longer period, such as the MBH 1000 year reconstruction. Or, is your choice the temperature range during the glacial period from the Eemian to the LGM, which might represent an average since about 3 MA? Please do let us know…
Swanson requests: “Please do let us know.”
All to the above. Earth’s “natural variation” would be analogous to the complete set of extremes for which a control system is designed to accommodate.
g*e*r*a*n, Lets see, the Earth has been in a period dominated by Ice Ages beginning roughly 3.3 Ma. Data suggests that the last period of glaciation resulted in global temperatures about 5 C colder than the recent past and the sea level was some 125 meters lower. The temperature range might thus be -2.5 C +/-2.5 C. The warming since 1880 is said to be about 1.25 C above pre-industrial temperatures, thus the recent warming is much beyond the range since the Eemian. Or, one can simply accept that MBH has been proven correct:
https://tinyurl.com/zdjh5gd
Let’s see, Swanson started out wanting to know what “natural variation” meant. I gave a concise explanation.
Then Swanson runs back to his pseudoscience to reconfirm his original bias!
This is going to be a GREAT year in climate comedy!
g*e*r*a*n wrote: ” Earths natural variation would be analogous to the complete set of extremes for which a control system is designed to accommodate.” and “I gave a concise explanation.”
There’s no separate “control system”, only physical processes, and you have provided no definition of the “complete set of extremes”. The available very long term data sets do not have the resolution to establish the range of extremes. I offered the past 118,000 years as an example of the range of possible states, which show evidence of two stable situations, one with and tone without large areas covered by glaciers over Canada and NW Europe. There is evidence that other stable states may exist and we should not toy with atmosphere, lest we tip into a new climate regime which turns out to be exceedingly unhealthy for humanity. For example, if the dew point exceeds 35 C (95 F), people will die and that includes you.
Swanson fears: “There is evidence that other stable states may exist and we should not toy with atmosphere, lest we tip into a new climate regime which turns out to be exceedingly unhealthy for humanity. For example, if the dew point exceeds 35 C (95 F), people will die and that includes you.”
Swanson, the Earth is not going to “tip into a new climate regime”. You’ve been listening to too many Alarmists. Try to live in reality and avoid fiction.
g*e*r*a*n, the climate has already been shown to switch between climate states. They are called “Ice Ages”…
1) How many ice ages have there been?
2) Where did they occur on a time scale?
Just two simple questions, for the “expert”.
SEE:
https://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/C6684/2015/acpd-15-C6684-2015.pdf
And the references therein…
‘clash of air masses’
Theres the cold air aloft relative to the warm moist ocean to consider for tropical storms as well
actually, no. Tropical cyclones form in a statically stable environment…the vertical temperature contrast actually does not add to the potential energy of the cyclone. Only in a super-adiabatic environment does that happen. The energy is derived from latent heat release by condensing water vapor. For example, tropical cyclones usually form when there is warm, high pressure aloft, not a cold low.
“the vertical temperature contrast actually does not add to the potential energy of the cyclone.”
Ok, agreed.
Nor does that polar-tropical temperature contrast add to its energy.
” The energy is derived from latent heat release by condensing water vapor.”
And we established with cites in your October post that the cold-reservoir of the heat engine of a hurricane is high in the troposphere.
Dr. Spencer,
You write that neither of these two events were exceptional from a meteorological perspective and go on to cite a previous high temperature in Sydney. Is there data available that puts the bombogenesis rate / location /time of year during Grayson into historical reference?
Ryan Maue has a “bomb” cyclone climatology in the following WUWT article… I would think that one of the global reanalysis datasets extending back to the 1950s could also be used, although I’d question anything before the satellite era because only satellites can see these hyper-baroclinic zones that cause rapid cyclogenesis. I would even argue that as we have gotten higher resolution satellite sensors, and increased the resolution of models, there will be an artificial increase in rapid cyclogenesis in the model datasets which are the basis for analyses like Maue’s. In other words, it might not be possible to say whether there has been a long-term increase.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/06/goremongering-and-mannhandling-the-reality-of-winter-weather-bombs/
We published a paper years ago showing how satellite-measured temperature quantities can be interpreted in terms of quasi-geostrophic theory to diagnose extratropoical cyclogenesis. I was pretty proud of that work at the time.
I really like the content of this article. A few years ago I was bringing up the very same points and that process led me to getting banned from Skeptical Science.
I had asked the very same thing from the group. I need evidence. If storms are getting worse it should be easy to create rational trends and metrics of storms (size, intensity, duration, etc…measurable qualities of weather systems). Each year there are 100,000 thunderstorm and 10,000 supercell storms (approximate numbers). With such a data base all that is required is to put measured values to each storm and one can see if there is a valid trend.
When I read that the jet stream is weakening causing the polar vortex to chill the US all I can think of is a g*e*r*a*n mentality. Declare something a fact and see if the ignorant public accepts it.
I have lived in Nebraska long enough to know you have this super cold weather (polar vortex) invading the Central US frequently (check out 1983 December, much colder than this recent cold spell). If US is cold basically Europe is warmer and visa-versa. The Arctic cold air gets to a certain volume and will move southward somewhere. I think it would be rare if the polar vortex stayed locked up all winter and never moved southward to chill some group of people. I think if you study Northern Hemisphere winters you will see the claims have zero merit and are just made up declarative statements based upon no evidence.
The real evidence (science) makes the claims of a weakening polar vortex from global warming look really stupid and unscientific and meteorologists who make these claims look silly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave
Norman, Yes all true, but what do you make of Roy’s statement:
” an anomalously warm Arctic can be expected to be associated with disturbed weather patterns around it. “
The theory is a weakened polar vortex would more often cause cold air to spill south from the Arctic, and comparatively warmer air to replace it.
If there is not hard evidence for the former, there definitely IS for the latter:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2017.png
Hey Norm, that’s for the mention. I know you want to ignore me, but I’m irresistible.
Anyway, keep up the great advertising. T-shirts sales are booming! (I may have to raise prices again.)
Ill buy one
norman…”I really like the content of this article. A few years ago I was bringing up the very same points and that process led me to getting banned from Skeptical Science”.
Then you were not banned because you insisted on telling John Cook he knew nothing about science? ☺
Gordon Robertson
Nope. I only make that claim about you since you have been exposed to real science by many posters but still do not want to understand it. I do not think John Cook would suffer from a need to make up his own brand of physics and reject the established physics that works in the real world in everyday applications. I have linked you to so many real science articles and textbooks but it does no good with you.
Thanks for the smiley face.
norman…”Thanks for the smiley face”.
I have nothing personally against, you Norman, even though our exchanges get heated at times.
norman…”Thanks for the smiley face”.
I have nothing personally against, you Norman, even though our exchanges get heated at times.
This message was detected as a duplicate. Go figure, If it shows up twice that’s the reason.
The media and many car wreck experts cite speed as the #1 cause of car wrecks.
Curiously, in order for any wreck to occur, at least one vessel must “speed” in order to occupy the same space as another vessel. So all car wrecks involve speed, which should compel the experts to cite “poor judgement”, not speed.
The hype artists’ relentless blaming of man’s CO2 emissions, as the primary cause of “climate change”, should give pause to question their claims.
Seems you aren’t aware of the evidence. Have you tried to study it?
DA…”Seems you arent aware of the evidence. Have you tried to study it?”
I keep trying to tell you, there is no evidence. Only virtual evidence provided by deluded climate modelers and cheaters like NOAA.
Youre another one who doesnt know the evidence, and wont spend 15 minutes reading about. You must be allergic to learning.
davie, I’ve actually wasted several minutes tracking down your “evidence”, in the past. What I find is mostly devoid of science. But, often rewarding in terms of hilarity.
Once, you linked to the preposterous pseudoscience that the Sun can warm the Earth to 800,000K! I still smile at that one.
And, repeatedly, you have linked to DWIR as evidence that the atmosphere can heat the surface. You (hilariously) don’t even understand that your “evidence” relies entirely on an “assumption”. The “assumption” being that ALL infrared is ALWAYS absorbed.
Obviously, your assumption, as well as your evidence, is pseudoscience.
Hilarious.
dT = dQ/mc
Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
=> dT = 760,000 K
Q.E.D.
davie, once again, demonstrates his lack of understanding of physics.
(Someone said 2018 was going to be a great year for climate comedy.)
Experts in the field of automobiles are an interesting lot.
Most ‘accidents’ involve inattention or just plain ordinary stupidity. Deaths, however, can be directly related to speed, but speed is not the cause of the accident.
CO2, while possibly complicit, is a required gas for life on earth. The efforts by the ‘experts’ to blame CO2 has to do with their agenda, nothing more.
Yes, plants take up CO2. At the same time, atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
These can both be true at the same time. And are.
Water is also necessary for life, yet you can still drown.
Oxygen is also necessary for life, but also necessary for fires, which can extinguish life.
Vitamin A is necessary for health, yet toxic at high doses.
I could go on and on
Should the “Glossary of Meterology” quote read 20-23 and not 2023?
Yes, fixed, thanks. WordPress drops some punctuation and special characters in copied text.
roy…”Yes, fixed, thanks. WordPress drops some punctuation and special characters in copied text”.
I wrote to them about that and their propensity for refusing words like absorp-tion and Had-crut. No reply….maybe if you suggested it to them.
Why no one pays attention to the La Nina? Please see the wind direction over Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
There will be more clouds in northern Australia.
ren…”Why no one pays attention to the La Nina? Please see the wind direction over Australia”.
Great point, ren. Australia is the western terminus of La Nina.
Who doesn’t pay attention to la Ninas? We talk about it constantly, and several people provide data links and maps.
just over a year ago these threads were full of people saying an *inevitable* la Nina would follow immediately from the 2016 el Nino, returning the temp trend from 1998 back to flat or zero.
They didn’t get their wish. Maybe they’re hopeful this one will do it.
The bi-weekly update from BoM will occur in about 24 hours. You can click on the following link tomorrow and see if anything has changed.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
The very latest from NOAA:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
And from JMA:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
What do you want to talk about?
Michael Mann’s PhD is in geophysics, obviously specializing in climate.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php
Geology and geophysics. Might was well be biology.
Roy, that comment is beneath you.
Interesting you should say that David. I have found that very little is beneath you.
Dave,
I dont see how a global climate record can be constructed from available proxies. It took many iterations to build a global temperature data set with instruments from this half century and there is still considerable uncertainty- even in satellite adjustments. My problem as someone that does have a PhD and publication history in paleoclimate is that when you add up noise you get destructive interference (low Signal to noise ratio) and erase signals. And such a data set woild absolutely be full of noise. To detect a century or less (higher frequency) signal using paleoclimate methods would require nearly complete coverage through time or great smoothing. So at a minimum you have very high uncertainty in such a data set. How do you stitch that to a global data set that can detect high frequency oscillations and variability? It is apples to oranges to compare. When you observe continuous regional data you see abundant high frequency climate shifts. Like Asian monsoon has century scale climate change.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159
And Northern Hemisphere warming has been different than a hockey stick with high freq change. How do we know Southern cancels this pattern rather than just poorly sampled and erases signal?
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/58/2/2.17/3074082
And there are abundant very high frequency global sea level (eustatic) jumps. Like the one last interglacial of plus 6m or more.
I dont mind Mann’s science I am bothered by his politics and certainty in his own work. It raises a red flag.
Aaron, Mann et al’s publications on the hockey stick certainly included an uncertainty for each data point:
https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/hockey_stick_TAR.gif
Yes and the SNR is absurd. Statistically you could have several events in there equal to this anomaly (1950 to 2000). Actually you would expect such events the p10 and p90 type. We are agreeing here- it is a smoothed trend that defines the hockey stick
I recall Joe Bastardi writing that Mann needed to go study some Meteorology over some daft statements Mann made.
I also recall Mann stating to a Senate hearing that he followed the scientific method. Now that is strange given he has said:
a) proofs are for spirits and geometry
b) as long as you feel it is right then it is fine to run with that idea.
In a strict scientific sense a) is correct; no one proves in science.
But the b) part is as unscientific as one could imagine. The “science” could change from morning to noon to night; just depends on mood. Have a tiff with your partner and watch how the science swings.
So it confirms Dr Roy’s view ; may as well have been biology or astrology.
Bastardi claimed CO2 isn’t a well-mixed gas:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/03/joe-bastardi-idiot-liar-or-both.html
Which the data show is wrong & wrong & wrong.
He said this on Fox News, of course — and we all known their superb track record on finding the truth.
If I have to choose between believing davie or Joe B., it’ll be Joe every time.
“Mann is a geologist/geophysicist, which is equally uninformed on atmospheric dynamics.”
By this logic, someone with a bachelors degree in physics and a PhD in applied math would be even less suited to discuss atmospheric dynamics. Try telling that to Richard Lindzen!
The point is that people continue to learn, and can gain expertise in other areas. The critique against Mann seems particularly misplaced since his PhD work and post-doc work actually focused on climate. Anyone who can write the dissertation “A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system” must know SOMETHING about atmospheric dynamics.
Tim believes: “By this logic, someone with a bachelors degree in physics and a PhD in applied math would be even less suited to discuss atmospheric dynamics.”
No Tim, a solid background in physics is necessary to understand Earth’s energy balance. Without such a background, you end up with some claiming “cold” can warm “hot”.
And yet, oddly enough, Lindzen believes in GHE and AGW.
I could help him with that.
tim…”Try telling that to Richard Lindzen! ”
Or Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician who heads NASA GISS and who is highly revered by the alarmist crowd. Difference is, Lindzen specialized in the real atmosphere while Schmidt specialized in the virtual world of climate models.
How about his predecessor James Hansen? He has a degree in physics but his field of study was astronomy.
Climate models use the same equations Lindzen did.
DA…”Michael Manns PhD is in geophysics, obviously specializing in climate”.
Doesn’t matter what his avocation may be, he is wrong most of the time. Hockey sticks, Antarctic warming….all he’s done is make a fool of himself while managing to insult female scientists like Judith Curry, seemingly because she is a female and a skeptic.
I wish I could say what I really feel about him.
In climategate, this erstwhile, wannabee scientist was seen to be trying to block peer review while his buddy, Phil Jones, of Had-crut, bragged about using Mike’s trick to hide declining temperatures. Over at realclimate, the head of NASA GISS, Gavin Schmidt, who runs rc with Mann, was defending Mike’s trick as just a prank among the guys.
Jones also revealed in the climategate emails that he and Kevin (you know who) would see to it that certain skeptical papers would not reach the IPCC review. One of those papers featured Roy’s colleague at UAH, John Christy.
Gordon, of course, you have no qualifications whatsoever to judge Mann.
DA…”Gordon, of course, you have no qualifications whatsoever to judge Mann”.
Of course I do, I’m a human being with a brain. I have a certificate to prove it, my birth certificate. Had I been born without a brain I’d also have a death certificate.
Do you have either?
You have demonstrated no expertise whatsoever that qualifies you to judge Mann. Which is why you have never done so scientifically.
Essentially every comment you have ever posted on this blog is wrong.
The hockey stick is established science. It’s been reproduced using several different mathematical techniques. It’s also required by the laws of physics.
Jones was just venting, one friend to another. Journal editors have the final say on a paper’s publication.
DA…”The hockey stick is established science. Its been reproduced using several different mathematical techniques”.
Only by flunkies who work for Mann.
The PAGES 2k study was done by over 5 dozen scientists around the world?
All flunkies?
See the kind of ridiculous positions you back yourself into, all in an attempt to deny the science (by not actually critiquing the science)?
“Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
davie and his bird-cage liners, again.
This one “reconstructs” the global temperatures for the last 2000 years! Yup, “reconstructs”!
At least they are not faking the temperature record. ..
Hilarious.
Roy wrote:
The trouble is that neither of these two events are exceptional from a meteorological perspective. That is, they have happened before (Sydneys 117 deg. F peak was exceeded in 1939), and they will happen again.
“Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking
monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climatewith no long-term warming.”
– Coumou, D., A. Robinson and S. Rahmstorf, 2013: Global increase in record-breaking monthly-mean temperatures. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0668-1.
It is easy to demonstrate that with even modest population growth near a thermometer site the spurious temperature increase is at least 1-2 deg. C. This is well documented. Unless studies such as this use pristine sites with no addition of nearby buildings, pavement, mechanized devices, deforestation, over the last century, then they have little use for determining “extremes” statistics, which can be statistically exaggerated because they are out in the tail of the distribution. If you go from 1 event to 3 events, that a 200% increase. The statistics of rare events are dodgy.
Roy, you know very well the raw data Undergoes quality control to correct for issues like that. You wouldnt like it if people summarily dismissed your papers; its disappointing to see you do it to others, just because you dont like their result.
Are their expectations reasonable ? probably not they are well known as being in a particular camp
Regards
Harry
DA…” Coumou, D., A. Robinson and S. Rahmstorf,”
Rahmstorf…get serious. He challenged Richard Lindzen to a debate and got his butt kicked. When cornered he reverted to relativity theory.
https://motls.blogspot.ca/2008/03/lindzen-vs-rahmstorf-exchange.html
“…he [Rahmstorf]argues that the consistency of a model with the historical data shouldn’t affect our confidence in these models”.
“Rahmstorf also makes a typically layperson’s mistake when he thinks that the climate sensitivity can be measured “directly” without having any theory or model in mind. Incredibly, he seems to be using “fingerprints” as evidence for the greenhouse theory of the climate, even though the theoretical fingerprints clearly disagree with the reality”.
“Richard Lindzen also doesn’t buy Rahmstorf’s bizarre comparison of climate science with general relativity…”
Here, Motl takes on another of your favourites, John Cook of skepticalscience.:
https://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
Youre Attacking personalities because you are utterly incapable of judging the science on its merits.
DA…”Youre Attacking personalities because you are utterly incapable of judging the science on its merits”.
I quoted physicist Lubos Motl who wrote an appraisal of the Lindzen-Rahmstorf debate. You don’t really want to know what I really think of Rahmstorf.
Gordon, any opinion you have of Rahmstorf would be a woefully uninformed one. Your opinion of him doesn’t matter.
Do you have solid critiques of his science?
Gordon,
Lindzen understands that there is a greenhouse effect and AGW. But you don’t.
nate…”Lindzen understands that there is a greenhouse effect and AGW. But you dont”.
Can’t win em all.
Lindzen does make it clear, however, that the GHE as presented does not work and he feels AGW is limited to about 0.4C/century.
I like Joe Postma’s view on GHE. He claimed, we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
My favorite Lindzen quote is (talking about AGW alarmism):
“I think it’s mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”
Gordon Robertson says:
Lindzen does make it clear, however, that the GHE as presented does not work and he feels AGW is limited to about 0.4C/century.
Very few scientists, if any, think Lindzen is right.
You treat him like a god whose pronouncements are always correct by condition of his godliness.
Because you don’t have many other arguments.
Lindzen would say that G* and Gordon are idiots if they do not believe GHE is real.
Nate, by putting your words in other people’s mouths, do you believe that makes you look clever, or deceptive?
g*e*r*a*n,
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[68]
“Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point ‘nutty.'”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
“According to a new research report published today in a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, the 2016 global average temperature and extreme heat wave over Asia occurred due to continued long-term climate change…..
“Additionally, climate change was found to have influenced other heat events in 2016, including the extreme heat in the Arctic, development of marine heat waves off Alaska and Australia, as well as the severity of the 2015-2016 El Nino, and the duration of coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef.”
http://www.noaa.gov/news/special-report-2016-extreme-weather-events-and-ties-to-climate-change
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/
…which is why many of us who helped establish the quality and reputation of the AMS over the last few decades are no longer members. Besides, what does “climate change” mean, exactly, in terms of causation?
“Besides, what does climate change mean, exactly, in terms of causation?”
Bell tolls…
roy…”Besides, what does climate change mean, exactly, in terms of causation?”
I’d like to know what ‘climate change’ means, period. I relate it to the natural changes in the many micro-climates around the planet, none of which can be related to a number derived statistically from global temperatures.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Id like to know what climate change means, period”
It means a change in climate.
Do you really need a definition of climate?
Brian, you dont seem to have any scientific critiques about these papers, only snark. Youre threading into Gordons territory.
DA…”According to a new research report published today in a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society….”
Let’s not forget the AMS awarded medals to Roy and John of UAH for excellence with regard to their data sets. Can’t have it both ways, either you accept the clear message from the UAH sat-based data sets or you live in the aerie-fairie world of catastrophic AGW.
Apparently, the AMS is comfortable in both worlds which should lead one to suspect they don’t really know what’s going on and that they are more interested in appearing to be politically-correct.
Your reply again shows you incapable of judging the science on its merits. Medals dont matter when evaluating science, the quality of the science does. Strikeout.
DA…”Your reply again shows you incapable of judging the science on its merits. Medals dont matter when evaluating science…”
They do when they are issued by the AMS then they turn around and contradict the reason for awarding the medals. NASA gave medals for excellence as well to Roy and John and GISS contradicts the reason the medals were issued.
Give it enough time and the anti-human climate alarmists will be talking themselves about medals, honors, etc in order to give their shrieks of apocalyptic catastrophe a veneer of authority.
And, by enough time, I mean microseconds…
Laura, you continue to disappoint me with your trite comments.
Recalling Dr. Spencer’s comment above regarding “theories” being overthrown by later evidence, perhaps those early awards to Roy and John were premature as their work was later shown to be flawed…
Obviously Swanson has no clue about the problems and pitfalls in developing a new technology.
g*e*r*a*n, please explain why there are major differences between the current UAH results and those from RSS and NOAA STAR? (see above comment)
Gordon Robertson says:
They do when they are issued by the AMS then they turn around and contradict the reason for awarding the medals. NASA gave medals for excellence as well to Roy and John and GISS contradicts the reason the medals were issued.
No, they don’t. In science, the best science wins, not those with the most medals. Always.
To which “above comment” do you believe you are referring?
g*e*r*a*n, the comment with UAH and RSS trend data, data which you apparently choose to ignore.
Swanson, without proper reference to your comment, the only choice I have is to ignore it.
I can’t read your mind.
Dr. Spencer:
“Nevertheless, the weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.”
Do you believe the only way to reduce our carbon footprint is through taxation and regulation?
The Weather Channel would strongly disagree.
If our carbon footprint can be reduced through free market forces alone, I’d be fine with that. But I do not see that happening until either (1) fossil fuels become scarce, (2) some magical technological advancements occur, or (3) people overcome their phobia of nuclear power.
Dr. Spencer
I mostly agree with you, and readily admit the Weather Channel is biased.
I take issue with your inference about their motives. Just as likely they want to see people change their lifestyles: drive more fuel efficient cars, buy local, etc.
If our carbon footprint can be reduced through the free market, maybe the free market is what the “warmongers” are trying to influence.
snake, you need to be increasing your “carbon footprint”. Studies have shown that the best CO2 level for plants is about 550 ppmv. I don’t think mankind can get the level that high, but we shouldn’t stop trying.
Go burn some leaves.
“Studies have shown that the best CO2 level for plants is about 550 ppm”
The side affects might be a problem.
If you seriously believe that, then go plant a tree.
Do something besides just fretting and acting “concerned”.
Honestly, I just like to argue.
Did you miss my grammar error? Effects, not affects.
I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t care to mention it because I figured you would just try to argue your way out.
☺
snape…”I take issue with your inference about their motives. Just as likely they want to see people change their lifestyles: drive more fuel efficient cars, buy local, etc.”
When you have a viable and affordable alternative to fossil fuel, come back and we can talk. What you alarmists are doing, IMHO, far exceeds the dangers of nuclear energy. It gives me the shivers to think of you lot meddling with the planet in an attempt to control CO2 output and solar input.
Doesn’t have to be all or nothing, Gordon. Fuel efficient cars run on gas.
I hope fusion will get us there. It perpetually seems to be 20 plus years out but in last few years my optimism has grown due to recent advancements. I hope much more funding goes into it.
The best way to acquire energy from fusion is to write “FUSION” on a piece of paper and put it in a safe box. Then, build 50 conventional nukes, in the next 30 years.
After 30 years, you can take the piece of paper out of the safe box, and you will have both “FUSION” and all those years of nuclear energy.
Roy, does free market include the cost of pollution and the damages it does? If not, youre talking about a form of socialism, not free market capitalism.
From each according to his smokestack, to each according to his lungs.
A free market economy needs government to ensure it remains free, for instance to protect it from external invasion, to ensure the protection of individuals from harm and property from theft, to enforce contracts freely entered into by individuals and companies etc.
Where air pollution due to particulates and chemicals has been shown to damage persons’ health governments in a free market society enforce rules to limit that pollution (air and water) but living in a large city has costs and benefits and all risks cannot be eliminated entirely.
The increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration in recent years has probably contributed to the greening of the planet but I’ve never heard of any evidence that it has cause lung disease.
The most polluting societies have been and are communist.
christopher…”The most polluting societies have been and are communist”.
India is not communist. China claims to be communist but they are run by capitalist dogma now. Russia has not been a communism since the 1990s.
Christopher Hanley says:
“The most polluting societies have been and are communist.”
Proof?
This certainly isn’t true for carbon pollution. The US leads in cumulative emissions (1850-present), by a factor of 2. Per capita, the UK leads, or did a few years ago.
National contributions to observed global warming
H Damon Matthews, Tanya L Graham, Serge Keverian, Cassandra Lamontagne, Donny Seto and Trevor J Smith
Published 15 January 2014 2014 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 9, Number 1
Carbon Dioxide = Plant Food
Invisible
Odorless
Zero harm to lungs
A gas – Not a micro particle
Plants love CO2.
Then why are there no plants on Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% CO2?
davie can’t accept that plants love CO2, so he throws out another “red herring” so he can dodge reality.
It’s fun to watch.
One can argue that a person should be able to sue for damages caused by air pollution. Suing is a free market principle to me because it is an extension of property rights. If science can show say that 1 pct of lung cancer deaths are caused by coal then the coal burners in theory need to bear 1 pct of the cost. If it can be shown that c02 causes oceans to rise and my beachfront mansion gets destroyed then those producing co2 need to pay. I view this as free market. But at same time if I sue and lose then I should pay reasonable legal costs.
Energy markets have never been a fully free market.
There have been subsidies for fossil fuel exploration, nuclear power, ethanol, hydroelectric, etc
“some magical technological advancements occur”
Like PV solar at $1/watt? Already here.
I just saw this, in Colorado:
“One is that a whopping 17.38 GW of wind projects were bid at a median price of 1.81 cents per kWh. More shocking is that wind with battery storage was just 2.10 cents per kWh, which would beat every fossil fuel option.”
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/09/this-is-how-wind-and-solar-energy-will-crush-fossi.aspx
Love that. TWC used to be about the weather.
I could watch it and have a good idea of what the weather was like that day for people I know anywhere in the US. Not the details, but a good idea. Now I only have an (exaggerated) idea of what they are experiencing if they are in the path of “Winter Flurry Ferdinand”.
They love to forecast “potential record breaking temperatures” yet several years ago stopped including the record high and low for the day on their “Local on the 8’s”.
Guess they don’t want people to come to realize, “we’ve seen this before”.
PS Speaking of local records, The record high for Jan. 9th for my little spot on the globe listed in 2007 was 65 F set in 1946.
The list from 2012 says it was 62 set, again, in 1946.
Currently they say record high was still 62 but now it was set in 1949.
“Weather Weirding”
Dr. Roy, thanks for this effort to address the vapid alarmism.
Folks worried about the “extremes” between Australia and US? The lack of understanding is amazing.
Southern Hemisphere, Northern Hemisphere, opposite seasons, SH closer to the Sun in their summer, so about 7% more solar than NH. Apples and oranges.
North Dakota typically experiences almost the same “extremes” just between its summer and winter–140F delta, almost every year.
And all the fret about the polar vortex! Most of the worriers don’t even realize the role the PV plays in modulating Earth’s temperature. It’s almost like many of them never finished 7th grade!
Hilarious.
Beautiful words!
sometimes g*e*r*a*n doesn’t irk me.
I must be slipping.
☺
(For those that do not come here often, I regard Dr. Roy as one of the heroes in fighting back pseudoscience. I agree with him on probably 90% of the AGW issue. He believes that CO2 might have some measurable impact on temperatures, whereas I believe that the effect is several orders of magnitude below anything measurable. But, as testimony to his regard for science, I, along with other “extreme skeptics”, are allowed to comment freely here. That does not happen at sites that wallow in their pseudoscience.)
Hi g*e*r*a*n*,
so you “believe that the effect is several orders of magnitude below anything measurable”.
Now, my question for you is:
Why (in the past) do you asked me to change my mind from being a “lukewarmer” to a an extreme skeptics, when I never argued that we ever had been able to measure any “backaradiation” heating at all?
Maybe I had not been clear that my point was and it is that if the radiation is radiated back, it could reduce the cooling at the surface. How much it does, it depends on how it weights vs the other thermal exchanges between the surface and the atmosphere.
When I stated that backadiation exists and heats the surface I always intended that it was at a philosophical level, I’m almost sure that our current measurements tools can’t measure that tiny signal.
Have a great day.
Happy 2018 to anybody here.
Massimo
Massimo: “When I stated that backadiation exists and heats the surface I always intended that it was at a philosophical level, Im almost sure that our current measurements tools can’t measure that tiny signal.”
Massimo, we agree completely.
G*,
Roy understands science and its value. You do not.
“He believes that CO2 might have some measurable impact on temperatures, whereas I believe that the effect is several orders of magnitude below anything”
Roy understands that ‘belief’ in science is based on evidence and data.
Whereas your ‘belief’ is nothing but belief.
Thank you for stating your belief.
Massimo: it can be measured, and has been measured. See Feldman et al Nature 2015 and Philipona et al GRL 2004.
davie must have a lot of bird cages.
nate…”Roy understands science and its value. You do not.
He believes that CO2 might have some measurable impact on temperatures…”
So do I, about 0.03C for the entire atmosphere.
I base that on the Ideal Gas Equation for a constant volume, constant mass system, and Dalton’s Law of Partial pressures. The amount of total CO2 in the atmosphere by percent mass is simply not enough to warm the atmosphere more than a few hundredths of a degree C.
Gordon, you completely ignore radiative transfer.
You pretend that an entire part of Nature simply doesn’t exist.
Don’t we need some clowns or buffoons ?
Otherwise life might be deadly dull.
g*r…”Southern Hemisphere, Northern Hemisphere, opposite seasons, SH closer to the Sun in their summer, so about 7% more solar than NH. Apples and oranges”.
Don’t forget the immensity of the Pacific Ocean in the Southern Hemisphere. Also, ren’s great point about the effect of La Nina on Australia, which is it’s western terminus.
Climate Change and the Iranian Protests
While liberals are fiddling while North Korea and Iran conspire to develop nuclear weapons, distracting the world from the real threats it faces by manufacturing this
Global Warming nonsense, President Trump is busy developing a battle plan that will end the Evil Empire once and for all. His solution? The exact one that President Reagan used to defeat the far more formidable USSR President Trump plans to use the free market and the industrial mite of America to flood the world with oil. President Trump wants America to not only be energy independent, President Trump wants America to be energy DOMINANT!!!
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/climate-change-and-the-iranian-protests/
LNG and oil are now being shipped from the gulf states. Asia is s buyer.
co2…”The exact one that President Reagan used to defeat the far more formidable USSR…”
I don’t recall Howdy Doody beating the USSR. I do recall him deregulating financial institutions, which lead to the financial collapse in the US during the 2000 decade. Of course, the culprits behind it largely got off scott-free.
He also instituted the fake news that HIV is a highly dangerous virus which can defeat an immune system, after lying dormant for 15 years, when no other virus can do that. He accepted the word of Robert Gallo verbatim, without peer review, after Gallo had used the same virus-based cause to claim cancer is caused by a virus. He was wrong in both cases.
Recently, the scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, has made it clear that HIV cannot harm a healthy immune system. The proof is in the fact that AIDS has only struck those with depleted immune systems. None of the predicted global AIDS pandemics ever happened.
That’s the legacy of Reagan. I call him Howdy Doody for obvious reasons. Howdy was a puppet operated by strings.
We should learn from that in climate science. Rather, we seem bent on following the same dead end path that lead HIV/AIDS researchers on a merry chase the last 30 odd years. Many of them are still raving about the dangers of HIV long after the obvious was pointed out to them by scientists with integrity like Dr, Peter Duesberg, an expert in retroviruses like HIV.
“Two independent studies have concluded that the public health policies of Thabo Mbeki’s government, shaped in part by Duesberg’s writings and advice, were responsible for over 330,000 excess AIDS deaths and many preventable infections, including those of infants.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg#Consequences_of_AIDS_denialism
svante…”Two independent studies have concluded that the public health policies of Thabo Mbekis government, shaped in part by Duesbergs writings and advice, were responsible for over 330,000 excess AIDS deaths and many preventable infections, including those of infants.”
Montagnier, who discovered HIV, claims the issue in Africa is oxidative stress due to malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasites such as mosquitoes and intestinal worms. He has suggested cleaning up those issues and giving the people antioxidants.
The African problem in the pre HIV/AIDS days used to be attributed to wasting syndrome, or Slim’s Disease. Now it is lumped under the AIDS umbrella as an opportunistic infection caused by a sexually transmitted virus.
Who would you believe, an expert who discovered HIV or some idiot writing in a wiki?
You will find a lot of idiots writing about HIV/AIDS just as you find idiots writing about AGW.
“You will find a lot of idiots writing about HIV/AIDS just as you find idiots writing about AGW.”
I agree.
svante…go to the Talk tab at the top of the wiki page and read through the comments. Some are claiming Duesberg denies AIDS exists which is nonsense. Others are defending him. He has addressed that in depth, even offering suggestions for male homosexuals to avoid getting AIDS.
Duesberg believes HIV exists and he is an expert on retroviruses. He cannot accept the idea that HIV can behave like no other virus, lay dormant for up to 15 years, then destroy an immune system. No one has ever proved that it can, they have not even come close.
Then go to this page and get a perspective on the other side of the story.
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/
You will find a lot of compelling evidence by top rated scientists on HIV and AIDS. Even Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, has held out from the beginning, circa 1983, claiming HIV could not act alone to cause AIDS. Now
he is claiming HIV will not harm anyone with a healthy immune system.
Now go to this site and hear the horror stories of what the drugs issued to HIV+ patients can do to your body. Rasnick worked in research for pharmaceutical companies developing these drugs. He also served on the advisory committee to Mbeki.
http://www.davidrasnick.com/
Gordon,
Hopefully you or your family members never get infected with HIV, and you are never in the position of deciding whether anti-viral treatment is given.
Deusberg is a quack who has been denounced by experts throughout the world.
DA…”Deusberg is a quack who has been denounced by experts throughout the world”.
Some quack…California Scientist of the Year and a world renowned expert on retroviruses.
There’s no pleasing some people.
He won that award in 1981, before his HIV/AIDS quackery began.
davie, how is the job search going?
DA…”He won that award in 1981, before his HIV/AIDS quackery began”.
The award means he was a highly regarded scientist at the time and when he claimed HIV could not cause AIDS, the scientific community should have listened. Thirty years later, the scientist who discovered HIV corroborated Duesberg. Now all the rest are quacks.
HIV has not caused AIDS in the general population since the HIV/AIDS quackery was announced by Reagan in 1983. Here in British Columbia, Canada, a Province of some 4 million, only a small fraction of 1% are claimed to have AIDS.
They are all from high risk groups whose immune systems get depleted by their lifestyles. The predicted pandemic did not happen, the theory failed.
HIV is utterly harmless to the average person.
Deusberg is a good example of how a good scientist can go astray with crackpot theories. Hes been roundly denounced in the scientific community, and lost a lot of respect he had built.
Why is it you fall for every crackpot theory out there?
PS: Electrons dont really move around the nucleus, either.
“British Columbia, Canada, a Province of some 4 million, only a small fraction of 1% are claimed to have AIDS”.
That’s because treatment works.
“Without treatment, average survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype”.
Treatment “raises the life expectancy for a newly diagnosed young adult to 2050 years”.
Drugs are verified by rigorous testing. Do you suspect a fudging in the FDA?
20-50 may be more realistic.
I saw a map the other day, showing the area of North America that has temps below normal, balanced by areas of the world where temps were above normal. Big surprise here – since the earth receives about the same amount of energy each day from the sun, I would expect the average earth temp to remain virtually the same all the time. I’m no weather expert; just an aged chemist.
ward…”Big surprise here since the earth receives about the same amount of energy each day from the sun…”
g*e*r*a*n just pointed out that the Southern Hemisphere receives 7% more solar energy than the Northern Hemisphere due to the Earth’s tilt.
Gordon
It isn’t the earths tilt. It is the earths orbit around the sun isn’t circular and the earth is closer to the sun in January than in July.
Its both the tilt and the nonzero eccentricity.
By non-zero eccentricity, you mean the orbit isn’t circular but you can’t say that can you, David.
If the orbit around the sun was perfectly circular (or in your terms had zero eccentricity), please explain in your own words how the tilt changes the earth’s solar energy input between January and July.
The texts call the earth’s orbit an ellipse and the eccentricity is just defining how elliptical it is https://phys.org/news/2014-11-earth-orbit-sun.html
You can have eccentric circles, the opposite of concentric ones, so saying the earth’s orbit as nonzero eccentricity is imprecise.
(See if I get this right)
Tilt has to do with incidence of radiation on land. The northern Hemisphere, having more land mass, is affected by solar radiation differently than the southern. As the earth moves around the sun, tilt, along with where the earth is in relation to the plane of the orbit -( whether higher or lower in relation to the sun ) affects how much radiation impacts the earth.
If the earth is below the plane and the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, and is closer in orbit then radiation received is greater. The exact opposite is true at the other side of the orbit.
See Milankovitch –
Apologies if I misstated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
I should have been clear that “earth” meant planet, not just land. The tilt doesn’t affect the total solar energy input. That input is just a function of distance from the sun as the cross-sectional area doesn’t change.
The seasons are a function of the tilt, but whatever happens in the northern hemisphere is opposed by the southern hemisphere changes. The “earths” average temperature is warmer in July than it is in January because the Southern Hemisphere has a lot more water (which has a lot higher thermal inertia than land) and the high polar plateau.
Chris Morris says:
By non-zero eccentricity, you mean the orbit isnt circular but you cant say that can you, David.
I assumed everyone knows what “eccentricity” is.
Or that they can look it up.
Why didn’t you just say the orbit was elliptical then, David? Or is that beneath you? An eccentric orbit could be elliptical or an off-centred circle under your terminology. You pull others to pieces because of a poor choice of words.
And I am still waiting for you to tell us how tilt alters the total planet’s solar input.
Chris Morris says:
Why didnt you just say the orbit was elliptical then, David?
Because everyone learns this in high school.
Chris Morris says:
An eccentric orbit could be elliptical or an off-centred circle under your terminology.
“Eccentricity” has a particular meaning regarding elliptical orbits. Learned in 11th grade analytic geometry.
Chris Morris says:
And I am still waiting for you to tell us how tilt alters the total planets solar input.
The amount of incident energy from sunlight varies as the cosine of the tilt angle.
lewis says:
“If the earth is below the plane and the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the sun….”
The Earth is never below the plane of its orbit.
I am so pleased that you can do elementary geometry David, but if that is your answer to “how tilt alters the total planets solar input.” you have a poor maths knowledge.
Sure the sun lower to the horizon in the northern hemisphere will lower the solar input there, but that is exactly counterbalanced by the sun being higher in the southern hemisphere. That is why I used the word total, which you don’t appear to have been able to read.
Chris: the solar luminosity incident on the Earth varies as the cosine of the tilt angle. This is true regardless of the season.
lewis…”Tilt has to do with incidence of radiation on land”.
Something on that subject. I think the cycles of varying tilt explain warming/cooling well.
http://earthsky.org/earth/can-you-explain-why-earth-has-four-seasons
Another thought. The Earth’s orbit about the Sun could change for two reasons. One, the angular velocity changes hence the angular momentum. Two, the gravitational pull of the Sun varies.
There could be a third. If there is in fact an Aether (ie. empty space is not really empty, and varies) that could change the momentum of the Earth. However, that effect would tend to cause the planet to slow down permanently.
DA…”The Earth is never below the plane of its orbit”.
The NH points toward the Sun half the orbit and away from it the other half.
In neither of those cases is the Earth below the plane of its orbit.
If it was, the orbit wouldnt be a plan.
DA…”In neither of those cases is the Earth below the plane of its orbit”.
I know that, I’m actually agreeing with you. However, in that plane, if the Earth retains it’s tilt, it will go though phases where the Sun strikes it on different parts of the surface facing the Sun.
Ward used the word “about” and still you thought it worth correcting. Works out to about 0.04% change per day. Sound familiar?
Snape – please go back and read what Ward actually wrote. especially the phrase “I would expect the average earth temp to remain virtually the same all the time. ” A 7% difference January to July is a significant difference and definitely not about the same.
Though there are other factors involved, it is of amusement to people in Australia and New Zealand just how sunburnt tourists from the Northern Hemisphere get in just a short time here – like 15-20 minutes. Easy to spot as they are bright red and walking very carefully. They always tell you they never burn in Florida or at the Mediterranean. Needless to say, melanomas are a major cancer problem.
You’re right. My comment missed the mark.
I like the way you think Ward. Precision is so important here. Picking a subset of the earth (the surface, the troposphere etc.) cannot represent the total heat content of our planet, and can mislead if using such a proxy for trends. The core of the earth is much warmer than the surface, which in turn is much warmer than the outer reaches of the atmosphere. But all molecules of the total mass of our planet exchange energy with each other directly or indirectly. How valuable would it be to know the average temperature 10 feet below the surface around the globe? That just might be a more reliable indicator of temperature trends than exposed surface temperatures. But even that would be an incomplete picture, just like everything we have today. I am with you. I just don’t see how the actual total heat content of the mass of the earth changes all that much minute-to-minute, day-to-day, year-to-year etc. Everything we are told is an approximation from a proxy, which simply cannot tell the whole story, and as such should be taken in proper context.
Off topic but an interesting result is how many years it would take the amazon river to put out a volume of water equal to the volume of water that is stored in the worlds oceans.
Stevek
Not sure why your are interested in this one.
It is just simple division.
Amazon puts out 6591 Km^3/year
Ocean’s contain about 1.37 x 10^9 Km^3
1,370,000,000 km^3/6591 km^3/year = 207,859 years.
Source of Amazon output:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River
Source of total volume of Earth’s oceans:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml
Norman,
I was just amazed how big the oceans are. The 200,000 years put it in perspective. I did calculation but doubted results.
If you go on Jo Nova’s site, you will see that the high temperatures in Sydney were just a function of very short temperature bursts, something electronics registers but not the old mercury in glass. So they were nothing exceptional.
When it comes to the Arctic, the temperature over the pole drops.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2018.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/70mb9065.png
If there is a sudden stratospheric warming at the north pole this year will that cause the Arctic temperatures to get warmer or colder. I have been heard that stratospheric warming is a possibility at the end of January.
I am interested to know why a routine cyclone produced the highest sea level on record at the Boston tide guages.
It’s called the “butterfly effect”. But, they aren’t telling much about it.
Apparently the butterflies they took to the ISS got too friendly. Yup, they joined the “250-mile high” club.
It sounds fun, but something must have happened to the butterflies DNA. How many gene-altered monarch monsters now fly the skies? Think godzilla butterflies. Massive wingspans that can flap at deafening rates? What is NASA hiding?
g*e*r*a*n
I have to admit you do have some potential for humor. That was a funny post.
Humor?
This is serious business! Monster butterflies with 400 ft wing spans? Who knows how big they will eventually get?
It’s not only what they will do to the weather, where will they poop?
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition22/butterflies_images.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Don’t give up your day job.
The funny thing about your comment, pp, is you probably believe it is original.
Definitely not as original as pooping monster butterflies.
g*r…”What is NASA hiding?”
In the GISS department, the truth abount global warming.
abount???
And the truth is what, according to you?
No job interviews today, davie?
Jo Nova from Australia has an interesting write up of the deception of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology & the Sydney heat.
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/sydney-hottest-ever-mistake-generates-fake-news/
zepp…”Jo Nova from Australia has an interesting write up of the deception of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology & the Sydney heat”.
Jo is only repeating what we already know in the Northern Hemisphere: NOAA, NASA GISS, and Had-crut are all cheaters who are politically representing eco-alarmists.
The UAH data comes from NOAA satellites and I fear NOAA is getting the data before turning it over to UAH and fudging it higher.
Sure, everyone in the world is cheating because they dont give the results Gordan wants. See how easy denialism is?
If the world isnt warming, why is all this ice melting and the sea rising? Why are flowers blooming earlier, and species moving poleward?
DA…”Sure, everyone in the world is cheating because they dont give the results Gordan wants. See how easy denialism is?”
I have already explained all this to you. You tend to be seriously obtuse when presented with scientific fact. You are in denial that NOAA is corrupt, even when presented with their own admission that they throw out over 75% of their real data and manufacture the thrown out data in a climate model.
It’s warming because the planet is forever cooling and re-warming. Right now, it’s recovering from a 400 year mini ice age. It takes time for all that ice to melt, especially when it gets replaced to an extent every winter.
You have presented no facts about NOAA, and Barry has already shown, several times, that you’re lying about them.
Right now, its recovering from a 400 year mini ice age.
Temperatures are about 1 C warmer than at the start of the LIA. What has caused that temperature increase?
davie has to ask: “Temperatures are about 1 C warmer than at the start of the LIA. What has caused that temperature increase?”
Well davie, we know it’s not caused by CO2. Maybe it’s just all natural. Maybe the next 100 years will cycle cooler.
You are in denial that NOAA is corrupt, even when presented with their own admission that they throw out over 75% of their real data
It is irksome to keep saying it – you are lying about this, and have lied about it consistently for a couple of years now.
There was no 75% of real data to throw out.
Historical data was added retrospectively during the 90s in a major project that added weather stations by hand. They DID NOT CUT 75% of non-existent data.
Please, for heaven’s sake, stop with the disinformation.
No David, which shows that yet again you don’t bother to read. In one of Jo’s columns, there are old newspaper articles giving higher temperatures for Sydney during heatwaves that are higher than the new “record” high.
I dont read Australian newspapers, and I certainly dont read Jo Nova. But I doubt she knows something that the Australian BOM doesnt.
That actually just proves how you have no credibility David. You only push the party line and don’t go away from the approved texts.
There are actual pictures of old newspaper articles that show hotter temperatures in Sydney in 1939 and 1896. There are photos showing the Stevenson screens and other equipment at those sites so they were well maintained and credible.
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/sydney-before-climate-change-over-50c-122f-recorded-at-windsor-observatory-1939/
Therefore as the head post is about, the heatwave is not unprecedented and all the piling on by alarmists on the back of that is rubbish. The reason why the BoM says the temperature is the hottest is that those old stations aren’t in their database. For some of the stations that are still there, their historic temperatures have been lowered without explanation. And the BoM had to admit that their data was wrong. Among other things, the peak temperatures are sometimes as short as one second – not the five minutes recommended.
Maybe you should get out in the real world, rather than just spending your life trolling. Or are you stuck in your house by the unprecedented snow?
Chris: I don’t buy whatever some blog — especially Jo Nova’s blog — spits out. She often publishes crap, like the “Force X” hypothesis.
I trust the scientists. What are they saying?
(And, no, I don’t have time to keep up with all the back-and-forth that goes on in Australia.)
And the BoM had to admit that their data was wrong.
Where did they do that?
Link?
The link is on Jo Nova’s site David but you aren’t allowed to read that, so it isn’t any value posting. And you are the last one who should be demanding links as many of your statements in this and other posts are unsupported. Or are you still in the do as I say, not as I do mode?
But to save you thie risk of potential contamination from impure thoughts, here is a summary. After telling everyone about the record temperature
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-07/sydney-hits-its-highest-temperature-recorded-in-79-years/9309552
and then getting rubbished by sceptics like Jo Nova who used the old newspapers, BoM admitted that yes there had been higher temperatures.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-07/sydney-hits-its-highest-temperature-recorded-in-79-years/9309552
So Jo Nova using BoM records did know more than the BoM.Their Penrith station has only been there since 1995 so it isn’t a major record to break.
And Jennifer Marohasy after finally getting documents under the Official Information Act details how despite saying they do, BoM neither follows their own procedures, or international standards, on temperature measurement. They have had a catalogue of errors. In the middle of winter they deleted one record because their QA program said it couldn’t get that cold.
But you won’t address the actual fact that the temperatures in Sydney aren’t record breaking.
David, Appell,
The BoM does have some credibility problems, and they have been embarrassed by some of the statistics that they have put out. One is tempted to surmise from your response that you do not really care about facts that do not fit your agenda.
there are old newspaper articles giving higher temperatures for Sydney during heatwaves that are higher than the new “record” high.
I live in Sydney, and the news I read was that it was the hottest day since 1939. Googling for what you’re talking about, I see the BoM said it was the hottest ever, then corrected it a few hours later, which matched the headlines I saw.
You don’t let a good bit of rhetoric go to waste, eh?
After telling everyone about the record temperature and then getting rubbished by sceptics like Jo Nova who used the old newspapers, BoM admitted that yes there had been higher temperatures.
You have that the wrong way around. Nova piped up after the corrections were made.
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/sydney-hottest-ever-mistake-generates-fake-news/
quote “I dont read Australian newspapers, and I certainly dont read Jo Nova.”
No wonder you’re so ignorant!
What ever happened to “Force-X?”
The New York Times reports:
“Thirteen cows died in a field in Pennington County, S.D., after ingesting anthrax spores from the soil; they had changed their grazing patterns during a drought that lasted much of the year in South Dakota, North Dakota and Montana.”
The US cow association has demanded action.
NYT also reports:
“A fire broke out near the top of Trump Tower on Monday, causing smoke to billow out over the skyscrapers of Midtown Manhattan and Central Park.”
Police say the President’s hair piece had caught on fire.
And, finally, Fake news reports:
“the president supposedly complaining on his first night in the White House that his bedroom television was broken because it didnt have the gorilla channel, which screened only videos about gorillas.”
Fact:
The gorillas at the Bronx zoo have demanded a “Donald Trump” video channel.
There is a good chance that the El Nino 3.4 index will fall to -1,5 degree C in January.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
There is a good chance the southern Oscillation Index will fall below zero in January.
Currently, the 30-day average is -6. i.e. more El Nino than La nina at the moment.
Operational SST Anomaly Charts for 2018.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.1.8.2018.gif
Professor
The ONI was negative for almost 4 years following the 97/98 El Nino. I’m guessing La Nina/cool-neutral for quite awhile.
overall oceanic temp now +.172 c
“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
salvatore…”overall oceanic temp now +.172 c”
If anyone doubts that they should try swimming in the Pacific Ocean at the latitude of Vancouver, Canada. I mean, I’ve tried it off the west coast of Vancouver Island and it’s a cold that turns Caucasians blue, even on a hot summer’s day.
I went in up to my ankles and the chill immediately transferred to my head. Anyone surfing in that vicinity uses a wet suit.
The above number is (I guess; Salvatore never cites a source) the global average SST.
Right now the sea temperature off Vancouver is 7.8 C.
https://www.seatemperature.org/north-america/canada/vancouver.htm
Money quote:
Nevertheless, the weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.
Welcome to the state of California controlling the climate via taxation & regulation.
Sigh.
obama…”Welcome to the state of California controlling the climate via taxation & regulation”.
I don’t know why all the looneys ended up in California. Heck, even the Beverly Hillbillies headed thar to Californie.
I think Jethro was a damned sight smarter than governor Brown.
California has long been one of the major hubs of innovation in the US.
In 2015 its GDP per capita ranked 11th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita
Roy wrote:
(Hint: Warming should be occurring basically everywhere)
That isn’t true and you know it.
That map is for, what, a single day?
It’s the climate.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
And this is a La Nińa.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
You can see a beautiful tropical storm in northern Australia.
The 3 and 3.4 charts show some serious drops.
Extremely long electron drop in orbit.
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/images/noaa_elec_3d.gif
DA…”Roy wrote:
(Hint: Warming should be occurring basically everywhere)
That isnt true and you know it”.
Of course it’s true. If the Arctic was warming due to anthropogenic CO2 there should be an overall warming. The UAH global maps show warming in hot spots that move around regularly, inferring weather patterns.
Here is UAH’s global temperature change map over the whole of their record:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2017/december/DEC1978_DEC2017_trend_LT.PNG
There’s some slight cooling in the Southern Ocean.
But that’s all.
Despite a complete lack of increase in sea level rise, couldn’t future excess sea water be pumped onto Antarctica to freeze? Seems like a good place to lock it up. Would it stay frozen through summer?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
DA…from your link:
Estimates, estimates, estimates!!!
“Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously monitored against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality”.
All measured numbers have an associated uncertainties; they are inescapable. UC’s sea level numbers do too. From their 2010 article:
“When the entire record is assembled, the average rate of sea level rise from 19932009 is 3.4 0.4 mm/year.”
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/estimating-mean-sea-level-change-topex-and-jason-altimeter-missions
That is, 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/yr.
You need find basins that are below sea level to hold the water because it costs too much to pump it up hill. There are such basins and aquifers throughout the world. Also it may be possible to build trench to some of them.
You want to dump sea water into the world’s major aquifers, making them saline — aquifers needed for agriculture and human use?
Only if needed, and cost / benefit analysis showed that this was optimal solution. It would not be all of them.
What benefit could there possibly be to ruining the world’s aquifers??? How would the world grow crops?
Could the world’s aquifers possibly hold more than a tiny percentage of sea level rise?
The aquifers surprisingly are pretty big. But I dont think many are close enough to ocean to be viable. I think though it is important to start planning for doomsday scenarios in case the models on the high end tend to be correct. I dont believe there will be a political solution, even if there is an agreement it may not be enough. There needs to be studies done and plans drawn up.
Putting salt water into fresh water aquifers is a really stupid idea. No one would agree to that, and it would be extremely expensive.
Many of the basins are already saline. Salton sea for example. And I doubt enviros would object to filling Death Valley. Think of the local revenue from recreation. Don’t think there is a water table there either. Not a scientist but would a siphon hose from the Pacific Ocean once started continue to draw water? Think I read somewhere on here siphon is only good for a short rise. Might need solar powered pumps. From what I understand wster pumping very efficient with solar.
It can be done via digging canals or tunnels. Death Valley is not that far from ocean. It wont make much difference in ocean level. Maybe couple of cm. But the greens would never allow it. Could be some endangered lizard they will freak over.
The qattarra depression can hold 1,213 km^2, so that could buy us three years.
Svante , yes that is a prime location. Many of these places have really poor people that lead a bleak existence. Some dollars would get them to move. They would be more than happy.. for many it would be more money then they have earned in their whole life.
I don’t think anybody lives in the qattarra depression, except the lizards of course.
It would make the regional climate more benign.
Fishing in Sahara!
You want to destroy the freshwater aquifers of the poor.
Can you imagine how they might not want this to happen?
Why can’t you destroy you own aquifers, not theirs?
They will be offered a relocation package. In Africa Im sure most will accept. Land is taken already in the USA by the government and the people are paid a reasonable amount. This is done for things like highways, railroads. There are likely better geo engineering solutions, but each one has drawbacks. It is a matter of choosing the best one. Seems there will not be any significant agreements on c02. If it gets really bad then choices will need to be made, and at that point it will be too late for reducing co2 to fix the problem. This is all of course assuming model sensitivity is on the high side, I agree co2 warms the planet but I have not much of an idea on the sensitivity.
Stevek says:
“They will be offered a relocation package.”
Even stupider.
And racist. Ruin your own aquifer instead of expecting Africans to give up their homelands and move somewhere else.
You sound as racist as Trump.
“I dont think anybody lives in the Qattarra depression”
I was wrong, there are 300 people living there, plus nomadic Bedouins.
Royal Dutch Shell and the Texas Apache Corporation extract oil.
Interesting project though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project
Such a pressure distribution bodes for snowstorms in the northeast of the US.
http://www.lightningwizard.com/maps/North_America/gfs_cape_usa72.png
Darwin Wyatt
Cancelling out sea level rise by pumping water into Antarctica sounds good until you do the numbers.
It costs about $10 to pump a cubic metre of water uphill by 40 metres. That is $10 billion per cubic kilometre.
Sea levels are rising by 3.3mm/ year.
https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_AVISO_GIA_Adjust_SerieReference.png
Each mm of sea level rise is a volume increase of 360 cubic kilometres. To cancel out 3.3mm/year of sea level rise, you would need to pump 1200 cubic kilometres each year at a cost of $12 trillion.
Nice calculation.
Em, you might want to check your calculation.
EM,
Nuclear powered pumps wouldn’t cost as much. Not in the know but I bet there are moth-balled nuclear powered ships/subs that could be repurposed for the task.
You’re off by 3 orders of magnitude. Cost to pump a cubic meter uphill 40 meters is about 1.1 cents. About 4e5 joules with electricity at 10 cents/kWh = 2.8e-8 $/joule.
Congratulations Bart!
I was waiting to see if any pseudoscience types could catch his mistake. That’s why I only gave a hint.
So, you’re almost off the “bad boy” list now.
Keep up the good work.
Bart
I agree with your math it is the same thing I get.
If Entropic man was even close a small town could never run a water tower. A typical water tower holds might contain 425,000 gallons.
https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=tightropetb&p=gallons+of+water+in+typical+watertower&type=37781_062417
With this volume that calculates to 1608 cubic meters of water. Water towers are often built to 40 meters height.
If one were to accept Entropic man’s calculations it would take $16,080 to fill a water tower. Water towers are designed to supply at least one day of use. That would be a ridiculously high amount of money to spend on water. Also irrigation would be so expensive no one could possibly farm using it.
The actual number to pump down the water would be more like $12 billion.
What about rotation of the earth? Would a gargantuan man created glacier on the South Pole throw it off? Yikes. It’d have to be equally distributed around true South I think.
If the mass were large enough, I suppose it could. If off-centered, might cause some wobble. And, should cause the rotation rate to increase a bit. I’d do some calculations to see, but it’s such a silly thing anyway. Almost all of the purported sea level rise is a phantom of isostatic “adjustments”.
There are, of course, pump inefficiencies to consider, so it might be 3X that. But, it’s not 1000X that.
Assuming reasonable efficiencies for the motor and pump, and using a rather expensive electrical cost of $0.15 KWh, the total cost would be about $30 billion, not 12 trillion! So, Em’s estimate is off by a factor of about 400.
And, davie stated “Nice calculation”! Anything to further the agenda, I guess.
Hilarious.
But, the 3.3mm/year SLR is another funny topic. 3.3mm/year would amount to 16.5cm (6.5 inches) after 50 years. People near oceans would notice 6.5 inches in 50 years. Venice, Key West, San Francisco Bay, just to name a few. In the Maldives, they are building airport after airport to plan for increased tourism. The runways are only a few feet above sea level.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/08/maldives-airport-expanded-800m-china-contract
Finally, the $30 billion cost to “solve” SLR, is close to the amount of money wasted on “climate change”, every year. IOW, if SLR were really a problem, we waste enough money to solve it.
Doubly hilarious.
A new theory to replace the greenhouse effect theory. You heard it here first on Roy’s blog. You’ll likely hear it last here on Roy’s blog.
1)Planet Earth is an electromagnetic energy radiation converter. It converts incoming shorter wavelength EM to heat then heat back to outgoing longer wave EM.
2)The outgoing intensity of the EM is less than the incoming, meaning EM is stored as heat in the surface, causing a delay in the reduction of heat. That explains the +33C theorized difference between a planet with no oceans and atmosphere and a planet like Earth with both.
3)When the Earth’s surface absorbs solar EM, it warms laterally and in depth. That means heat penetrates the oceans and solid surface, spreading out the heat internally as well as radiating it as LW IR. That explains why outgoing EM is much less than incoming solar EM. Eventually a stasis is reached in conjunction with point 4).
4)Heat is transferred from the surface via conduction to all air molecules, where it is carried aloft by convective forces. Some is radiated directly. As Wood indicated in 1909, the atmosphere is a poor radiator of EM therefore it tends to retain the heat it has collected from the surface.
5)The heated air rises, but due to gravity, the air thins as it rises. At a certain altitude, the less dense air molecules don’t collide as much therefore heat transfer between them reduces. As the air thins further with altitude, the heat disperses naturally through a reduction in density.
6)At the same time, as higher altitudes are reached, the existing air molecules are cooler and the rising air gives up its heat to the cooler molecules, to reach equilibrium.
7)Molecules closer to the approaching absolute zero temperatures of space will radiate naturally, releasing the rest of their heat content.
8)There is no need for so-called greenhouse gases to even be considered.
“That explains why outgoing EM is much less than incoming solar EM.”
This isn’t true — at present they only differ by about 1 W/m2.
https://www.rmets.org/sites/default/files/content_images/weather/trenberth_energy.jpg
There is no need for so-called greenhouse gases to even be considered.
So you’re saying the Earth doesn’t emit heat radiation, and greenhouse gases don’t absorb it.
In other words, you think the Planck Law is wrong, and you think the infrared spectrum of CO2 has been measured wrong (created out of whole cloth?) by chemists and physicists since 1859.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever for these claims about basic science?
Your claims are just your usual bullcrap, with no science in them and no evidence for them.
DA…”So youre saying the Earth doesnt emit heat radiation, and greenhouse gases dont absorb it”.
I acknowledged that the Earth does emit radiation I don’t think the absorp-tion of that radiated energy by GHGs has any more than an approximate 0.01C effect.
I have no problem with Planck’s law or S-B. They are only stating the obvious, that surfaces cool as they emit EM. I covered that.
ps. there’s no such thing as heat radiation. There is only electromagnetic radiation with reference to radiation from a surface. The heat is lost at the surface with the reduction of atomic energy required to produce the radiation.
Heat does not travel through space, it’s EM doing the traveling. EM does not have heat as a property so calling it heat radiation, or thermal radiation, is ingenuous.
It’s misleading as well. Gives the impression that EM captured by GHGs is heat, leading to the erroneous notion of a heat trapping blanket. Certainly, GHGs can convert EM to heat but that’s not the same as trapping heat.
The heat was already lost at the surface when it emitted the EM. That’s a heat transfer, not trapping. There is no way to trap or slow down heat without using a physical barrier like glass in a real greenhouse. Insulation can slow down heat transfer by slowing the conduction/convection of air, but there is nothing in the atmosphere can do that.
Gordon Robertson says:
ps. theres no such thing as heat radiation.
So how does the Sun heat the Earth?
davie reveals his lack of background in physics.
DA…”So how does the Sun heat the Earth?”
How does the Superbowl or any TV event appear in your living room on a screen? The audio and video appear within seconds of transmission yet neither the sound waves nor the light from the visual portion leaves the area.
The audio and video are converted to electromagnetic radiation, exactly the same as heat is converted to EM at the Sun. The EM travels through space exactly as the EM travels from the Sun.
There is no video or audio energy in a TV or radio signal yet the information shows up on your TV/radio.
Magic, eh? Maybe to some, but no problem to those of us who understand how it’s done.
You keep asking after I have explained it to you and you still don’t get it. Heat does not have to travel through space, it is converted to EM at the sending end and converted back to heat at the receiving end.
Simple, huh???
Gordon, sheesh. There certainly IS energy in the electromagnetic waves that carry video and audio signals.
If there were no energy, how would that EM create a response in an antenna or receiver?
You are filled with incorrect ideas about essentially everything. Ive really never seen anything like it.
Heat is energy. EM radiation is energy. Energy is conserved. There is no logical reason not to call infrared radiation heat, because it heats things. You are wrapping yourself into contortions because you want to deny global Warming and the GHE. But there is no logic or science in what you write.
I acknowledged that the Earth does emit radiation I dont think the absorp-tion of that radiated energy by GHGs has any more than an approximate 0.01C effect.
What reasoning leads to that result?
Is it where you ignore radiative transfer in the atmosphere? What’s the physical basis for that? You are essentially saying that heat-seeking missiles should not work….
DA…”What reasoning leads to that result?”
I have posted many messages on that. The atmosphere warms due to the mass of constituent gas masses (Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s law of partial pressure). There is simply not enough mass of CO2 to warm the atmosphere more than a few hundredths of 1C.
Heat seeking missiles are drawn to the high temperature exhaust on aircraft. What does that have to do with CO2 in the atmosphere? If it had any effect the missiles would explode sitting in their launching ramps.
I am not in denial of surface radiation or any of the basic radiation theories. Like Wood, 1909, I am claiming only that radiation is over-blown as a warming agent. Wood claimed it is ineffective more than a few feet above the surface due to the inverse square law.
Sounds reasonable to me.
What calculation says there isnt enough CO2 in the atmosphere to lead to more than a few hundreds of degree warming? You keep saying this but never show your work. Science isnt about what makes sense to you, its about what you can prove. Thats precisely the value of science.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
Heat does not travel through space, its EM doing the traveling. EM does not have heat as a property
You’re claiming that EM radiation traveling through space does not carry energy.
Is there anyone in the entire galaxy who agrees with you???
DA…”Youre claiming that EM radiation traveling through space does not carry energy.
Is there anyone in the entire galaxy who agrees with you???”
EM is energy…it’s electromagnetic energy. Heat is thermal energy, both have entirely different properties.
We have already agreed on this. EM is defined as an electric field with a magnetic field perpendicular to it. It is also defines based on it’s frequency. Heat has neither frequency nor an electric/magnetic field.
Heat is a property of mass, EM has no mass. That’s why it can travel through a vacuum and heat can’t.
BTW, a vacuum is defined as space with no mass. Heat cannot travel through a vacuum because……????
That’s right, if there was mass in the space it would not be a vacuum. Heat needs mass, EM does not. At least, not to propagate through space. EM needs mass to emit it and absorb it.
GR wrote: “Heat is a property of mass, EM has no mass. Thats why it can travel through a vacuum and heat cant.”
Wrong again. Photons, i.e., EM, are known to exhibit both wave and particle properties. Ever heard of “solar pressure”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure#Solar_radiation_pressure
Heat can be in the form of infrared EM. It has the same properties as all other EM radiation, its only difference is wavelength.
He can be a property of mass; it can also be a property of electromagnetic radiation. Ask the people who designed heat seeking missiles.
*Heat
Classic arm-chair theorist, – and why a little bit of knowledge can be a bad thing.
profp…”Classic arm-chair theorist, and why a little bit of knowledge can be a bad thing”.
I don’t hear anything in the way of scientific rebuttal from your armchair.
Why should he repeat all the rebuttals I’ve given about your whacked ideas?
Yes, the expert in ‘wacked’ ideas spouts off about others.
Lewis, do your insults make you feel better?
Ren, what is your outlook for the next 4 weeks for the
U.S.A as far as temperature/snowfall go?
Another wave of Arctic air and this is not the end because of the polar vortex pattern.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/l0m9u58ov3up.png
OVERALL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES NOW +.168C
Says who?
DA…”says who?”
Seems to me Salvatore said it.
What is the data source for “Ocean Tid Bits?” That sounds like a site for 9 year olds.
Which would mean it’s over your head.
☺
Lewis, of course you don’t believe that about me. You simply lied.
OCEAN TID BITS
What is their data source?
If you’re so curious and obviously have a lot of time to waste, go look it up yourself. Or, more likely, is that too tough for you?
Poor davie. He has so little to offer all he can do is ask questions.
When someone posts data, its their obligation to see where it came from. I Track several SST data sets. Ive never heard of ocean tid bits.
Salvatore
What anomaly did Ocean Tid Bits have for December 2010?
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
TREND IS DOWN AND WILL CONTINUE
Just like cooling started in 2002, right?
DA,
Actually hasn’t it been cooling since 1934? Or technically since the MWP? Got a long ways to go to melt the glaciers and regrow the forests here in the coal mine where it’s 7 f today and i just plugged in my dmax. It gets 30 mpg highway btw, better than your 28. Had a relative who grew up in Sweden that had a steam powered car. Hopefully someday with limited yield reactors we can all have a steam electric car. Then you can blame water vapor for natural climate variability. No matter that 97% of habitable Earth history has been warmer than now.
No, it certainly has not been calling since 1934. Dont know where you got that idea . And we are now warmer than the MWP. Also, the NWP wasnt a global phenomenon.
*cooling
And, the tree stumps revealed by receding glaciers just grew under the ice.
Your talking points are annoying.
The world is not warmer than it was during the MWP. (The MWP wasn’t global.)
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/mbh98_plot_black-white.png?w=720
Sure, sure. The tree stumps are a figment of our imaginations.
How many tree stumps?
Where are their locations?
How does an uncovered tree stump imply it was warmer then than today?
Receding glaciers and what they reveal:
http://arctic.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/4193
Notice how Bart (always) flakes out when he’s asked questions..
Tree stump reference:”Receding glaciers in western Canada and Alaska are revealing ancient tree stumps of approximate 1,000-year age, so clearly there are natural cycles in glaciers receding and advancing, with past warm periods lasting long enough for forests to be established before the glaciers advance again. The accompanying figure shows some of these stumps as the Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska recedes. This is indisputable evidence that glaciers have receded in the distant past. The stumps at Mendenhall Glacier have been dated from 1,200 to over 2,000 years old, consistent with the previous graph I presented that showed the Medieval Warm Period of about 1,000 years ago, and the Roman Warm Period around 2,000 years ago. (These natural climate fluctuations cannot be due to variations in the orbit of the Earth around the sun because those occur on much longer time scales.) Thus, for Gore to claim that the latest changes in ice sheets and glaciers are human caused is speculative, at best. Since the climate system varies naturally anyway, how are we to know with any level of certainty how much of recent warmth is due to our greenhouse gas emissions? Yet, a central tactic in all of Gores movies, books, and presentations is that it all is. So, once again, we see how Mr. Gore uses events that are likely mostly or entirely natural, and then blames them on human activities.”
Spencer, Roy. An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy (Kindle Locations 463-470). Kindle Edition.
Your “questions” are flails. Not worth my time, or anyone else’s.
Dave the global warming is never going to materialize the way you think.
Can’t you see that is the case. It is just more of the same and it’s been that way for years.
‘Dave the global warming is never going to materialize the way you think …’.
Climate Alarmists are more afraid of their catastrophic predictions not eventuating.
What is the way I think its going to materialize?
I don’t know what you think about models prediction capability, but
I think that this is a great point on the lukewarmers side:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02369-4
Have a great day.
Massimo
Average number of 90F (32C) or higher days in Sydney:
1860-79 … 6.4
1880-99 … 6.2
1900-19 … 8.1
1920-39 … 9.6
1940-50 … 8.1
1960-79 … 8.8
1980-99 … 7.8
2000-18 … 11.6
Average PER YEAR
As the thread is about Sydney, here is how Sydney temperatures have progressed over the 160 years of the record:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bhglYOnLYd0jrPY33NWKJowMqV2KzIwW/view?usp=sharing
Note that the median temperature for the 2010s sits at roughly the 98th percentile in the first 20 years of the record.
So much for Salvatore’s “It is just more of the same and its been that way for years”.
Timely post here:
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/01/bom-hiding-the-decline-in-new-south-wales/#comments
“Real” climate change …. hahahaha
I just checked this against the BOM data for Bourke Post office.
The 1938-39 temperatures were EXACTLY the same as in that newspaper clipping.
And the Bourke data goes back to 1871, utterly wrecking the claim that “BOM hides all the pre-1910 data”.
Check it out for yourself:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/stations/
You will have to search for Bourke then select Bourke Post Office.
Just goes to show – you believe anything you read without checking as long as the claim supports your belief. That’s the denier way.
Now you will provide a nonsensical diversion to hide your gaffe.
des imagines: “Just goes to show you believe anything you read without checking as long as the claim supports your belief. Thats the denier way.”
No des, i wrote: “Timely post here”. That’s it. I didn’t say whether it was right, wrong, or if I agreed. So, you are the one making claims that “support your belief”, not me.
The “Alarmist-way”?
Hahahaha – I have to give it to you – you are the master of spin.
So now you don’t even care whether you AGREE with a denial post – as long as it is a denial post.
Well, I’m not an expert on Australia, or the weather there.
Although, I have had kangaroo tail soup. And, I know about Mt. Kosciuszko. And, I did see “Crocodile Dundee”.
Does any of that qualify me as an expert on Australia?
☺
I just went back to Heller’s site and noticed your comment there.
Did you see the comment from Ian G.?
Just saw it. Apparently he is surprised that the data from Bourke POST OFFICE doesn’t match the date from Bourke AIRPORT. Yet another denier who refuses to read the details.
Des, a nice post.
It reminds me why presenting facts and logic to deniers is like showing a crucifix to Count Dracula
Was it hotter in 1896 or wasn’t it? It seems your goal is obfuscation.
“Was it hotter in 1896?”
Actually – by leaving out EVERY detail in that question, your goal was clearly to obfuscate.
Does “it” mean GLOBALLY, or specifically at BOURKE POST OFFICE?
Does 1896 refer to THE ENTIRE YEAR, or specifically to FIVE WEEKS in December/January?
And … generally when you employ a comparative, you need to indicate WHAT YOU ARE COMPARING TO.
I’m sure (read “HOPE”) you understand why those details need to be clarified. Clearly you have never involved yourself with the precise diction of science.
And, around and around we go.
I’m sure YOU believe that post has some meaning.
Bart says:
Was it hotter in 1896 or wasnt it? It seems your goal is obfuscation.
No.
This site won’t allow me to link to the evidence for my claim.
How lovely — you can’t link to science on a blog about science.
DA…”This site wont allow me to link to the evidence for my claim.
How lovely you cant link to science on a blog about science”.
It’s WordPress. Find which part of the link offends its mindless censors…it’s usually one word. Then post the link with the word amended so it will post, with instructions on how to fix it.
DA…”Was it hotter in 1896 or wasnt it? It seems your goal is obfuscation”.
I seem to recall it being hotter that year.
Dumb.
As long as those making the nonsensical claims don’t bare the cost of their ideas, they will continue to make nonsensical claims. The best approach is to make these people live up to their standards.
Oil Companies Should Stop Supplying New York City
By cutting off Oil to NYC is will provide the needed motivation for either 1) liberals grow up and start living in the real world or 2) they turn to their friends in the Sierra Club and Rockefeller Foundation to provide a viable alternative. In reality, this war on climate change is nothing more than the Tobacco Settlement 2.0. Liberal organization cant survive on their own, they require looting of the productive sectors of our economy. Liberals depend upon taxes, donations, contributions, fundraising and lawsuits. They reject the Free Market, so they dont strive to discover commercially viable solutions to todays problems, they rely on public campaigns to support looting those industries that actually produce something.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/oil-companies-should-stop-supplying-new-york-city/
CO2. I laughed, but not out loud. You’re too funny. Really, expecting alarmists to live the lives they preach. Ain’t happening. They enjoy the perks of hydrocarbon living even when they have no knowledge of what it supplies.
Let them stop buy fresh produce in the winter and etc.
They’re a joke, except in their preaching. Then they use the term denier as if they’d said something profound while complaining that the power company rates are too high.
Lewis, get off your high horse.
It is not possible to live a safe, (even lower) middle class life in the US, or anywhere, without emitting CO2. The existing infrastructure simply doesn’t allow it.
The infrastructure is what must change — living in tents is not the answer. This change requires strong government intervention.
It’s possible to generate the energy we need without emitting carbon. But this requires change, and most of all it requires the end of selfishness, like yours.
David,
Your imagination runs free.
In short, no, it’s not. You can’t do it in today’s industrialized world.
Take, for instance, your constant use of the internet. Hydrocarbons are expended in all parts of such usage. From the power to crank the links, to the power used to produce the computers, to the power used to ship the units to your place of consumption. The towels you use, the dishes you eat on all require the use of hydrocarbons to produce.
My high horse, neigh, only thing here is your denial of your continued contribution to that you decry.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money – M. Thatcher
Here,s my working.
From a website on pumps I got the best efficiency (BEP) performance of a commercial pump of $0.05 per 1000 gallons lifted 130ft. Look at the red mark on the graph Figure 1.
https://www.pumpsandsystems.com/centrifugal-pumps/february-2014-cost-pumping-power-cost-efficiency
Converting to metric 1000 gallons is 4540 litres. Call it 5000 lites to make the maths easy.
That is 5 cubic metres pumped for 5 cents, 1 cent per cubic metre.
A cubic kilometre is 1 billion cubic metres.
To pump 1 cubic kilometre costs 1 billion/100 = $10 million.
I already know from other calculations that 1mm of sea level rise is a volume increase of 360 cubic kilometres. A 3.3mm rise is 360*3.3 = 1188cubic kilometres. For my back of envelope calculation I rounded it to 1200 cubic kilometres.
Pumping 1200 cubic kilometres would cost 1200* 10 million = $12 billion.
Yes, I made a rounding error. 😞
Mind you, that $12billion is just the cost of the electricity.
I haven’t mentioned the capital cost of the pumps, the pipelines and the power stations. Nor have I mentioned the logistics of running a major project like this in Antarctica.
Hawking warning humanity of a dire end is noble in a similar way the Iraq War was noble. Hawking may explain his warning more thoroughly in the full article, however, probably due to lack of introspection and objectivity, the Alarmist crowd continually hemorraghes an air of fear and agenda rather than a focus on ingenuity and truth.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/science/stephen-hawking-ill-pay-to-send-climate-change-deniers-to-venus/ar-AAuyQ62?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
Supposedly runaway greenhouse isn’t possible on Earth. The Alarmist would add “yet”.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_60AR.html
Denying a greenhouse effect is stupid and unhelpful.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/
argus: “Denying a greenhouse effect is stupid and unhelpful.”
argus, you have to be careful to always define “greenhouse effect”. It means different things to different people.
There is an atmosphere. There is back-radiation. There is a lapse rate. There is weather.
All of these are real–reality.
The IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE nonsense is bogus. It claims that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will “heat the planet”. It attempts to make CO2 a thermodynamic heat source, creating heat energy out of thin air. It violates the laws of thermodynamics.
So, denying reality is indeed “stupid and unhelpful”. But denying the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE is valid science.
Gee, and I thought GR was stupid!
You should pull up an armchair and join him at the retirement home for electrical engineers.
profp…”Gee, and I thought GR was stupid!”
Ironic!!! People who are smarter than you in science appear stupid to you. Must get that from being on your head all the time in Australia.
If only you, like most unschooled individuals, actually understood the concept of irony.
Re: irony.
See: Alanis Morissette, who got it all wrong and thereby educated a lot of people.
PS: Well, I guess it was her song writer who got it wrong. Not sure if that was her.
des…”If only you, like most unschooled individuals, actually understood the concept of irony”.
I use a soldering irony all the time. In a moment of absent-minded stupidity, I was holding the handle in my right hand and need to free my right hand, so I grabbed the hot end with my left hand.
Won’t do that again. It reminded me that heat is real.
When I worked at one company way back we used those old fashioned soldering irons with the broad tips. Handy for dropping a piece of hash onto. You might say the entire crew was happy in their work.
Is that irony?
No, that isn’t irony.
irony: (a) : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning.
Example: “Wow, doesn’t Gordon Robertson know a lot about science!”
“It means different things to different people.”
By “different people”, of course you mean scientists and deniers (ALMOST a dichotomy). It means only only thing to a scientist.
When you put on a sweater and you feel warmer, I guess your explanation is that the sweater creates energy.
Or when you have water entering a bath from the tap at the same rate as it leaves through the plughole, and then you stick your big toe in the plughole and notice the water rising, I guess your infantile explanation is that your big toe is creating water.
Or when you smoke all your life and then quit and you notice your bank balance rising for the first time, I suppose you would claim that cigarettes create money in your bank account.
If you have the ability to think of a better explanation for those three scenarios, then you have the ability to properly explain the greenhouse effect. Let me give you a clue:
10 – 10 = 0
10 – 9 = 1
10 – 8 = 2
10 – 7 = 3
See the pattern?
des, you will have to forgive me. I somehow forgot to add your name to list of purveyors of pseudoscience. You have now been added. Feel free to celebrate with the beverage of you choice.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279499
Ahhhh …. the standard digression you use to avoid contemplating a simple mathematical concept. But what else could I expect.
Des, don’t confuse him with things like “simple mathematical concepts”.
Draw him a cartoon instead.
Indeed. This one shows his response when someone talks science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC7Y04k5Tbo
profp…”Draw him a cartoon instead”.
You’re on the wrong site. The guy who runs skepticalscience is a cartoonist. You’d be better of there. [/hint]
John Cook? His work on SkS got him an assistant professorship at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.
A sad commentary on the state of our centers of learning and knowledge in these fallen times…
Pace our friend G, few deny the greenhouse effect. The ability of CO2 to impede outward LWR is not the issue. The main issue is whether increasing CO2 concentration produces a significant change in temperature at the surface when all heat exchange mechanisms are taken into account, and when all feedbacks are taken into account.
Other issues include:
1) Is it bad? Warmth is, in fact, better for life than cold.
2) Can we power modern industrial society with alternative sources that do not produce CO2 as a byproduct? Yes, but only if we go full nuclear. Wind and solar will never be more than bit players, and are horrible for the environment besides. That cure is worse than the disease, and it is not even a cure.
There are still others, but these are good to go on. The whole contretemps is a scientific and public policy fiasco.
Bart states: “..few deny the greenhouse effect.”
Then Bart contradicts himself: “The main issue is whether increasing CO2 concentration produces a significant change in temperature at the surface when all heat exchange mechanisms are taken into account, and when all feedbacks are taken into account.”
Bart, the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE states emphatically that CO2 DOES produce significant temperature change.
So, you can’t casually say “few deny” it, and then question its existence. Unless you are trying to straddle both positions at the same time.
bart…”Pace our friend G, few deny the greenhouse effect”.
Few can explain what it means. Joe Postma pointed out the obvious, that we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do. There is nothing in the atmosphere can replicate a real greenhouse, so how does the GHE warming work?
Furthermore, if you had a real greenhouse with 100 panes of glass and you removed 99+ panes, how much would it warm? That’s exactly the situation in the atmosphere where GHGs account for about 0.3% of the overall atmosphere. When your so-called blanket features a fraction of a percent of the atmosphere how does it warm or trap anything?
It’s a sad theory going back to Arrhenius in the 19th century whereupon he scribbled out the details on his lunch bag.
So you think the greenhouse effect is wrong, and you dont even know how it works. Yeah that makes a lot of sense.
davie, it doesn’t “work”.
DA…”So you think the greenhouse effect is wrong, and you dont even know how it works”.
Me and anyone who understands physics.
“Me and anyone who understands physics.”
I’m glad you finally gained the insight to create a dichotomy out of those two cases.
Gordon Robertson says:
Me and anyone who understands physics.
Not nearly good enough, GR.
Show your work. Show your science.
That’s how this works.
—
I bet you will fail to reply to this question. You always do.
David
the atmosphere is not a greenhouse, it has convection; warmer air is rising and the heat gets radiated into space. In a greenhose hot air is trapped. Dont you agree?
It’s a simple hypothesis of what should happen, all things being equal. However, all things are never equal, because every action spawns a reaction.
Have you or Postms. considered the scales involved? Doesnt look like it.
What is your calculation for the warming of atmospheric CO2 in a room the height of a greenhouse, say, 5 meters?
Gordon Robertson says:
bartPace our friend G, few deny the greenhouse effect”.
“Few can explain what it means.”
Liar.
GHE effect = planet’s actual surface temperature – planet’s brightness temperature.
bart…”The main issue is whether increasing CO2 concentration produces a significant change in temperature at the surface when all heat exchange mechanisms are taken into account, and when all feedbacks are taken into account”.
1)You have a few things going against you. For one, there is no feedback from CO2, there is back-radiation. Back-radiation is not absorbed by the surface. See 2).
2)CO2 in the atmosphere is at a temperature cooler than the surface. The 2nd law states that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.
Never heard of thermodynamics?
So now you’re arguing against your fellow denier.
Your problem … radiation is NOT heat.
Gordon wrote:
The 2nd law states that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.
Wrong.
David,
Gordon wrote: the 2nd law states that heat cannot be transfered from a cooler body to a warmer body. You answerd : wrong
You can transfer heat from a cooler body to a warmer one but you need energie like a reverse cycle air conditioner. Your cup of coffee always gets colder but never as cold as its surrounding.
Try two cups on top of this:
https://tinyurl.com/ybe2ttg2
Put one cup in the freezer and compare temperatures after ten minutes.
Will the two cups have the same temperature?
Joe, that was my point. And the energy source for the atmosphere? The Sun, which continually pours energy into the Earth’s climate system.
—
“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
Gordon:
1) It can’t get out. That is why you have a divot in the outgoing spectrum:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/gw-petty-6-6.jpg
Total outgoing energy is the area under that curve. All things being equal, when the divot is taken out, the entire curve needs to rise to reestablish the same area going out, and a rise in the curve is the result of a rise in temperature.
2) You are talking net transfer between sources and sinks. The atmosphere is not the source. The Sun is the source, and it is very hot. The atmospheric makeup modulates the flow, and plays a hand in determining the steady state temperature distribution.
All things being equal, the increase in atmospheric impedance would have to result in more energy being retained, and a rise in surface temperature, in order for incoming radiation to balance outgoing radiation.
Again, though, all things are not equal. Radiation is not the only mechanism of heat transfer between the surface and the atmosphere, and convective transfer is a negative feedback that tends to resist a change in temperature. And, there are other negative feedbacks that tend to resist change, as well.
Furthermore, it is all nonlinear – sensitivity depends upon the current state of the system, its temperature distribution, its convective overturning, and other variables. There is no guarantee that, in the present state, the sensitivity to increasing CO2 concentration is significant or even positive. The data appear to indicate its aggregate impact on surface temperatures in the present climate state is essentially nil.
Bart claimed:
There is no guarantee that, in the present state, the sensitivity to increasing CO2 concentration is significant or even positive.
There certainly is, with the median ECS estimate around 3 C. I don’t know of a single study that gives ECS < 0. Can you point to just one?
You are confusing “studies” with fact.
Bart says:
“You are confusing studies with fact.”
What “fact” is that?
PS: You failed to point to a study or observation or “fact”
with ECS < 0.
argus…”Hawking may explain his warning more thoroughly in the full article…”
I am not about to heed the advice of someone like Hawking after the nonsense he has peddled about black holes, Big Bangs, and space-time. With beliefs like his it surprises me not that he believes the pseudo-science of AGW.
Hawking Is world renowned for his work on black holes. I suspect you dont like it simply because its way above you.
DA…”Hawking Is world renowned for his work on black holes. I suspect you dont like it simply because its way above you”.
No…it’s because no one has ever seen one and the theory of how they are formed fails to explain the reality. Hawking is probably a nice guy but he’s a mathematician. Enough said.
He’s also an expert on the Big Bang. That’s a theory where the entire universe disappears then re-appears with a…you guessed it…big bang.
It happens every day, don’t ya know? And people get criticized for believing in God. God makes far more sense than either a Big Bang or a black hole.
In the same way that it makes more sense to a child that their presents were delivered by Santa or their tooth was taken by the tooth fairy. Anything is easily explainable if you attribute it to magic.
Gordon, here again you judge a science you clearly do not understand.
There is a great deal of evidence for black holes, Gordon, including the recent observations of gravitational waves:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence
…the theory of how they are formed fails to explain the reality.
What is this supposed to mean?
Hawking is probably a nice guy but hes a mathematician.
Wrong, his degrees are in physics.
Hes also an expert on the Big Bang. Thats a theory where the entire universe disappears then re-appears with ayou guessed itbig bang.
Wrong — that’s just a conjecture, with no evidence to it. But the Big Bang is accepted by every scientist I’ve ever read — trace back the universe’s Hubble expansion. Go learn the evidence.
What I find curious about big bang theories is they ignore certain things like time, more exactly, forever.
If, and I believe it does, the universe goes on forever, their are other big bangs we’ll never be aware of. Additionally, what was the prelude to the bang, forever.
Man, usually, not always, tends to put things in a perspective he is physically familiar with – comfortable with – which may have nothing to do with reality.
The same becomes true of AGW – some people have certain beliefs to which they ascribe physical actions – because it fits their prior beliefs.
Me, I was once a believer in CO2 AGW. No longer. Read too much history of the world.
lewis says:
What I find curious about big bang theories is they ignore certain things like time, more exactly, forever.
Why do you think that?
(It’s wrong.)
lewis says:
The same becomes true of AGW some people have certain beliefs to which they ascribe physical actions because it fits their prior beliefs.
The Earth emits infrared radiation. Atmospheric CO2, CH4, N2O et al absorb it, and then reradiate it in all directions, some of which is downward.
That’s all AGW is. Basic physics. It’s not a matter of “belief,” it’s a matter of basic science and the evidence.
“Thats all AGW is. Basic physics. Its not a matter of belief, its a matter of basic science and the evidence.”
Way too basic. Surface temperatures are determined by more than just radiative transfers. And, there is no unambiguous evidence of this simplistic scenario playing out in the here and now.
Surface temperatures are determined by more than just radiative transfers.
I never said they weren’t.
And, there is no unambiguous evidence of this simplistic scenario playing out in the here and now.
Wrong. Just as a start:
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
And, there is no unambiguous evidence of this simplistic scenario playing out in the here and now.
See “stratospheric cooling” (above and beyond ozone loss; such as the research of Piers Forster).
PPS: You have still failed to point to a study or observation or “fact” with ECS < 0.
Sorry. These are not unambiguous, nor convincing.
What else, besides ozone loss, causes stratospheric cooling while causing surface warming?
PPPS: You have still failed to point to a study or observation or fact with ECS < 0.
I wrote:
“PPPS: You have still failed to point to a study or observation or fact with ECS < 0"
You flaked out….
Good god, you deniers are so easy……..
“I’m a lowly electrical parts technician who can only follow set routines and have never come up with an original idea in my life. To prop up my self-image I will pretend I know more about science than scientific geniuses, despite the fact relativity has been shown to work exactly as predicted, and despite the fact that GPS would not work without relativistic adjustments. I really should try to do this in a way that disguises how dumb I am … but I can’t be bothered to make the effort – dumb denier it is.”
GR
[“Wow … I just read again what I wrote. My English really has improved!”]
des…”Im a lowly electrical parts technician who can only follow set routines…”
I guess you got this bit about impersonating people at skepticalscience. They specialize in that over there. Alarmists tend to have such mentalities.
Don’t you have something better to do, like shear some sheep? You probably have a fetish about them and can’t keep your mind off other perverted pursuits. I’ve heard some of you Aussies are right into stuff like that.
What’s that saying about Australia, where men are men and sheep are scared.
Nup – that’s New Zealand. I doubt I’ve seen a sheep for 20 years.
I’m glad you agree that was impersonation and not false representation.
The temperature drops in the Eastern Pacific.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.1.11.2018.gif
Off-topic, ren. Respect the blog.
A heavy blow of winter in the US.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/lpxfb7a1o9cb.png
The polar vortex formed two centers, according to the magnetic centers in the north.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/gzhb58cz49ch.png
North America will remember this storm.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/xaxw238o7hvl.png
The temperature in central Canada reaches -40 C.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/ljzc2wsrk6p0.png
“Frigid weather like the two-week cold spell that began around Christmas is 15 times rarer than it was a century ago, according to a team of international scientists who does real-time analyses to see if extreme weather events are natural or more likely to happen because of climate change.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-cold-snap-freak-nature-quick-analysis-finds-140502572.html
davie, how do you have time to find so much funny stuff, while looking so hard for a job?
Oh. ..
Forecast of the polar vortex pattern in the lower stratosphere.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/01/14/1500Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-106.99,78.60,342
Forecast pressure on January 14.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/ngqmwj4zl100.png
That’s odd – it seems to me that YOU are able to spend MUCH more time here than him.
No, it’s just that I am more effective than he is.
It’s funny that people still think climate change isn’t real.
A few people are impervious to the evidence, and will deny AGW forever, just like a few dummies still contend that the Earth is flat.
You can’t change stupid.
And, many are impervious to the counter-evidence, because they lack the mathematical modeling skill and/or cognitive ability to recognize the factors that render their projections invalid.
You have never presented any convincing counter-evidence whatsoever.
Still waiting.
I have. See segment after “lack” above. Not much point in rehashing.
I don’t see it. Link?
Currently heavy snowfall on the Erie and Ontario lakes.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/z054zqupf4ym.png
svante…”No, the sun is the power supply. The output parameter is the temperature. The feedback function is the albedo, i.e. the amount of abs-orbed solar radiation, which affects the temperature. Abs-orbing more solar energy is like drawing more energy from your power supply”.
Sorry for delay in reply. I moved the reply down here because it was getting to hard to find it above.
I addressed this in my reply to e. swanson. The power supply, as you call it, supplies the energy to cause the warming, so we are agreed on that. Unlike the power supply in my amplifier example, this power source varies due to a change in distance from the source and a change in the angle of incidence due to movement of the planet in its orbit.
Those changes cause the snow and ice. Whereas the snow and ice will reflect a certain amount of solar energy what does that matter when significant solar energy is absent much of the year? The solar energy will melt the ice in a good portion of the Arctic as spring and summer approach.
How can the albedo be a feedback function? It is related to the snow and ice, not the Sun. To be a feedback mechanism it would have to control solar energy INPUT directly.
Albedo is a minor player in the Arctic. The major player is the lack of significant solar energy most of the year.
GR wrote:
“Those changes cause the snow and ice. Whereas the snow and ice will reflect a certain amount of solar energy what does that matter when significant solar energy is absent much of the year? The solar energy will melt the ice in a good portion of the Arctic as spring and summer approach.”
Because the sea ice is heated from below by a warmer Arctic ocean surface.
Also, the ice is heated from above by more downwelling IR.
DA…”Also, the ice is heated from above by more downwelling IR”.
Sorry….2nd law….no heat transfer. Direct radiation, yes, but not downdwelling IR.
Wrong.
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
Gordon, when are you going to stop lying about the Second Law?
“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
DA…”The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system”.
I can’t express my real feelings about Pierrehumbert on this blog. This explanation is typical of his and reflect his complete lack of understanding of the 2nd law and thermodynamics in general.
When he wrote the 2nd law, Clausius said nothing about open or closed loop system. He said only something to the effect that heat cannot of itself be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. The atmosphere represents a colder body and the surface a warmer body. In fact, the surface supplied the heat for the atmosphere according to AGW making the concept of the atmosphere warming the surface even more ludicrous.
Legends in their own mind like Pierrehumbert have changed the meaning of the 2nd law to suit their pseudo-science.
Gordon, you haven’t earned an opinion about Pierrehumbert.
So just shut your mouth about him.
GR says:
“He said only something to the effect that heat cannot of itself be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.”
He wrote no such thing.
God, you’re stupid.
GR says:
“In fact, the surface supplied the heat for the atmosphere according to AGW making the concept of the atmosphere warming the surface even more ludicrous.”
Does the surface radiate?
How much, on average?
Don’t wimp out and ignore the question.
Gordon Robertson says:
“When he wrote the 2nd law, Clausius said nothing about open or closed loop system.”
Liar.
GR: “He [Clausius] said only something to the effect that heat cannot of itself be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body.”
davie: “He wrote no such thing. God, youre stupid.”
Clausius: “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
I guess we know who the stupid one is.
As if there were any doubt. ..
svante…”You could argue that ice limits solar energy by reflecting it away. Heureka!”
I would not be able to use the word albedo if I did not get that. I just don’t think the effect is that important.
*******
“Yes, the runaway effect is prevented by increased radiation to space, T^4. That is something else, a negative feedback. There are many other feedbacks, but lets do one at a time”.
**********
I don’t call those feedbacks. I think climate science is using the word feedback incorrectly, leading to a misunderstanding.
*********
“Heureka! Yes, the ice albedo feedback works in reverse. It is still a positive feedback because it amplifies the initial change. A negative feedback counteracts the initial perturbation”.
“You are confusing a runaway feedback with a positive feedback. There are different feedbacks, some negative and some positive. A positive feedback can be limited (AB 1.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
I dont call those feedbacks. I think climate science is using the word feedback incorrectly, leading to a misunderstanding.
It’s very very clear what scientists mean by climate feedbacks.
Because you can’t shove that into your limited understanding based on circuits — hint: the Earth’s climate isn’t a circuit — you can’t begin to grasp this.
Doesn’t matter — the feedbacks exist anyway. Such as:
“Observational determination of albedo decrease caused by vanishing Arctic sea ice,” Kristina Pistone, Ian Eisenman, and V. Ramanathan, PNAS v111 n9 pp 3322-3326 (2014).
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3322.abstract
DA…read through the abstract, absolute pseudo-science. How did that trash ever get past peer review?
They are talking about the Arctic essentially becoming ice free which is nothing more than climate alarmist trash. Until the Earth’s orbit changes dramatically, or the tilt, that won’t happen.
The alarmists in such papers are desperate to peddle such trash to secure their tenure. Or to get funding.
No amount of CO2 will ever change the overall conditions in the Arctic.
Gordon Robertson says:
“They are talking about the Arctic essentially becoming ice free which is nothing more than climate alarmist trash.”
Who? Who are these people? Just a couple of newspaper quotes?
DA…”Its very very clear what scientists mean by climate feedbacks”.
Please explain it then. I am not trying to bait you, I am seriously interested in your explanation. I want to understand what climate scientists mean by feedbacks. From what I have read they don’t meet the definitions in physics.
Feedback: a climate change that causes more (or less) climate change.
Example: sea ice melting from increased atmospheric CO2 decreases the Earth’s albedo and so causes the Earth to absorb even more energy, leading to more warming.
The plots show maps with sea ice thickness, and seasonal cycles of the calculated total arctic sea ice volume. The mean sea ice volume and standard deviation for the period 2004-2013 are shown with gray. The figures are based on calculations using DMI’s operational ocean and sea ice model HYCOM-CICE.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180111.png
Off topic, ren. What is wrong with you? Take you comment pollution elsewhere.
DA…”Off topic, ren”.
ren…The plots show maps with sea ice thickness
What’s off topic about a post about sea ice?
DA…”Example: sea ice melting from increased atmospheric CO2 decreases the Earths albedo and so causes the Earth to absorb even more energy, leading to more warming”.
First you have to prove that CO2 can cause ice to melt. It’s a hypothesis not a fact.
Your definition of a change in climate causing a change in climate is far too loose and vague. You need to show how some signal in the atmosphere can lead to an amplification of heat, but first you need to show the amplifying agent.
As it stands, AGW claims back-radiation from CO2 can cause the amplification itself, which is not possible. At least, that’s what Gavin Schmidt seems to think. Engineer Jeffrey Glassman set him straight on the error in his definition of positive feedback.
David Appell
Can you do more than watch nature?
Gordon Robertson says:
“First you have to prove that CO2 can cause ice to melt. Its a hypothesis not a fact.”
More CO2 = more downwelling IR = more melting.
Don’t pretend to be an idiot.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Your definition of a change in climate causing a change in climate is far too loose and vague. You need to show how some signal in the atmosphere can lead to an amplification of heat, but first you need to show the amplifying agent.”
I did exactly that.
Your understanding is so poor you don’t even recognize it.
GR says:
“As it stands, AGW claims back-radiation from CO2 can cause the amplification itself, which is not possible.”
Why not?
ren, butt out and leave the thread to people who understand it. Your random comments are utterly useless and just confuse things. Why can’t you have respect for others?
DA…”More CO2 = more downwelling IR = more melting.
Dont pretend to be an idiot”.
I have given you compelling evidence from the likes of Neils Bohr and Clausius that it can’t warm the surface or melt ice. If you think they are idiots, that’s up to you.
DA…”GR says:
As it stands, AGW claims back-radiation from CO2 can cause the amplification itself, which is not possible.
Why not?”
Because amplification requires an amplifier. Would you expect an electronic amplifier to amplify a signal without transistors?
Luminaries like Gavin Schmidt and your favourite, Pierrehumbert [/sarc off] are preaching heretical nonsense that suggests CO2 back-radiation is an amplifier in itself. I don’t think either of them understand what an amplifier is.
Heat is the energy of atoms in motion. The only way you can amplify the heat is to increase the number of atoms or add heat externally. CO2 can do neither. Even if it could warm the surface, it can’t even make up for the losses incurred between it and the surface when the IR came from the surface to warm the CO2.
Did you not study losses and why they prevent what you are describing…perpetual motion?
ren…”The plots show maps with sea ice thickness, and seasonal cycles of the calculated total arctic sea ice volume”.
I notice the ice thickness at the North Pole is back to 3 metres (about 10 feet). Pretty fantastic for ice that is supposed to be disappearing.
Of course, we are talking about ice in the Arctic and D. Appell thinks that’s off topic.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Because amplification requires an amplifier. Would you expect an electronic amplifier to amplify a signal without transistors?”
Climate isn’t an electronic circuit Gordon.
I realize those are the extent of your knowledge, but they are a very imperfect analogy, and your reasoning here is way off base.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I notice the ice thickness at the North Pole is back to 3 metres (about 10 feet). Pretty fantastic for ice that is supposed to be disappearing.”
There’s been a 50% reduction in Arctic sea ice over the satellite era (since 1979):
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat is the energy of atoms in motion.”
Wrong. And stupid.
Heat is also electromagnetic radiation. That’s how the Sun warms you, dummy. Infrared radiation is how a fire warms you.
You don’t get to lie about this anymore.
Gordon, how is it lying doesn’t faze you one bit?
I’ve never seen anything like it, except now in Trump. You both lie willingly and openly and have no shame whatsoever about doing so.
Honestly, how did you come to this point?
davie must be off his meds, again.
DA…”Climate isnt an electronic circuit Gordon”.
An electronic amplifier with feedback perfectly describes positive feedback when the FB signal is in phase with the input signal. That also fits the formula for PF:
G = A/(1 – AB)
There is nothing in the atmosphere fits that equation or the physics definition of PF. Ergo, PF does not exist in the atmosphere.
Climate scientists, especially alarmists, stole the word ‘forcing’ from forcing functions in differential equation theory. They are mostly climate modelers and that’s all they know, math.
They also stole the word ‘feedback’ without having a clue what it means. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS proved that with his obfuscated definition of positive feedback. Engineer, Jeffrey Glassman, had to set him straight.
DA…”Heat is also electromagnetic radiation. Thats how the Sun warms you, dummy. Infrared radiation is how a fire warms you”.
You have already agreed that EM is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and that it is broken into different frequencies. Heat has no frequency, nor Em fields, and it cannot pass through a vacuum.
Does that not give you a clue? A vacuum is defined as a space devoid of matter. Mo matter, no heat.
I don’t think you have studied even basic physics.
Clausius defined heat as the energy of atoms in motion. Heat cannot exist without atoms. Neils Bohr defined atoms as electrons orbiting a nucleus of neutrons and protons. He revealed that electrons emit EM as they drop to a lower energy level. The energy levels are related to the relative heat levels of the atom.
Of course, to you, two of the most eminent scientists in history are liars. Keep it up, David, conversing with alarmists like you is mighty encouraging when I see your misunderstanding of basic science.
Ren’s graph has 5000 km^3 in the summer, and David’s graph shows a loss of 12000 km^3 since 1980. Not much left now.
Arctic sea ice is melting at a rate of -3,100 km3/decade:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
For summers, that gives only about 1.5 decades until it’s gone.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You have already agreed that EM is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and that it is broken into different frequencies. Heat has no frequency, nor Em fields, and it cannot pass through a vacuum.”
Another lie, and not a very smart one.
Heat can be transferred in three ways: via conduction, convection, or radiation.
The latter is EM radiation, with energy, with a frequence, which, like all other EM radiation, can pass through a vacuum.
How do you think heat gets from the Sun to the Earth, with a vacuum in between?
“For summers, that gives only about 1.5 decades until its gone.”
It was already supposed to be gone, based on linear extrapolation two decades ago. Taking a snapshot of time and linearly extrapolating the trend forward is one of the most basic errors in reasoning they teach freshmen engineering students from the very first day. You are a primitive in a grass skirt raving about the anger of the volcano god.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Clausius defined heat as the energy of atoms in motion.”
Clausius was ignorant of radiational energy transfer. So are you. He had an excuse. You do not.
Gordon Robertson says:
“An electronic amplifier with feedback perfectly describes positive feedback when the FB signal is in phase with the input signal.”
What does “in phase” mean with respect to climate and its feedbacks?
Gordon Robertson says:
Climate scientists, especially alarmists, stole the word forcing from forcing functions in differential equation theory. They are mostly climate modelers and thats all they know, math
The word is clearly defined in climate science. Do you know that definition?
What word should they have used, in your expert opinion?
Bart says:
It was already supposed to be gone, based on linear extrapolation two decades ago.
Prove it.
(You never even try to prove anything; you’re just good for spouting off.)
In any case, you’re wrong.
In 1997, the linear trend in Sept Arctic sea ice volume pointed to a value of zero by 2089.
Today it points to 2032.
Download the PIOMAS data and calculate for yourself. Let me know what you get.
David says:
“Today it points to 2032.”
Ren’s graph shows the same thing, although it has a very short history. Can the north pole hold out longer? I shouldn’t think so, when it becomes smaller it should lose proportionally more to its surroundings.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Neils Bohr defined atoms as electrons orbiting a nucleus of neutrons and protons. He revealed that electrons emit EM as they drop to a lower energy level. The energy levels are related to the relative heat levels of the atom.”
Atoms don’t have “heat levels.”
Bohr’s model was wrong.
One big reason is that an electron traveling in a circular orbit is accelerating, and accelerating charges emit radiation. There is no such radiation observed from atoms.
One can estimate the lifetime of the hydrogen ground state if such radiation were to happen. It comes to around 0.1 nanoseconds. That’s clearly nonsense.
Clausius’s definition of heat was incomplete — important developments came after him.
Especially after Maxwell found his wave equation from his four “Maxwell equations,” it was known that EM radiation exists and that it carries energy.
Just like Clausius’s atoms carry kinetic energy, which you consider heat, EM waves carry energy. Photons also carry kinetic energy, E=hf. It’s just as much heat as is atoms in motion. Why you refuse to accept this basic physics is beyond me.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
Heat has no frequency, nor Em fields, and it cannot pass through a vacuum.
Then how does heat get from the Sun to the Earth.
Mo matter, no heat.
Wrong wrong wrong. Why is the surface of Mercury so hot if radiation isn’t carrying heat there?
Gordon,
Unlike the power supply in my amplifier example, this power source varies due to a change in distance from the source and a change in the angle of incidence due to movement of the planet in its orbit.
You mean Milankovitch cycles. They operate on a time scale of thousands of years.
https://tinyurl.com/y7yd26ax
what does that matter when significant solar energy is absent much of the year?
Winter darkness is of course offset by summer light. Besides, albedo reflects atmospheric IR space ward.
How can the albedo be a feedback function? It is related to the snow and ice, not the Sun. To be a feedback mechanism it would have to control solar energy INPUT directly.
We are talking about temperature feedback, not a solar radiation feedback. Only absorbed radiation affects temperature.
Albedo is a minor player in the Arctic. The major player is the lack of significant solar energy most of the year.
You forget the midnight sun.
In a dozen or so hours the entire east of the US will freeze.
Off-topic, again.
Why do you insist on polluting this blog’s comment sections?
Live from very heavy snow just southeast of Rochester, NY
https://www.facebook.com/AccuWeather/videos/10155979663882889/
Way way off topic. Why do you insist on being a jerk, ren?
davie, just because no one wants to hire you is no reason to take it out on others.
Maybe double up on the meds?
ren…good place for the cold, I’m off for a walk in the rain.
In Europe, ruled by the Russian high-pressure area.
another assinine ren comment that has nothing to do with the thread.
DA…”another assinine ren comment that has nothing to do with the thread”.
All of your comments are asinine and none of Ren’s are. They are all on topic with regard to this blog.
You’re just peeved because your pseudo-science doesn’t cut it here. The skeptics on this site are a cut above what you are used to.
No, I’m peeved that ren is an a**hole who can’t respect the blog’s threads. He has to post random sh!t as if the blog is all about him.
davie, have you considered therapy?
Davids going completely bonkers
Keep up the work ren
Regards
Harry
harry…”Davids going completely bonkers…Keep up the work ren”
I laugh each time ren makes another post right behind David’s whines.
His whines remind me of Hillary Clinton glaring at John Christy of UAH as he tried to submit valid temperature data to a US senate committee that contradicted her views. That’s partly why I’m glad Trump won, sticking it to her for her rudeness, arrogance, and stupidity.
ren is blog pollution.
At least ultra-denier Mike Flynn gave up and left.
Mike Flynn has other things on his mind since he pleaded guilty in the Russia investigation.
On a more serious note:
Russia “used social media to sow social divisions in America by stoking disagreement and division around a plethora of controversial topics such as immigration and Islamophobia”
The broader Russian strategy is pretty clearly about destabilizing the country by focusing on and amplifying existing divisions, rather than supporting any one political party.
https://tinyurl.com/yapm95tb
“propaganda targeted the alt-right movement, the right wing, and fascist groups.”
https://tinyurl.com/y9d5rbx6
Svante,
Will destabilisation result in a change in voting patterns? Instead of the country being roughly 50-50, might it change to being roughly 60-60, or even 80-80 perhaps?
All joking aside, have you the faintest idea of what you are talking about, or are you just parroting nonsense from someone else as clueless as you appear to be?
At least US interference in foreign countries has been based on supporting one dictator or another, under various guises. Do you believe that Russia is being even handed, and simultaneously supporting both major parties in the US, by providing negative information about both to each of them?
Seems a bit odd to me, I must admit.
Cheers.
I’m just guessing Russia supported Trump because Putin thinks it’s easier make deals with businessmen (like Berlusconi).
The west says Russia lacks in democracy, so they say the same about the west.
Divide and conquer (neighboring territories).
These Russian ads where pointed out by members of the House intelligence panel:
https://tinyurl.com/ybuflf56
Climate change is another of those divisive issues…
You’re guessing… Mmmmm…
svante…”Russia used social media to sow social divisions in America by stoking disagreement and division around a plethora of controversial topics such as immigration and Islamophobia”
If you believe that bs I can see why you believe the AGW bs.
You likely believe Bill Browder was just defending his friend Serge Magnitsky in Russia. It would not interest you that Browder was involved in serious income tax evasion and that Magnitsky, his accountant, was into it up to his ying yang by finding ways for Browder to evade taxes.
Gordon says:
If you believe that bs I can see why you believe the AGW bs.
And vice versa for me, you have the Trump stance on both.
There are plenty of witnesses that have worked at Russian troll factories. I haven’t heard of Browder and Malinsky though.
GR wrote:
“If you believe that bs I can see why you believe the AGW bs.”
This has been well documented:
“These Are the Ads Russia Bought on Facebook in 2016,” NY Times 11/1/17
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html
Be careful — you might learn something.
Latest Southern Oscillation Index values
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/index.php
Very warm in New Zealand.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/sj9958r8hfkb.png
Ren, this is the middle of summer. These highs are not warm for Oz and doubt if it is warm even for NZ.
Hehe, sorry, they may be warm as opposed to cold of say NE US but they are not hot for summer.
ren…”Very warm in New Zealand”.
Not that hot, ren. This time of year the north island is usually up around 30C.
When I look at all the moderate temps in NZ and Aussie, it makes me think there is collusion to misrepresent the real temperatures in this world. I really think NOAA has meddled with the satellite temps before handing them over to UAH.
I really think NOAA has meddled with the satellite temps before handing them over to UAH.
Yet you have no evidence whatsoever.
Claiming a conspiracy is much easier than changing your views in light of the evidence. That’s why people like you do it, to avoid the real world.
Temperatures in subtropical Bangladesh hit a 70-year-low on Monday as authorities handed out tens of thousands of blankets to help the poor fight a record cold spell, officials said.
The mercury plunged to a frigid 2.6 degrees Celsius in some parts of Bangladesh, well below average in the low-lying riverine nation whose 160 million citizens are used to milder winters.
“It is the lowest temperature since authorities started keeping records in 1948,” Shamsuddin Ahmed, head of the Bangladesh Meteorological Department, told AFP. The previous low of 2.8 degrees was recorded in 1968, he added.
http://www.gulf-times.com/story/577387/Bangladesh-shivers-in-record-low-temperatures
ren…”Temperatures in subtropical Bangladesh hit a 70-year-low on Monday as authorities handed out tens of thousands of blankets ….”
This is significant.
It if you live there and don’t have enough blankets.
But it says nothing about AGW. Not a thing.
DA…”But it says nothing about AGW. Not a thing”.
Neither does global warming/climate change have anything to do with AGW.
That’s a pure logical error — you’re claiming that A does not equal A.
This fella Appell bleets and howls asserting I am using gratuitous insults and doesn’t want to talk any more.
“Do you understand the meaning of the word gratuitous? It is rather an inappropriate use given my criticisms cover factual errors in science or are directed at your behaviour. You keep on trying to cover your arse by doubling down on nonsense.
You either dont understand the points being made or you are simply a troll. Either way you try to dominate discussion with your nonsense and yet have the cheek to want to suppress REN who is quite factual.”
He fosters junk experiments and junk science. Here he is trolling and again telling REN he must go.
This is certainly a hilarious start to the year.
Some of the exchange:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279808
“This is certainly a hilarious start to the year.”
tony, we’re agreeing on more and more.
That’s a good thing.
Dumb and dumber! Together they may make up half a brain.
By your reckoning that is half a brain more than you can show.
P,
Im sure you can do better than that, if you try.
Something along the lines of –
If your brains were dynamite, you wouldnt have enough to blow your nose . . ., and so on.
Let me know if you need any help with acerbic speech.
On the other hand, Im also sure that if you could show how increasing the amount of CO2 between a steady heat heat source and a thermometer causes the temperature of the thermometer to rise, you would make your point.
Obviously, the converse would be true, and removing the CO2 from an enclosed space would cause the temperature to drop.
Free heating and refrigeration simply achieved! Do you know where I might purchase such wondrous technology? Or do you you contend that the technology has been suppressed by some grand conspiracy involving wealthy industrialists?
I prefer fact to fantasy, but you are free to indulge in as much fantasy as you desire. You seem to be choosing the latter path, so the best of luck to you!
Cheers.
MF,
I am afraid I have to decline your invitation.
If you don’t understand atmospheric radiative heat transfer by now then there is nothing I can do for you.
I am off now to teach my dog a few tricks – something much more rewarding.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I am glad you decided to post again. I was convinced g*e*r*a*n was the stupidest poster on this blog. After reading your crap and mindless junk g*e*r*a*n seems an actual genius when the two of you are compared. You must be a really solid chuck of lead that somehow learned to post on blogs. I would not be able to come up with any other explanation for your completely idiotic and mindless posts.
Free heating and refrigeration simply achieved!
Can you calculate?
Consider a 1 cubic meter box of atmosphere. Reduce the CO2 content from today’s 405 ppm to the pre-industrial 280 ppm.
How much cooling will result?
No whining about gotcha questions. Science is about just such questions. Ones you’re always afraid to try to address.
DA….”Consider a 1 cubic meter box of atmosphere. Reduce the CO2 content from todays 405 ppm to the pre-industrial 280 ppm.
How much cooling will result?”
None. CO2 has no effect on atmospheric temperatures. All warming is easily explained by natural processes and recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Gordon: Do CO2 and methane and N2O absorb infrared radiation?
DA…”You either dont understand the points being made or you are simply a troll”.
Appell is both. I think he was sent here by alarmists to disrupt discussion that have a skeptical basis.
You’re not a “skeptic,” you’re a uneducated liar. Huge difference.
Appell:
You are the only person I have found to be a liar.
i never use the word lightly and do not recall the last person for whom I may have used that descriptor, certainly in written form. It is a heavy word not to be used lightly.
tony, you refused to answer direct questions about observational sciences, like if astronomy and geology are sciences.
Crickets. But you always have plenty of insults. In fact, it’s about all that you have….
David Appell:
As usual you perform the task of troll eminently and try diversionary tactics to conflate and obfuscate to avoid facing the issues.
DA says that climate science isnt an experimental science, its an observational science. ” it is applied physics. “
DA: You cant do an proper experiment without a control. This is a basic part of the scientific method,
(DA’s justification for not following the scientific method where he said we do not have two earths one to act as a control )
Somehow DA thinks this obviates the need to follow the scientific method. DA you can do all the observations you like (we all observe every day) but if you don’t close the loop by testing falsifiable ideas there is no science established no matter how much people want to waffle that they have consensus. This does not mean scientists are not in the process of doing science for example methodical data gathering, string theory as applied to universes, Big Bang etc. Light bending was tested in the field, not a lab.
An idea is not science until tested. Why do you think the 2LOT is held in such high esteem (it is the most tested idea in all of science)? CERN at a cost of some $12 billion is clear testament to the importance of testing.
Notice DA’s word use of “science.” Science either is used in the sense of scientific method or it is the wishy washy meaning of some knowledge. Ironic that even prior to Galileo the “scientists” of the day had total consensus and even had a geocentric working model. They were more advanced than DA!
Copernicus had already published his heliocentric work decades before Galileo, dedicated it to the Pope with full approval from the clergy. Yet it was Galileo who has come to be known as the father of modern physics because of his ideas on subjecting hypotheses to empirical testing.
DA was asked to desist from claiming climastrology to be science if it could not comply with the scientific method as he states. It makes predictions which fail! Further if it was applied physics then he should rebut the Gerlich et al paper which tackles it from the frame of physics.
Hansen obviously disagrees (Hansen claimed he had the exact physics). Lindzen on the other hand has claimed this has turned into a religion so it is in agreement with DA that it is not science. A neat vague kaleidoscope.
It is a bit long to summarize the exchange with this troll. He cites authors or experiments. He either knows they are flawed or should once the flaws are pointed out. Yet he doubles down instead of acknowledging the flaw. A person of average intelligence would grasp it. I make no comment on his intelligence but going into denial and still pushing his flawed line means he is a troll.
In this context I am specifically referring to his citation of Tamino (who pulled a switch on the data for CH4) and my comment on a CO2 experiment where I say::
You promote pseudoscience experiments as previously stated (by me):
This is a junk experiment, with junk commentary by a junk scientist to fool the ignorant.
You swallow and foster junk science!!
This clown suggests that pressure broadening allows CO2 to absorb ALL infra red. Yeah, right!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279884
This braggadocio can’t even keep his word. So he claims I am guilty of gratuitous insults, states that he is “not going to continue” there and yet keeps going back to that thread and expects me to do likewise.
tony: explain how you would “test falsifiable ideas” regarding AGW.
DA:
If you propose an idea it is up to you to determine how to test it to show that it holds. The experiment itself is then open to judgement.
There are theoretical Physicists who don’t get involved in experimental design. This important task is left to specialist experimental Physicists who clearly excel in doing that.
This is one reason I have respect for Hansen even though I bag him for many things: he did stick his neck on the line and try to fulfil the experimental part of science by forecasting the future outcome. Now I would not quibble by holding him to account about unpredictable timings of ENSO or PDO or volcanic activity or some other such event.
You just can’t seem to accept that concepts which are untested or un-testable do not comply with the scientific method. There are plenty of well studied ideas like string theory as applied to the universe(s) or Big Bang; the ideas are not science but just science ‘work in progress.’
Ask a simple question: what distinguishes true science from ALL other fields or “sciences?” There is your answer.
tony, your inability to respond to people (not just me) without juvenile insults means this is my last response to you.
I never said climate science doesn’t follow the “scientific method.” I said you can’t do an experiment to prove AGW, because there is no control Earth.
Same is true for sciences like astronomy and geology — these are observational sciences, applied physics based on the logical consequences of experimentally proven physical principles.
Bye.
DA…
Did you say “you can’t do an experiment to prove AGW”?
Why don’t you tell me how such an experiment would be done. Even in principle.
DA…
Without experiment it is unquantifiable.
DA…
Would it be possible for you to post a link showing an experiment proving C02 acting as a greenhouse gas?
tonym:
is astronomy a science?
Is geology?
So far you have avoided answering these two direct questions.
I think I know why……
David Appell:
You promised not to interact with me before. No loss for me. But you still kept doing it on another post. I have simply responded to your taunting drivel. More drivel from you here along the same lines.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-279693
DA said: You cant do an proper experiment without a control. This is a basic part of the scientific method,
DA says above: I said you cant do an experiment to prove AGW, because there is no control Earth.
But then also says:
I never said climate science doesnt follow the “scientific method.”
Confused guy as he now asserts that climate science does follow the scientific method. Maybe he means it is only for the bits that do not relate to AGW which leaves a mighty big hole in this field given that almost every paper makes some reference to “climate change” or whatever is in vogue.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-278932
DA says: Climate models arent statistical models, theyre physics models. They dont project by fitting past data, they project by solving the equations that govern climate.
Physics models!!? Really? Then why do they not work?
So now we have equations which govern climate do we? Govern?? Have the full Navier Stokes equations been solved? Who got the $1 million reward from Clay Maths Inst?
Bit of an insult to physicists. How would they respond to that ? They already did!
“At best, these computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.”
” The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example are the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many.
Another example are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an effect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones”
And on and on it goes from a physics viewpoint.
There is much more where that came from. Don’t argue with me. Go see Gerlich et al paper. Halpern et al tried to rebut it but got castrated in the process. Halpern (Eli Wabbett) then comes back with the hilarious green plates in the sky which has nothing to do with the arguments put forward by Gerlich et al.
Gerlich. No one thinks Gerlich is correct, except hard core deniers who are desperate.
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/
Troll.
One can’t say you are a man of your word; quite the opposite for you keep coming back!
SOD could not get past 50 pages of the paper and decided he knew. He did not refute any physics arguments. Yet this is the best you can do!
Halpern et al got scalped in a rebuttal attempt which was published.
Do something useful; get the best team team together to rebut Gerlich. I guess that means Gore, Mann, Hansen and Schmidt. /sarc. There is nothing better to see than a good resounding science argument. I have no doubt who will win but I like the idea of a good challenge on all aspects of the science issues. Gerlich has raised many.
BTW to those interested a group of chemists have also come to similar conclusions. Not sure where I saw the reference in case anyone knows and wishes to share. Thanks in advance.
tonym, see how your only responses are insults?
Your reply here proves this perfectly.
Once you have been established to be a troll and keep breaking your word I am comfortable calling you out for what you are.
As usual evading the issues. I suggested you make yourself useful.
tonym wrote:
“Confused guy as he now asserts that climate science does follow the scientific method.”
Never wrote that.
Stop lying.
David let’s establish something clearly:
The only person in denial of facts is you.
The only person who may have lied in our interaction is you for you have deliberately denied facts when they are pointed out to you. That is lying!
DA said: You cant do an proper experiment without a control. This is a basic part of the scientific method,
DA said: I said you cant do an experiment to prove AGW, because there is no control Earth.
Your first statement can only logically be interpreted that for you:
No control means no proper experiment and hence does not fulfil the basic part of the scientific method.
Your second statement means according to you:
there is no control earth hence no proper experiment can be done and hence does not fulfil the basic part of scientific method to “prove” AGW.
Your emphasis and mine is clearly on AGW not some other part of climate science.
I conclude that as far as AGW is concerned climate science does not comply with the scientific method according to you.
When I point out that this is what your statements mean you object and say:
I never said climate science doesnt follow the “scientific method.”
Really!? ~ Well here is your opportunity. Explain it clearly.
So does AGW follow the scientific method or does it not??
If it does then show us the “proper experiments.”
If it does not then why are you arguing when that is what I have said some of your statements amount to?
If you do an honest job without conflation and obfuscation I promise not to call you a troll in response.
If I have misunderstood then call me out on it with explanation; I have no problem with that either.
After reading all your comments I just asked you why cant you be nice to each other.
Here in Australia after a change of goverment well cover the whole continent with solar panels and clutter the landscape with sleek wind turbines so we wont suffer any more climate disruptions.
No more chivering in Bangladesh and snow shovling in the US. We save the planet! And then I fell out of my bed. I was dreaming.
It’s good that Agung releases gas gradually. Bali rescued.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/9b1eb6wj50u8.png
Joe, solar panels and wind turbines won’t save you from climate change unless the rest of the world does the same.
“Climate change: Josh Frydenberg concedes Australia’s carbon emissions rose in 2017,” Nicole Hasham, 1/11/18.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-josh-frydenberg-concedes-australias-carbon-emissions-rose-in-2017-20180111-h0gmtp.html
nb: Frydenberg is AU’s Environment and Energy Minister.
TonyM
May I suggest that you research consilience.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
Em, may I suggest you research “obdurate”.
Entropic Man:
Thank you for that reference.
What particular point did you wish to make?
In any scientific experiment there is an element of uncertainty, When you use 95% confidence limits you say that you are 95% confident that the mean is within those limits. Put another way, if you repeat the experiment 100 times, five of them will produce results outside the limits. This is just by random chance.
In any science you get an occasional experiment which disagrees with the rest. This does not necessarily mean that everything else is wrong, just that there is an unavoidable variability built into the scientific method.
Consilience is the way in which a large number of experiments and a number of different lines of evidence converge on a common description of reality.
One of the best known examples is plate tectonics. Before the 1960s sediment, volcanoes, earthquakes etc were regarded as independant processes and the apparent fits between continents were regarded as coincidence. There was heated debate between the gradualists and the catastrophies.Then evsidence from studies of volcanoes, earthquakes, geology, fossils, magnetism etc came together into a general description of how Earth’s crust and mantle behave.
Climate science is similar. Diverse sources of information together build a coherent and consilient description of the behaviour of ice, ocean and atmosphere.
If you want to show that the current view of climate is wrong, you will not do so by pointing out small inconsistencies in single experiments. What you need to do is show that the a different interpretation of the sum of all the evidence works better than the present one.
+1
“Consilience is the way in which a large number of experiments and a number of different lines of evidence converge on a common description of reality.”
And, confirmation bias is the way in which one psychologically favors lines of evidence that tend to confirm one’s biases, and downplay those which don’t, leading to a false sense of consilience.
Right back at you:
…confirmation bias is the way in which one psychologically disfavors lines of evidence so as to confirm ones biases, and downplay those which dont, leading to a false sense of consilience.
The value of consilience is that the evidence come from many different directions, contributed by many different people.
“The value of consilience is that the evidence come from many different directions, contributed by many different people.”
As was “100 Authors Against Einstein.”
Tu quoque is a very weak counter-argument. It essentially admits wrongdoing, while insisting the other side is worse.
You’re not Einstein.
And, you just changed the subject.
You didn’t explain why a genius was wrong.
“What you need to do is show that the a different interpretation of the sum of all the evidence works better than the present one.”
Confirmation bias also tends to proscribe the realm of evidences sought, i.e., one tends to find what one is looking for.
The authors of “100 Authors Against Einstein” thought they had “consilience”.
This is very bad reasoning.
You’re not Einstein.
They weren’t either.
Whoosh!
All the defense you could muster.
So typical.
entropic…”In any scientific experiment there is an element of uncertainty, When you use 95% confidence limits you say that you are 95% confident that the mean is within those limits. Put another way, if you repeat the experiment 100 times, five of them will produce results outside the limits. This is just by random chance”.
You are confused about confidence levels. They apply only to statistical analysis. You don’t need a confidence level if you do real science with real apparatus, real observations and conclusions. In such cases, you offer error margins.
NOAA and NASA GISS now offer confidence levels when they declare certain years as record warming years. That’s because both have abandoned science based on the scientific method and implemented statistical analysis via climate models in lieu of real data.
There is little doubt the use of confidence levels as low as 48% for NOAA and in the 30 percentile range for GISS are aimed at the blatant promotion of AGW lies.
GR wrote:
“You dont need a confidence level if you do real science with real apparatus, real observations and conclusions. In such cases, you offer error margins.”
Raw, stupid, dumb fuc!ing ignorance.
When I was an undergraduate I was close to a professor who did particle physics at a Los Alamos particle collider.
He told me that 90% of their computer time was taken up by calculating error bars.
Gordon doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.
How Do You Know A Climate Alarmist Is Lying? Their Lips Are Moving
Claim #7: Weve seenspreading famine
Response to Claim #7: This is the most absurd claim. CO2 is plant food, and higher CO2 levels result in higher crop yields. That BTW is about as settled as science can be and easily demonstrated in a lab. Higher CO2 is the answer to ending famine, not the cause. If there is famine today it is due to a food distribution problem, not a food production issue. Most likely, the cause of famine is a war, tyrannical government or other man-made causes blocking the delivery of food to needy people.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/how-do-you-know-a-climate-alarmist-is-lying-their-lips-are-moving/
CAGW activists have learned well from Stalin and Hitler: do not hesitate to tell a big lie; people will believe it. The reduction in famines and the increase in food supply is one of the biggest successes of the last 50 years, but CAGW activists proclaim famine increases without opposition in the mainstream media. It was only 40 years ago that hunger and starvation was common in India; now India exports food. To be sure, hybrids and genetic engineering has helped increase production, but a conservative estimate is that at least 20% of current crop production is due to increase CO2 levels.
You’re another one here — among legions — who fails to understand that more than one factor is involved with plant growth.
“Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors.”
“Climate trends and global crop production since 1980,” D.B. Lobell et al, Science (July 29, 2011)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21551030
More to it than just more CO2 = more growth.
They become limited by other factors. Crops grown under increased CO2 need more water and soil nutrients. They lose a higher proportion of their yield to pests. They are less nutritious and less tolerant of high temperatures.
When you put all the factors together a world with higher CO2 is a world which produces less food.
Yes. Read, for example
“Unfortunately, the simple idea that global warming could provide at least some benefits to humanity by increasing plant production is complicated by a number of factors. It is true that fertilizing plants with CO2 and giving them warmer temperatures increases growth under some conditions, but there are trade-offs. While global warming can increase plant growth in areas that are near the lower limits of temperature (e.g., large swaths of Canada and Russia), it can make it too hot for plant growth in areas that are near their upper limits (e.g., the tropics). In addition, plant productivity is determined by many things (e.g., sunlight, temperature, nutrients, and precipitation), several of which are influenced by climate change and interact with one another.”
“Does a Warmer World Mean a Greener World? Not Likely!,” Jonathan Chase, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002166
” They are less nutritious and less tolerant of high temperatures.”
Pulled out of the propagandists’ collective arse. A real beaut. It sounds spooky, without actually saying anything.
“We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures.”
— “Effect of warming temperatures on US wheat yields,” Jesse Tack et al, PNAS 4/20/15
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/06/1415181112
=====
General Mills CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press:
“We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change and climate volatility, and thats going to stress the agricultural supply chain, which is very important to us.”
8/30/15
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-general-mills-greenhouse-gas-cuts-20150830-story.html
=====
“For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
— “Global scale climatecrop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002
Abstract:
“Dietary deficiencies of zinc and iron are a substantial global public health problem. An estimated two billion people suffer these deficiencies1, causing a loss of 63 million life-years annually, Most of these people depend on C3 grains and legumes as their primary dietary source of zinc and iron. Here we report that C3 grains and legumes have lower concentrations of zinc and iron when grown under field conditions at the elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the middle of this century. C3 crops other than legumes also have lower concentrations of protein, whereas C4 crops seem to be less affected. Differences between cultivars of a single crop suggest that breeding for decreased sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 concentration could partly address these new challenges to global health.”
— “Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition,” Samuel S. Myers et al, Nature 510, 139142 (05 June 2014).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/full/nature13179.html
And, the expected Gish Gallop into dubious sources ensues…
Why “dubious?”
“Total protein and nitrogen concentrations in plants generally decline under elevated CO2 atmospheres…. Recently, several meta-analyses have indicated that CO2 inhibition of nitrate assimilation is the explanation most consistent with observations. Here, we present the first direct field test of this explanation.. In leaf tissue, the ratio of nitrate to total nitrogen concentration and the stable isotope ratios of organic nitrogen and free nitrate showed that nitrate assimilation was slower under elevated than ambient CO2. These findings imply that food quality will suffer under the CO2 levels anticipated during this century unless more sophisticated approaches to nitrogen fertilization are employed.”
— Nitrate assimilation is inhibited by elevated CO2 in field-grown wheat, Arnold J. Bloom et al, Nature Climate Change, April 6 2014.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2183.html
====
“Higher CO2 tends to inhibit the ability of plants to make protein And this explains why food quality seems to have been declining and will continue to decline as CO2 rises because of this inhibition of nitrate conversion into protein. Its going to be fairly universal that well be struggling with trying to sustain food quality and its not just protein its also micronutrients such as zinc and iron that suffer as well as protein.”
– University of California at Davis Professor Arnold J. Bloom, on Yale Climate Connections 10/7/14
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/10/crop-nutrition/2014
CO2 is plant food, and higher CO2 levels result in higher crop yields.
Then why are there no plants on Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% CO2?
Seems it should be a plant’s dream world….
DA…”Then why are there no plants on Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% CO2?”
Could that be related to the surface temperature being around 450 C?
DA…
AHAHAHAHAHA!
Why won’t you answer the question?
High pressure in the east of North America brings frost.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/01/14/0900Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-100.96,42.86,903/loc=-86.120,39.281
David Appell,
You wrote –
At least ultra-denier Mike Flynn gave up and left.
As usual, youre wrong. Im still around, as anyone can plainly see.
Your continuing use of the pejorative term denier indicates that your apparent delusionally psychotic state has not ameliorated.
If you wish to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer exposed to the Sun will make the thermometer hotter, then you are in the company of other so-called scientists – the rather undistinguished mathematician Gavin Schmidt being one.
I wish you well, and I hope that your 16 hours of journalistic trading, combined with your PhD, will allow you to obtain employment commensurate with your abilities. I understand the French President is actively seeking to attract climatologists to relocate to France. Have you received your invitation yet?
Do let us know how much you have been offered to advance the promotion of the bizarre pseudo-science jokingly referred to as climatology.
Keep up your efforts! A good laugh is always appreciated.
Cheers.
You’re the denier among deniers — in a class by yourself. The class those who flunked out of science.
Compelling evidence that the EMR absorbed at low altitude by CO2 is redirected to water vapor has been hiding in plain sight. The evidence is the notch in typical top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation. The notch demonstrates that energy is absorbed by CO2. First law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) mandates that the energy cannot just disappear but must show up somewhere else. Thermalization allows the energy to be emitted at other wavenumbers. The only other place it can show up is at lower energy (longer wave length, lower wavenumber, lower frequency) wavelengths of water vapor. http://i66.tinypic.com/30t79dy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D
Hitran shows gas molecule radiant emission at terrestrial temperatures is essentially all below wavenumber 500.
dan…”Compelling evidence that the EMR absorbed at low altitude by CO2 is redirected to water vapor has been hiding in plain sight”.
Where did you get that fictitious graph? I know of no instrument with the bandwidth to produce such a graph.
Original is from NASA at https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
Essentially the same thing can be obtained from MODTRAN and, with appropriate range settings and highest resolution, MODTRAN6.
More explanation is at my blog/analysis (which includes the source link)
svante…”Positive feedback:
A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A.
Example:
A warmer atmosphere will melt ice and this changes the albedo which further warms the atmosphere”.
It doesn’t work like that. A more apt definition is that a sample of an output is fed back to an input to affect the input signal. If the signal fed back enhances the input signal you have positive feedback if it attenuates the input signal you have negative feedback.
One other provision, with positive feedback that will not work unless there is an amplifier between the input and the output. The whole point in PF is to increase the output signal each cycle. You cannot do that without an amplifier.
I have heard ridiculous assertions by the head of NASA GISS that a feedback can cause amplification. Nonsense. There is no way to feed back part of an output signal, mix it with an input signal, and increase the output signal without an amplifier.
That’s why AGW is a ludicrous premise based on the notion that back-radiation from the atmosphere will warm the surface more than it is warmed by solar energy. You cannot amplify heat in the surface by this method. There are losses and the 2nd law prevents heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, especially when the surface warmed the atmosphere as claimed in AGW.
GR,,,You talk like a sparky. A separate amplifier is not required. Amplification can be intrinsinc. The feedback involving liquid water is an example. Water has a vapor pressure which depends only on the temperature of the liquid water. Increase in temperature of the liquid water increases its vapor pressure. Higher vapor pressure means more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor in the atmosphere means slowing of the radiation from the surface. Slower radiation from the surface means the liquid water gets a little warmer which means higher vapor pressure and so on. But the increase remains finite if the feedback factor is less than 1. (Most real devices keep it below 0.8 to provide some margin)
Hansen hijacked the term ‘feedback’ and apparently did not fully understand it in a 1984 paper he coauthored. As a consequence, the climate science community has been corrupted by this misuse ever since.
Dr. Roy notes the different interpretation in his book. Blunder…
Monckton has discovered it and has more on the way.
dan…”A separate amplifier is not required. Amplification can be intrinsinc”.
I gave an example of the resonance-based amplification that destroyed the Tacoma-Narrows Bridge in its suspension cables. I am sure there are other examples in nature but I cannot think of any that can amplify forces to that level.
All gases in the atmosphere supply pressure and the sum of the partial pressures, according to Dalton, is the sum of the partial pressures of all gases. Water vapour in the overall atmosphere supplies no more than about 0.3% of the pressure.
In locales, it can reach 3%. I don’t know about the actual water in clouds.
Do you have an example of intrinsic amplification? I can’t begin to imagine how it would work.
GR,,,The liquid water in the feedback scenario described is the surface water, not in clouds. Read it again. That is how feedback works. If it is warming, positive feedback makes it warm faster than it would if there was no feedback. If it is cooling, positive feedback makes it cool faster than it would if there was no feedback.
Dan…”The liquid water in the feedback scenario described is the surface water, not in clouds. Read it again. That is how feedback works. If it is warming, positive feedback makes it warm faster than it would if there was no feedback. If it is cooling, positive feedback makes it cool faster than it would if there was no feedback”.
There is no feedback in such a system, especially not positive feedback. If PF was in effect the WV would allow the temperature of the atmosphere to rise above the temperature produced by solar energy. That would require some kind of amplifier supplied by external power.
If solar energy heats the ocean, and the ocean releases WV, that WV will never exceed the temperature of solar energy.
Here’s how PF with WV might work in a room. When the furnace hot air is off, the mechanism is turned off. When a thermostat detects the furnace is on, it turns on a device to spray HEATED WV into the room. If the wv is warm enough, the room can heat to a temperature higher than the hot air from the furnace. Like a sauna.
In fact, you could automate a sauna to work like that to save you pouring water on the heat source. The point of feedback in such systems is to detect the ambient temperature and send a signal back to a device that can affect the temperature. The amplification comes from whatever device heats the WV.
GR,,, You say “There is no feedback in such a system, especially not positive feedback. If PF was in effect the WV would allow the temperature of the atmosphere to rise above the temperature produced by solar energy. That would require some kind of amplifier supplied by external power.”
That is wrong on several levels: The feedback happens because vapor pressure of water increases with the temperature of the liquid water. The temperature of the gas (atmosphere) above the water has nothing to do with it. The following describes the feedback (correct definition of feedback, not the bogus definition used by Climate Scientists): “The feedback involving liquid water is an example. Water has a vapor pressure which depends only on the temperature of the liquid water. Increase in temperature of the liquid water [on the surface] increases its vapor pressure. Higher vapor pressure means more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor in the atmosphere means slowing of the [flow of energy from surface to space due to] radiation from the surface. Slower [energy flow] from the surface [to space] means the liquid water gets a little warmer which means higher vapor pressure and so on.”
It is unclear why you apparently cannot understand this. Apparently you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how feedback works in the physical world. Do you not know that water vapor is a ghg? Do you not understand how energy moves through the atmosphere (besides mass transport (wind) and conduction)? Energy goes from molecule to molecule by EMR at the speed of light. But the photon energy absorbed by a molecule spends time in the molecule called the relaxation time. Relaxation time is shorter at higher temperature. It is about 5 microseconds at room temperature. More ghg molecules means more time spent in ‘relaxation’ and less time at the speed of light. That is why more water vapor slows the rate of energy flow from the surface to space.
CO2 has no significant effect on climate because of thermalization. Thermalization means that absorbed energy is immediately (starts in less than 0.0002 microseconds) shared with surrounding molecules by conduction.
Emission of EMR from a ghg is entirely different from radiation from a liquid or solid body. Hitran, using quantum mechanics, reveals that radiation from ghg in the atmosphere at low altitude is almost entirely at the low energy wave lengths of water vapor.
Water vapor, mostly because there is so much more of it at below about 10 km, provides approximately 200 times as many absorb opportunities as CO2. Radiation from the ghg at low altitude is nearly all by low energy photons of water vapor. It is approximately 50000 times more likely that photon emission will be from water vapor molecules than CO2 molecules. Above 10 km WV is greatly diminished and CO2 can again participate.
You say that WV will never exceed the temperature of solar energy. It is unclear what that means but I suspect a misunderstanding of how radiation heat transfer works, especially if part of the radiation is from a ghg. Everything above absolute zero radiates and the net flow of energy is from hot to cool as required by the second law.
When you say spray HEATED WV it sounds like you are not aware that WV in the atmosphere, for all practical purposes, follows the ideal gas laws.
As to the rest, of course you can have a separate amplifier device. Do you not grasp that more WV in the atmosphere provides more resistance to energy flow from the surface to space? To get the same energy flow rate, the temperature of the surface must increase.
WV has been increasing 1.5% per decade since 1960. The increase is twice what it is calculated to be as a result of liquid surface water temperature increase. This extra increase in WV is countering the temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring. Eventually, WV will stop increasing, cloud increase will compensate (it only takes 1.7% increase in cloud cover to cause surface temperature to eventually decline by 0.5 K) and surface temperatures in the long term (century scale and longer) will depend on what the sun does with superimposed 60+ year oscillations of 0.18 K from ocean cycles.
Dan states: “More water vapor in the atmosphere means slowing of the radiation from the surface.”
No. Infrared emitted by surface water is related to water temperature. Water vapor in the atmosphere has no effect on emission from the surface.
Dan states: ” Slower radiation from the surface means the liquid water gets a little warmer which means higher vapor pressure and so on.”
No. There is no “slower radiation”. (See above.)
And, Dan has neglected latent heat of vaporization. As the surface water warms, the chances for evaporation increase. But, evaporation cools the surface water–negative “feedback”, if you will.
Someone once said “if anything can be misinterpreted, it will be”.
Replace ‘slowing of the radiation’ with ‘slowing of the rate of energy flow from the surface to space”.
I didn’t neglect anything.
“But, evaporation cools the surface waternegative feedback, if you will.” is an example of the misinterpretation of what is meant by feedback that has contributed to ‘consensus’ mistakes. Cooling of the water left behind is a result of evaporation. It has nothing to do with feedback.
Temperature related positive feedback means temperature change from a forcing is faster with positive feedback than it would if there was no feedback.
It’s good that you are accommodative to “replacing” your words. But, you need to keep going. Adding water vapor to the atmosphere just adds more “radiators”. It’s kind of like adding holes in the bottom of a bucket.
Also,
“Temperature related positive feedback means temperature change from a forcing is faster with positive feedback than it would if there was no feedback.”
Anytime you find “temperature change”, “forcing”, and “feedback” in the same sentence, you know it’s pseudoscience.
dan…”Cooling of the water left behind is a result of evaporation. It has nothing to do with feedback”.
Evapouration is about breaking bonds in water molecules, it required external energy. However, there is a more important process at work. If the atoms in water molecules are at a higher energy level than the air molecules around the water, the electrons in the atoms will tend to drop to a lower energy level while emitting EM. That process cools the water.
I would think that evaporation would have more of an effect if the surrounding air was much warmer than the water. In that case, the water would be absorbing energy, by conduction as well as radiation from the air.
g*r…”Anytime you find temperature change, forcing, and feedback in the same sentence, you know its pseudoscience”.
Especially true when applied to climate science where there is a tendency to pervert definitions from physics. The word forcing comes directly from climate models, which are dependent on differential equations.
In differential equation theory, an equation (function) is often tested by applying a ‘forcing’ function to the equation. Climate modelers have unfortunately passed that nonsense out there as if a forcing is real. There are already terms in place in physics that describe what is meant by a forcing far more effectively.
Some climate scientists, modelers in particular, have perverted the meaning of feedback. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS seems to think any signal, such as back-radiation from CO2 is a feedback.
He’s wrong. Back-radiation could never be a positive feedback till it is part of a lossless system. In electronics, losses are overcome with amplifiers while the input signal is actually amplified. There are no amplifiers in the atmosphere.
I need to be clear that an amplifier must amplify a signal with a gain of at least unity, or 1. There is no such thing as a fractional amplifier. The only way you can feed a signal into a black box and have it attenuated at the out put is with passive devices inside the black box. The minute you see an output equal to the input or greater, you can guess that an amplifier is involved. Either than or the input signal is wired straight through to the output.
G*,,, Adding water vapor to the atmosphere just adds more radiators. True if by that you mean WV molecules are ghg and can emit radiation. But it adds the same number of absorbers. Hitran says the emission is nearly all at lower energy (wavenumber <500) photons.
You should find out what temperature change, forcing, and feedback mean before you reveal your lack of knowledge by declaring them pseudoscience.
g*r…” Infrared emitted by surface water is related to water temperature. Water vapor in the atmosphere has no effect on emission from the surface”.
That’s right, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation tells us the rate of heat loss of a surface is proportional to the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings as well as the area of the surface. Nothing else affects the rate of cooling.
GR,,, S-B only says surfaces radiate according to fourth power of absolute temperature. Rate of heat transfer is proportional to the difference between the fourth power of the absolute temperatures. But you probably ment that . . .
The water feedback positive feedback eventually leads to increased low cloud cover. Increased low cloud cover increases albedo which decreases incoming energy. The system reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature, rather than running away.
In climate any change in conditions tends to trigger negative feedbacks which limit the magnitude of any further change.The negative feedback may be strong enough to return the system to its original state.
This is second nature to any biologist or control system designer, yet a curious blind spot in the types of engineers who become deniers.
Em believes: “The system reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature, rather than running away.”
Em, if the albedo increases, it does not result in higher temperatures.
So much for “second nature”, huh?
G*e*r*a*n
The full sequence is
1) Some external factor increases temperature.
2) Increased temperature leads to more water vapour
3) More water vapour leads to increased greenhouse effect.
4) Increased greenhouse effect leads to higher temperature.
5) Even higher temperature leads to even more water vapour.
If steps 2) to 5) repeated indefinitely you would get a runaway greenhouse effect and end up like Venus.
Fortunately more is happening.
5) Increasing water vapour leads to increasing low cloud.
6) Increasing low cloud leads to increasing albedo (less sunlight reaching the surface).
7) Increasing albedo opposes increasing temperature.
8) Temperature stabilises when cooling effect of increased albedo cancels out warming effect of increased water vapour.
Steps 3 and 4 can’t happen.
Because CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths does not imply that it is then a “heat source”. That would be like saying a bowl of fruit on your kitchen table can heat your house in winter because fruit “traps heat”.
You very quickly get into pseudoscience.
entropic…
1) Some external factor increases temperature.
2) Increased temperature leads to more water vapour
3) More water vapour leads to increased greenhouse effect.
************
What are these mysterious external factors? I have never seen that adequately explained, not even closely.
There is a presumption in your words that WV produces a GHE in the first place. How does it do that?
WV in the overall atmosphere accounts for only 0.3% of atmospheric gases. Treating the atmosphere as a constant volume/constant mass system, the ideal gas equation and Dalton’s law of partial pressures tells us the temperature of the atmosphere is governed by the mass of each gas. How can a gas with 0.03% of the mass possibly contribute much to heating?
And how can increased WV raise the temperature of the atmosphere to a higher temperature than the surface is warmed by solar energy. Not possible.
Granted, in local climates like the Tropics, WV increases to 3% or so and it likely has a significant effect via humidity, but does it raise the temperature in the Tropics, or is that governed by solar energy alone?
Ent,,, Run away would only occur if gain was greater than 1. Feedback ratio of less than one produces an infinite series the total of which is finite. e.g. a positive feedback ratio of 0.1 produces a gain of 0.11111… a finite number. Repeating “steps 2-5” does not produce thermal runaway for the planet.
IMO a local thermal runaway and end to it produces the temperature pattern of an el Nino. The typical sharp peak is a result of local high positive feedback causing both rapid temperature rise and rapid decline.
Ent,,,you are using the word ‘feedback’ the same way as used by warmists. It is wrong and obscures the upper limit for positive feedback to prevent ‘runaway’. If ‘runaway’ warming was possible, life would never have happened.
No one is predicting “runaway warming” for Earth — at least, not for a billion years or two (at which point it will be inevitable).
G*e*r*a*n
I never mentioned CO2. Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.
Dan Pangbourn
I ama biologist, so I think of feedback as part of the control systems which keep conditions inside your body constant.
These feedback loops have sensors which monitor one variable in your body, connected to effectors designed to change it.
For example, your body prefers to operate at 37C. Your brain monitors your temperature. You produce heat continuously, but whether you need to shed or conserve it depends on circumstances.
When you start to cool your hairs stand up to insulate you and divert blood away from your skin. These reduce your rate of heat loss. You also shiver to produce more heat.
When you start to overheat your hairs lie down, you pump more blood to your skin and you sweat; evaporation carries away the excess heat.
This is negative feedback, maintaining a constant body temperature despite that we in exercise and outside temperature.
When you go beyond the limits of your control system positive feedback kicks in. For example, as your body temperature increases you generate more heat. When the outside temperature gets above 35C in 100% humidity you produce more heat than you can shed. Your body temperature and heat production increase until at a body temperature somewhere over 4OC your organs fail and you die.
In cold conditions you risk the opposite, also due to positive feedback. If you lose heat faster than you can produce it, your body temperature drops and you produce even less heat. Once your temperature drops too low, you die.
For me, a forcing is an external change which changes your body temperature. Negative feedback is a response which restores the original body temperature. Positive feedback is a response which drives body temperature further from its starting point.
I think of climate in the same way. Forcings change temperature. Negative feedback reduce the effect
dan…”If runaway warming was possible, life would never have happened”.
Agreed. There is enough natural CO2 in the atmosphere to have caused a runaway effect long before ACO2 became an issue.
entropic…”I ama biologist, so I think of feedback as part of the control systems which keep conditions inside your body constant”.
That kind of feedback is more like the feedback in a servo system, isn’t it? For example, if I am trying to control the speed of a motor, I basically need to control the current sent to the motor, or the power, through chopping the voltage waveform. So I install a tachometer on the motor knowing the RPM is directly proportional to the motor current.
Suppose the motor is designed to run at 3000 RPM. The tach feeds RPM data back as a voltage to a controller which has a reference voltage equivalent to 3000 RPM. If the voltage is higher than Vref, the controller cuts the motor current, if it is lower, it increases it.
That’s a simple servo feedback system but it’s not the kind of feedback to which we are referring. You could call a feedback voltage from the tach a positive feedback if the voltage was positive wrt Vref. That, however, is not true positive feedback.
The real stuff must meet the requirements of this equation:
G = A/(1 – AB) where G = overall gain, A = the gain of an amplifier, and B = the feedback signal from the amplifier output to the amplifier input signal.
It’s vital to get it that true positive feedback requires gain (amplification).
In climate science, some scientists have perverted the meaning of positive feedback. Roy explained that in one post: in climate science, a positive feedback is a reference to a not-so-negative negative feedback.
I don’t get it, having worked with true positive feedback, but I’ll go with it. I just wish top climate modelers like Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS would get it.
entropic…”For me, a forcing is an external change which changes your body temperature. Negative feedback is a response which restores the original body temperature. Positive feedback is a response which drives body temperature further from its starting point”.
I would not call those feedbacks, I’d call them regulators. Of course, there are feedback mechanisms in the body, something has to signal the brain that something is not right. However, it seems to me the function of the brain’s control system is to regulate. The brain’s response would never be a positive feedback as defined in physics.
“The negative feedback may be strong enough to return the system to its original state.”
That is the important point. It means that the aggregate sensitivity to increasing CO2 could be negligible or even effectively zero. In fact, due to nonlinearity, it could even be negative.
CliSci made a hasty assumption that it is positive and significant. They then went looking for evidence that would support that assumption. And, mirabile dictu, they found some.
It’s meaningless. It’s confirmation bias.
Show any calculation that gives ECS <= 0.
Bart says:
CliSci made a hasty assumption that it is positive and significant.
It’s not an “assumption,” it’s a calculation. The first good one was
“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.
Their model found a climate sensitivity of 2.3 C.
It is a calculation based upon a myriad of assumptions.
Which assumptions are wrong?
entropic…”In climate any change in conditions tends to trigger negative feedbacks which limit the magnitude of any further change”.
All processes in the atmosphere are negative feedbacks. Positive feedback required an amplifier and there are none in the atmosphere.
Is the ice-albedo feedback positive?
Is the water vapor feedback positive?
Gordon,
A more apt definition is that a sample of an output is fed back to an input to affect the input signal. If the signal fed back enhances the input signal you have positive feedback if it attenuates the input signal you have negative feedback.
That’s pretty good, but the word sample is inappropriate when the whole output has an intrinsic effect. You can simplify thus:
Output is fed back to an input to affect the input signal.
One other provision, with positive feedback that will not work unless there is an amplifier between the input and the output. The whole point in PF is to increase the output signal each cycle. You cannot do that without an amplifier.
OK, then albedo is the amplifier and the solar input is the power supply.
I have heard ridiculous assertions by the head of NASA GISS that a feedback can cause amplification. Nonsense. There is no way to feed back part of an output signal, mix it with an input signal, and increase the output signal without an amplifier.
That’s OK, the albedo is the amplifier and the solar input is the power supply.
Thats why AGW is a ludicrous premise based on the notion that back-radiation from the atmosphere will warm the surface more than it is warmed by solar energy. You cannot amplify heat in the surface by this method. There are losses and the 2nd law prevents heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface, especially when the surface warmed the atmosphere as claimed in AGW.
No, the atmosphere reduces cooling to space.
2nd law holds since: Tsun > Tsurface > Tghg > Tspace.
Svante believes: “No, the atmosphere reduces cooling to space.”
Sorry Svante, the atmosphere doesn’t “reduce” cooling. If you had some way to warm the atmosphere, which you don’t, it would just expand forming a greater radiating surface.
CO2 can NOT warm the atmosphere, but even if it could, the atmosphere would make adjustments accordingly.
But, you get to believe in AGW, leprechauns, and flat earth, if you want.
svante…”Output is fed back to an input to affect the input signal”.
Yes…but it’s a sample of the output that is fed back. I could have said portion. The overall aim, however, is not just to affect the input signal, it’s to increase the output signals.
“OK, then albedo is the amplifier and the solar input is the power supply”.
Reflection is not amplification.
“No, the atmosphere reduces cooling to space”.
It may delay the cooling but not via radiation, which happens at the speed of light. Any delay is due to the slow effect of convection of air molecules and their slowness of radiating at higher altitudes.
That’s what Wood claimed circa 1909, that the atmosphere is a poor radiator. As long as molecules of air are zipping around colliding with each other, especially in denser air at lower altitudes, the collisions will maintain the heat.
I am theorizing that as the air rises, the density lowers and the collisions become less frequent. Even N2 and O2 will radiate if the temperature differential between them and space is there.
GR wrote:
“Even N2 and O2 will radiate if the temperature differential between them and space is there.”
How will these molecules radiate in the IR if spectroscopy shows they have no IR transitions?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“I have heard ridiculous assertions by the head of NASA GISS that a feedback can cause amplification. Nonsense. There is no way to feed back part of an output signal, mix it with an input signal, and increase the output signal without an amplifier.”
You’re wrong, because the only thing you know about is a little about electronic circuits, which are not a good analogy for the Earth’s climate system.
Let’s see you deny the Clausius-Claperyon equation and its obvious relationship to the water vapor feedback.
Let’s see you deny the ice-albedo feedback.
Let’s see you deny that you can’t get a job, davie.
DA…”Lets see you deny the Clausius-Claperyon equation and its obvious relationship to the water vapor feedback”.
Do you even know what C – C is about? It has nothing to do with feedbacks. It describes the phase transition between different phases of matter. More specifically, it describes a change in the volume of matter wrt to pressure and temperature as the matter changes phase.
“Lets see you deny the ice-albedo feedback”.
Ok, there’s no such thing as an albedo feedback. It’s a reflection of solar energy, nothing to do with feedback.
Wrong. The Clausius-Claperyon gives the increase in water vapor saturation pressure as a function of temperature.
GR says:
“Ok, theres no such thing as an albedo feedback. Its a reflection of solar energy, nothing to do with feedback.”
If there is less ice, does the planet’s albedo decrease or increase?
Gulf Shores, Alabama
Pressure: 1032.85mbar
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/58wewgjga7yy.png
The water vapor carries the energy of the oceans ashore, where it gives off latent heat. When there is no water vapor , the atmosphere does not retain heat.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Since the clean gas is transparent to infrared radiation, in the troposphere must predominate convection.
Let’s see ozone. An ozone particle can only arise if it transfers energy directly to another gas molecule. Otherwise, the temperature will not increase.
“M is any non-reactive species that can take up the energy released in reaction (2) to stabilize O3.
O3 is not a very stable molecule and (without the presence of M) the O3 formed by the collision of O2 and O would immediately fall apart to give back O and O2. Given that N2 and O2 are the
major components in the atmosphere, M is either O2 or N2.”
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/chemistry/chem-c2407/hw/ozone_kinetics.pdf
ren…”Given that N2 and O2 are the
major components in the atmosphere, M is either O2 or N2″.
IMHO, everything in the atmosphere is about N2 and O2. CO2 does nothing of significance.
Furthermore, N2 absorbs right across the solar spectrum. It absorbs EM at ultraviolet frequencies but the molecule is still being studied. It is of no interest to the IPCC since their mandate is to find evidence that CO2 is warming the atmosphere.
It would not surprise me at all if both N2 and O2 are heated directly by solar energy. If that is the case, since N2/O2 don’t radiate energy easily, that accounts for the GHE right there.
The image above, provided by NASA, highlights how all three heat-transfer methods (conduction, convection, and radiation) work in the same environment.
http://www.machinedesign.com/sites/machinedesign.com/files/uploads/2015/03/Convetion_Conduction_Radiation_web.gif
ren…”The image above, provided by NASA…”
NASA is weird. Who the heck would hold a pot of water 4″ above a stove ring to warm it? The pot warms by conduction by sitting on the ring, not radiation.
The diagram does offer a good point. At the height NASA shows the pot above the stove the water would never boil from straight radiation. At that height, the radiation from a 1500 watt ring would be too weak to do anything useful.
Same in the atmosphere, after a few feet the much weaker radiation from the surface would be useless.
http://www.machinedesign.com/sites/machinedesign.com/files/uploads/2015/03/Convetion_Conduction_Radiation_web.gif
Sorry.
Since the clean gas is transparent to infrared radiation, in the troposphere must predominate convection.
How can you argue with the IPCC when they are quite happy to accept 19 century scientific experiments on CO2 as proof of the GHE.yet do not accept 19 century temperature records as valid.same era same technology.as far as I know any doubling of CO2 would result in lower temps not higher temps.CO2 quickly becomes saturated.plus the initial warming would increase water vapour which would rise and condense into cumulous clouds reflecting sunlight into space and having a cooling effect.plus’s the rainfall would wash the CO2 out of the atmosphere
What makes you think the IPCC relies on 19th century papers for its understanding of the GHE?
That’s very false, and a dumb claim to boot. Go study the science.
davie, before you spout off, you should look into the original reference the IPCC used. They go back to Arrhenius.
Go study the pseudoscience.
David as you well know Venus has CO2 concentration of 96% and a surface temp of aprox 450c earth has 4% CO2 and a temp approx 15c Mars has a CO2 level almost exactly the same as Venus at 95% but a surface temp of aprrox -55 c so tell me David where is the GHE caused by CO2.if you ignore the CO2 signature what you have left is atmospheric pressure.as Einstein I think it was said if you take away what it can’t be what you have left must be the truth
David as I recall it wasn’t that long ago on this very blog you were citing the experiments of and findings of Tyndall and others as proof of the GHE.all I meant was they can’t have it both ways.I think its the IPCC that needs to be told that science moves on .what was thought to be true today might not be true tomorrow
UK Ian brown says:
“CO2 quickly becomes saturated.”
False.
Your claim looks only at radiation from the surface and the radiation from the atmosphere.
On Earth, CO2 is far from being saturated. It isn’t even saturated on Venus. See the sidebar in:
Pierrehumbert RT 2011: Infrared radiation and planetary temperature. Physics Today 64, 33-38
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
and read
A Saturated Gassy Argument
June 26, 2007
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Yes, that first “paper” is the one that claims the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K!
It’s one of my favorites. Thanks for linking to it again, davie.
(I wish I had a bird cage.)
dT = dQ/mc
Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
=> dT = 760,000 K
Q.E.D.
davie, remember what I explained about doing the same things over, and over, and over, expecting different results?
Did you take the meds today?
DA…”Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s
dt is an infinitesimally small slice of time and you have given the value dQ/dt in seconds. You’d need to integrate that differential function.
I’m waiting.
DA…”dT = dQ/mc”
Besides, you are claiming dq/dT = mc, which is a constant. That’s like claiming dq/dt = 2, which makes no sense.
The only way it would make sense is if you took the derivative of a straight line like y = 2t. If you took the derivative, you get a constant = 2 and that would tell you the slope of the tangent line to the point at y = t.
Even that makes no sense. It seems your equation represents the tangent to a straight line.
Seems to me you’re looking for the integrated form as the heat transfer equation:
Q = mc (delta T)
The differential form is dq/dt = k dT/dx
This tells you that at any instant of time dt there is a change of heat dq and it depends on k, the conductivity factor, an instantaneous change in temperature dT at an infinitesimal change in length dx along a bar, or whatever.
To get the actual heat transferred you need to integrate the above to get something in the form of Q = mc (delta T).
Then again, you’re probably not interested.
DA…”=> dT = 760,000 K Q.E.D”.
BTW, the heat transfer equation applies only to actual heat flow through a solid. Does not apply through space. Heat does not flow through space.
David as you well know Venus has CO2 concentration of 96% and a surface temp of aprox 450c earth has 4% CO2 and a temp approx 15c Mars has a CO2 level almost exactly the same as Venus at 95% but a surface temp of aprrox -55 c so tell me David where is the GHE caused by CO2.if you ignore the CO2 signature what you have left is atmospheric pressure.as Einstein I think it was said if you take away what it can’t be what you have left must be the truth
Mars’ atmospheric GHG concentration is significantly below that of Earth’s. The atmosphere is much thinner.
Hint: CO2 is not the only GHG.
Should correct that – concentration is ratio based. Mars GHG mass is significantly below that of Earth’s.
Gordon Robertson says:
“BTW, the heat transfer equation applies only to actual heat flow through a solid. Does not apply through space. Heat does not flow through space.”
Heat (like from the Sun) flows through space via (mostly) EM radiation.
My calculation does not put any heat to space. That was one of the problem’s givens.
UK Ian brown says:
“David as you well know Venus has CO2 concentration of 96% and a surface temp of aprox 450c earth has 4% CO2 and a temp approx 15c Mars has a CO2 level almost exactly the same as Venus at 95% but a surface temp of aprrox -55 c so tell me David where is the GHE caused by CO2.”
The GHE effect also depends on the atmosphere’s density.
For Mars, that’s about 1% of Earth’s.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Besides, you are claiming dq/dT = mc, which is a constant.”
Yes.
Gordon Robertson says:
“IMHO, everything in the atmosphere is about N2 and O2. CO2 does nothing of significance.”
Then explain this observation:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
You won’t, because you can’t. You ignore questions like this when you get called out for being a liar.
davie, you keep putting up that same old link, hoping it will somehow prove the GHE. You keep doing the same thing, over and over, hoping for different results.
Einstein indicated that was the definition of “insanity”.
That’s funny enough, but that tired old link is indicating the spectrum of flux leaving the Earth. You are looking at the spectrum leaving and, with a whole bunch of assumptions, hoping that is proof of the GHE (Earth’s temperature is increasing).
That’s like paying for your donuts and, with a whole bunch of assumptions, hoping the remaining amount of cash in your pockets will increase.
Hilarious.
It does prove that CO2 impedes LWIR to space. It does not, however, prove that incremental increase in concentration results in incrementally greater impedance. I.e., that the sensitivity in the present state is net positive and significant.
This is the problem, DA. When it is finally realized that the net sensitivity is effectively zero, the good science is going to be under the same attack as the bad, and the pseudoscientists are going to have a field day.
It does not, however, prove that incremental increase in concentration results in incrementally greater impedance. I.e., that the sensitivity in the present state is net positive and significant.
Basic physics: That impeded energy has to go somewhere.
It can only go into into the ocean, atmosphere, ice or surface, and those warm up as the planet seeks to reestablish energy balance.
You keep saying ECS <=0, but have never once offered any evidence for such or studies that give this result.
In fact, you never offer any evidence ever.
davie details how Earth sheds excess heat energy:
“It can only go into into the ocean, atmosphere, ice or surface, and those warm up as the planet seeks to reestablish energy balance.”
davie does not allow heat energy to be radiated to space!
The poor clown wallows in pseudoscience.
Hilarious.
bart…”It does prove that CO2 impedes LWIR to space”.
1)LWIR is not heat.
2)Why should CO2 absorb any more than a tiny percent of available LWIR?
There seems to be a notion that only molecules like CO2, WV, etc., can radiate IR. Not true. All atoms and molecules in the Earth’s surface can radiate it depending on their temperature.
So, add up all atoms in the Earth’s surface, including water in the oceans and divide the number by the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Rather primitive but I am trying to demonstrate the sheer insanity of thinking the 0.04% of our atmosphere which is CO2 can absorb all surface radiation.
I am not sold on the claim that nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere cannot absorb IR, especially directly from the Sun. I don’t think this issue has been adequately addressed, mainly because researchers are mainly looking to prove CO2 is a warming agent rather than looking at alternate explanations.
“That impeded energy has to go somewhere.”
You don’t know that it is impeded. You don’t understand the argument at all. That’s why you’re a science writer and not a practicing scientist.
Gordon:
“LWIR is not heat.”
LWIR is energy. Heat is energy. Energy is fungible.
“There seems to be a notion that only molecules like CO2, WV, etc., can radiate IR. Not true.”
It is true.
You are trying to disprove the thesis based on elementary flaws. The flaws are not elementary. If they were, the controversy would have been long over.
The flaw is that it is a spherical cow argument. It is too simplified to apply to the real, complex system involved.
Bart
I like reading your posts. I see an intelligent person behind the posts.
bart…”LWIR is energy. Heat is energy. Energy is fungible”.
Fungible???
Here’s the distinction between EM and thermal energy. The 2nd law applies to thermal energy only, meaning the energy of motion in atoms, aka kinetic energy. Why?? Because Clausius defined it that way. He explained that heat is atoms in motion and he based the second law on heat only. He developed the law by considering motions in atoms as both heat and work, and that work is equivalent to heat.
The 2nd law states that thermal energy cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body, without compensation.
The 2nd law does NOT apply to EM, even though certain humourists try to get around that by claiming that a mysterious positive net EM energy satisfies the 2nd law. It does not.
It’s obvious from the 2nd law that EM from a cooler body is not absorbed by a warmer body. That can be proved in another way. Valence electrons in atoms convert thermal energy to EM. To do so, the electron must give up energy by dropping to a lower energy state (Bohr). As they drop to a lower energy state, the atom gives up heat. That’s what Stefan-Boltzmann is about, the cooling of a surface as it emits EM.
That process is not reversible due to a potential energy hill that needs to be overcome in order for EM from a cooler source to raise an electron in a hotter atom to a higher energy level. Water does not run uphill on it’s own, stones don’t raise themselves onto cliffs, and electrons don’t flow against an electric field. Same idea.
Energy is not energy per se as many like to think. Thermal energy may have its equivalence in EM but it is not EM. EM is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and is made of a spectrum of frequencies. Heat is always related to atoms, that’s why it cannot travel through a vacuum as can EM.
Furthermore, heat can only be transferred via radiation from a hotter body to a cooler body yet EM can flow both ways. Heat does not move from one body to the other, it reduces in one and increases in the other.
Still think they are fungible?
Sorry Kristian, I need to talk about individual electrons in this case. I am in no way implying anything about the macro state, just trying to illustrate how EM is generated by electrons in an atom, according to Neils Bohr.
And sorry, David Appell, I have no idea what happens to the energy from cooler atoms that is not absorbed. I have read that EM can dissipate so it may not be entirely true that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Maybe they were talking about energy associated with mass (atoms).
Gordon:
In an electrical circuit, charge flows from high potential to low potential. For a constant voltage, a capacitor holds charge proportional to the voltage, Q = C*V. If we increase the capacitance with steady voltage, we increase the charge.
Increasing the capacitance does not reverse the current flow. It does not make it flow from low potential to high. But, it does increase the charge stored in steady state.
Think of the Earth as a capacitor, and adding the GHG as increasing the capacitance. It does not reverse the direction of energy/charge flow. It simply retains more of the energy/charge.
The equivalent question before us is not one of whether increasing capacitance increases charge capacity – that is actually rather a trivial tautology.
The question is equivalently how much is the capacitance affected by a change in a particular physical parameter (because this particular capacitor is composed of more elements than simply CO2 – changing the CO2 level is akin to slightly altering the composition of the dielectric paste separating the plates), and how is the steady state stored charge level impacted given all the other elements in this rather complex circuit?
Today’s CliSci is effectively predicting the dynamics of a differential op amp based on an RC circuit model. That is the problem with it, not the low level non-question of whether increasing the capacitance increases charge capacity or not.
Bart says:
“You dont know that it is impeded.”
There are only so many places for the added heat to go. Atmosphere. Land. Ocean. Ice.
Where else?
DA…”Then explain this observation:”
I have already questioned that graph as to its authenticity. What’s the original source.
There are many photos on the Net of the HIV virus, all of them fake, or artistic impressions. The scientist who discovered HIV, Dr. Luc Montagnier, claims he has never seen the virus, isolated it, or purified it. All the photos/diagrams are artistic impressions of what people think it ‘should’ look like or they show the cell mass in which HIV is thought to exist.
Anyone can put out a photo/diagram representing fiction. The Kiele-Trenberth diagram of the Earth’s energy budget is fiction. K-T admitted that.
Gordon, thinking that you’re smarter than Trenberth just shows how dumb you are.
The temperature in the east of the USA returns to “norm”.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/c5udund1m7v0.png
A study is already out that supports Dr. Spencer’s view that the recent cold snap had nothing to do with climate change:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-did-not-cause-the-us-cold-snap/
Polar vortex in the lower stratosphere.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/4ic2ek3p0efo.png
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/m51yy0imjvsm.png
Current temperature in North America. Please pay attention to the pressure.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/4ohd76vzm9uw.png
Extremely cold in Canada.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/8j3cfwzqo8st.png
ren…”Extremely cold in Canada”.
Just in the east. The west begins at the Rocky Mountains, don’t let anyone from the Prairies tell you they are in the west.
It’s cold west of the Rockies too but not in Vancouver where it’s currently a balmy +8C.
The water feedback positive feedback eventually leads to increased low cloud cover. Increased low cloud cover increases albedo which decreases incoming energy. The system reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature, rather than running away.
In climate any change in conditions tends to trigger negative feedbacks which limit the magnitude of any further change.The system stabilises at a new equilibrium rather than running away. The negative feedback may be even be strong enough in biological systems to return the system to its original state, which is how your body temperature is controlled.
This is second nature to any biologist or control system designer, yet a curious blind spot in the types of engineers who become deniers.
You must have really liked that comment, since you made it TWICE!
Amazing, you got it wrong both times.
Hilarious.
Please give a scientific explaination why it’s wrong.
See upthread.
Oh yes, I put a more detailed answer under my original comment. Please critique it
entropic…”The water feedback positive feedback eventually leads to increased low cloud cover. Increased low cloud cover increases albedo which decreases incoming energy. The system reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature, rather than running away”.
Runaway can only occur where there is amplification. Positive feedback requires amplification.
My understanding is that clouds form when rising warmer WV condenses into water droplets. That’s been happening forever, why should it suddenly decide to runaway?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point
Let’s be thankful that rising N2/O2, which makes up 99% of the atmosphere does not condense into clouds of nitrous oxide. If we survived, we’d all be stoned and laughing ourselves to death.
GR says:
“Positive feedback requires amplification.”
Such as
1) water vapor feedback
2) ice-albedo feedback
This is not the end of problems in North America with the polar vortex.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z50_nh_f96.png
The next year, North America will again have a severe winter, because the pattern of the polar vortex does not change, and solar activity will remain low until 2020.
Only a highly qualified government scientist has the skills necessary to distinguish between weather, and the global cooling polar vortexes, droughts, and floods of the 1970’s, and the global warming polar vortexes, droughts, and floods of this decade. 40 years ago scientists blamed the polar vortex and extreme weather on global cooling: http://www.web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.htm
There was no consensus on global cooling in the ’60s and ’70s. Unlike today, it was a time before satellites were routinely provide loads of observational data, and scientists were not very sure what was going on. A literature survey of that time found there was no cooling consensus:
“The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 13251337, 2008
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
In fact, by 1965 plenty of scientists had already been warning about global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases, and by the late ’60s climate models were calculating the warming expected from CO2.
List of some papers and reports here:
http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html
No davie, the “cooling consensus” was real. It doesn’t take much research to debunk your bird cage liners, as usual.
My bad – That link doesn’t work. This one does: http://www.tinyurl.com/o6c8rb2
-sorry guys
David – but there’s no consensus pinning the present ‘wacky weather’ to Co2 – or a warmer planet – either. That was my point. Only consensus is Co2 has been the cause of the past few decades (or whatever the time period is) of warmth.
And neither was it predicted by Co2 models. For example the 2001 IPCC report predicted ‘Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms’. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTh_K6fV4AU9MvH.png
They didn’t predict much colder winter temperatures, and “Bomb-o-Genisis” snowstorms.
You’re pretty much wrong all around. But I get the impression you’d never read any evidence I provided.
Edward Teller, at a November 1959 conference on the centennial of the American oil industry at Columbia University in New York City, via The Guardian, 1/1/2018:
“Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [….] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming
davie, later, he signed the “Oregon Petition”.
It didn’t take him long to figure it out. He was a smart guy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Verifiability.3F_Eh.3F_What.27s_that.3F
“The Seattle Times reported that it includes names such as: “Perry S. Mason” (the fictitious lawyer), “Michael J. Fox” (the actor), “Robert C. Byrd” (the Senator), “John C. Grisham” (the lawyer-author), not to mention a Spice Girl, aka. Geraldine Halliwell: the petition listed “Dr. Geri Halliwell” and “Dr. Halliwell.”[3] The petition also contains duplicate signatures, signatures of a last name only with not even a first initial, and even “signatures” attributed to corporations.[4] (Although as Mitt Romney taught us, corporations are people too.) In an interview, Robinson said, “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake.” Scientific American examined the list and came to the conclusion that a large percentage of the alleged Ph.D. signatures probably are fake….”
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Verifiability.3F_Eh.3F_What.27s_that.3F
Nice attempt to dodge the truth, davie.
Edward Teller signed the petition.
Prove it.
It’s hilarious how deniers try to disregard the current scientific “consensus” by pointing to a document with so many signatures they claim it means a consensus.
davie, would you be interested in a little wager here?
Prove Teller signed the “Petition.” Then prove the Petition means anything. Consensus means nothing, people like you say. There is no consensus in science.
Yeah, “consensus” is NOT science.
Science is observable, repeatable, verifiable, mathematically provable, testable, falsifiable..need I go on?
So you agree the Oregon Petition is not science and means nothing.
Good to know. I’ll remember.
I don’t care if you throw it out. Just make sure you throw out the 97% nonsense with it.
A little wager?
Sure. But first I have to know who I’m dealing with, and that you will pay if you lose.
So post your real name here, and your location. Then in an email to me (which I won’t share), give me these same two pieces of information, plus your address and phone number. I’ll call you to confirm.
My email address is on my Web page.
No need for that, davie. If I win, you don’t comment on Dr. Spencer’s blog for a year. If you win, I don’t comment for a year.
The bet is whether Edward Teller signed the Oregon Petition, or not.
I say YES.
davie says NO.
I’m interested in betting for money — higher stakes.
I knew you’d be too cowardly to accept my bet.
{he he}
$25,000 high enough for you?
I gave my conditions above.
yes or no?
I don’t make bets with cowards who won’t even reveal their real identity. (Of course not — no sane person would.)
So, no.
That would be a “cop-out”.
Largely expected.
Just more evidence. They all are the same. Big bravado, with nothing behind it.
Hilarious.
No one is going to make a bet with someone who insists on remaining anonymous. Wise up.
davie, the complete phony:
“I’m interested in betting for money higher stakes.”
Hilarious.
No one is going to make a bet with someone who insists on remaining anonymous.
No davie, such a process would be done through a bonded third party. It could all be set up completely legal, and yet keep everything private. Not a big deal.
You just tried to bluff your way though, and got caught, AGAIN.
What are you afraid of?
Do you write things here that you would not if everyone knew your name?
If so, what does that say about your comments?
Heres the GFS forecast model analysis of surface temperature departures from average for about the time that peak temperatures were reached in Sydney yesterday. Maybe you can tell me which of these cold and warm patterns are consistent with global warming theory and which arent? (Hint: Warming should be occurring basically everywhere):
Followed by an anomaly map of a daily temperature map of Australia.
It’s even sillier to expect uniform weather patterns over a single day than it is to ascribe any local, short-term warm event to global warming or any local, short-term cool event as proof against it.
No, weather fluctuations are not climate change, as other parts of the article points out, but the paragraph referenced above makes exactly that mistake.
barry…”Heres the GFS forecast model analysis of surface temperature departures from average…”
Where’s the link?
Ask Roy. I’m quoting his article.
Nevertheless, the weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.
Another silly comment in an otherwise good post. “Control our weather.” Please.
I suppose the comment is made with the jaundiced view that every extreme weather event is pushed as climate change. Then it’s snark, at best, but it adds to the confusion rather than sheds light.
Poor Barry,
Doesn’t like the author of the blog having an opinion on politics with which he disagrees.
But there are others of us who agree wholeheartedly. We see the whole climate alarmist agenda as one advocating a command economy.
Would that I were wrong.
My criticism is about unlinking rhetoric from reason, politics from science.
If your political preferences lead your views on the science that may be why you can’t understand what I wrote. It would also make it impossible for you to assess the science objectively.
Poor Barry
The snide condescension reflects on you. It makes you look small.
barry is just a little miffed that his “blue/green plate” problem is such a fail. He believed it was “proof” of the GHE. It turns out it is proof the GHE doesn’t work!
The green plate exercise is not about the GHE. You can’t even get the premise right. Errors compound from that first mistake.
Yeah barry, it’s smart to distance yourself from the nonsense as fast as you can.
But, sometimes there are lingering problems, when running from your past. This is the first paragraph from Eli’s page:
“An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so according to the Agendaists, the Greenhouse Effect, with greenhouse gases playing the role of the colder object, is rubbish. They neglect the fact that heating and cooling are dynamic processes and thermodynamics is not.”
Perhaps change your screen name?
g*r…from Eli Rabbett….”An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter”.
Rabbett, aka Josh Halpern, has a degree in physics and teaches a chemistry class. Guess he couldn’t get work as a physicist. He has been told by two experts in thermodynamics that his theory about a mysterious net energy does no apply to heat and that the 2nd law applies only to heat. Yet good,old Josh keeps on churning out the propaganda that heat can be transferred from a cold body to a hot body provided a net energy flow of EM is positive.
Obviously “eli” has never had to solve real-world engineering problems.
An evergreen of denial is that a colder object can never make a warmer object hotter.”
That’s what the GP exercise is about. In the first sentence.
Oh, Barrys a great wriggler with this one. When you point out that even if their contorted logic was correct (it isnt), then the Green Plate Effect thought experiment would *still* show that the result required by the Green House Effect cannot occur (the blue plate would need to warm to above 290 K, yet it cant possibly even if their way of looking at it *was* right); Barry will switch from saying the GPE does not relate to the GHE, to defending the GPE as though it *does* relate to it. He will wriggle his way switching between these two polar-opposite positions like nobodys business. This is because hes dishonest, either just with himself, or with everybody else.
Barry will switch from saying the GPE does not relate to the GHE, to defending the GPE as though it *does* relate to it.
A little weasel wording positions your BS.
G’s “proof” that I responded to becomes “relates to,” when you chime in. Either that’s a deliberate move and you’re a troll, or you’re not aware you’ve shifted the goal posts, which is simply sloppy.
And if you don’t see the difference, you’re stupid. Simple as that.
The GPE *relates to* the GHE – anyone can read Rabbett’s post to see how.
It doesn’t *prove* the GHE: it corrects a specific misunderstanding of the 2LoT – that skeptics mistakenly apply to the GHE.
‘Proof’ of the GHE requires more information – like the optical properties of ‘greenhouse’ gases for starters.
Helpful hint: the atmosphere is not an infinitely thin black body.
The GP exercise is about the 2LoT. That’s it.
If you’re in any doubt as to the point, read the concluding sentence of Rabbett’s post.
“Show this to the next fool with an agenda who thinks that the Green Plate Effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics”
Keep wiggling, barry.
It’s fun to watch.
Yes, exactly! See how he wriggles?
The point remains:
The GHE requires a surface receiving approx. 240 W/m2 from the sun, on average (without an atmosphere), to emit 390 W/m2, on average (with a GHG-containing atmosphere). Thats where the whole 288 K less 255 K = 33 K difference is supposed to come in.
The GPE shows a surface receiving 400 W/m2 (without green *atmosphere* plate), and emitting 267 W/m2 (with green *atmosphere* plate). And thats *even if* you accept the green plate as an insulator!
The GPE does nothing to support the GHE, if anything it is an argument against it.
And Eli was doing everything in his power to relate the two, even down to the name itself. The last sentence you quoted only proves that all the more! *Show THIS [meaning, the green plate effect thought experiment] to the next person who thinks that the green plate effect violates the second law of thermodynamics*. Clearly, you are meant to think, *…green HOUSE effect violates the second law of thermodynamics*, otherwise the sentence as written wouldnt even make any sense! He is, after all, *introducing* the green plate effect in that article, whereas it is a well-known, old, established argument that the GHE violates the second law of thermodynamics. So for which are you most likely to come across, *the next person who thinks that…, at the point in time where he is only *introducing* the GPE!?
He presented it as an ultra-simplified, idealised version of the GHE. But, by all means keep wriggling.
Ah, so you don’t see the difference between “relates to the GHE” and “proves the GHE.”
You are indeed stupid.
“Proof” of the GHE requires a lot more than correcting misconceptions on the 2LoT.
Hint: the atmosphere is not an infinitely thin black body.
Hint: the optical properties of the atmosphere are completely different to a black body.
Hint: there’s no adibiatic lapse rate between the 2 plates.
Hint: there’s no vacuum between the atmosphere and Earth’s surface.
How can the GPE possibly “prove” the GHE?
The argument put forth at Rabbett’s is entirely about one specific skeptical blunder, which is misapplying the 2LoT.
What’s fun is watching agenda-driven troglodytes repeatedly fail basic comprehension.
Yes, Barry, I do see the difference between *relates to the GHE* and *proves the GHE*. You apparently didnt notice the condition in the sentence beginning, *When you point out…*
My *relates to* follows on from that condition being met. At the time g*e*r*a*n said his *proves* comment, that condition hadnt been met. Thats back when you said *the green plate exercise is not about the GHE*. Then, once I had written my comment, self-evidently the condition is met. Thats when you changed your position to *the GPE *relates to* the GHE*. Immediately proving my point.
Now, you have written a list of *hints* indicating that your position has again switched, back to where it was at the beginning (*the green plate exercise is not about the GHE*). Here are some *hints* for you, Barry.
Hint: g*e*r*a*n said *proves*. I didnt. G*e*r*a*n and myself are two different people.
Hint: you said, *it corrects a specific misunderstanding of the 2LoT that skeptics mistakenly apply to the GHE*. For that to be correct, the *misunderstanding of the 2LoT* has to be the same in both the GHE and the GPE.
Hint: in the GPE, is the input W/m2 to the blue plate exceeded by the output W/m2 from the blue plate? No? Then
Hint: the *misunderstanding of the 2LoT* is *not* the same in both the GHE and the GPE.
J Halp-less
What the meaning behind your random insertion of “*” in your posts?
Well, because barry’s “proof” of the GHE has failed miserably, he had two choices: 1) Leave the planet; or 2) Change his screen name.
He chose to “deny” ever having any involvement with proofs, spoofs, hoaxes, or anything green.
It’s fun to watch.
Sigh. Context matters. My reply to G was in the context of G’s comment on “proof”. I see how it could be misconstrued.
The GPE is a demonstration of the 2LoT not being broken by the introduction of a cool object making a warm one warmer. That is the extent and limit.
The same can be done myriad ways – with insulation, with jumpers, blankets, with overheating car engines on hot days rather than cool ones, with overheating laptops on hot days compared to cool.
Eg, the jumper is not a direct analogy – it’s a convective process – but it makes the same point.
The introduction of a cooler body to a system heated by an external (or internal) heat source can result in a warmer object becoming warmer.
And all these examples are to demonstrate on thing and one thing only, that the 2LoT is not violated in any of these situations, even though the presence of a cooler body in these systems result in a warmer object becoming warmer.
Hint: in the GPE, is the input W/m2 to the blue plate exceeded by the output W/m2 from the blue plate?
Yes, it is. Without green plate, the blue plate emits 2 X 200 W/m2 = 400 W/m2, at a temperature of 244K.
In your comment on this, you only counted one side of blue plate emission – 267 W/m2. It’s actually 2 X 267 W/m2 = 534 W/m2 at a temperature of 262K.
Whether or not you disagree with the calcs or the argument, at least admit that in the example Rabbett gave, blue plate emission is higher than input after green plate is introduced. Or you can explain why the blue plate emission only occurs on one side when the green plate is introduced.
Yes, context matters, as I tried to explain. Oh well.
Wriggler, you have now wriggled away from another position. First you said:
W: it corrects a specific misunderstanding of the 2LoT that skeptics mistakenly apply to the GHE.
J: Now you are saying it supposedly corrects only a very general point about the 2LoT (and no, it doesnt correct on this point either). If you think the GPE is only effectively making the same point as the jumper analogy, its a wonder you have defended it so vigorously all this time! You have also erroneously stated that on addition of the green plate, the blue emits 534 W/m2. You are welcome to check on any online blackbody temperature calculator, that a body at 262 K, will emit 267 W/m2.
I repeat: for the GHE, the skeptics specific 2LoT-violation argument boils down to the Earths surface emitting more than it receives from the sun, supposedly due to back-radiation. And that is 240 W/m2 vs 390 W/m2. W/m2, not W. E-Lies thought experiment, whatever way you look at it (and I am sure you will wriggle your way over to discussing watts once you realise your error over W/m2), is a straw-man as regards the skeptics specific 2LoT-violation argument over the GHE.
Skeptics also argue about the GPE; but that is a different argument, because the entire setup is different. Your statement I quoted at the start of this comment, is wrong.
You will not accept any of what I have said, and will continue to wriggle. It comes down to this:
1) if all the differences between the GPE and the GHE do indeed matter, as you seem to like to sometimes argue, then the GPE cannot correct any specific 2LoT issue skeptics have with the GHE. GPE is a straw-man for those.
2) if the differences dont matter, as you seem to like to sometimes argue, then you can try to argue that the GPE corrects specific 2LoT issues skeptics have with the GHE. But, you will still be up against all the arguments that you have currently faced, and not understood.
But, you cant do both. Being the Wriggler, I expect you will try to have your cake and eat it.
You have also erroneously stated that on addition of the green plate, the blue emits 534 W/m2.
I will accept I made a mistake there. That should be 534 Watts, as you snidely point out. The point is, in Rabbett’sset up, the blue plate is emitting more than it receives from the sun because its rate of heat loss is reduced by the presence of the green plate.
I can look at many physics texts on the net to corroborate the point that the 2LoT is not violated either in the GHE or the GPE.
Of 2 surfaces at different temps both absorbing each others radiation:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
That 2LoT is about NET flow, not discrete exchange.
“Since the hot body radiates more heat (due to its higher temperature) than the cold body, the NET flow of heat is from hot to cols and the second law is still satisfied.”
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/black_body_radiation.htm
I cannot discover any standard text that corroborates what you and G are saying. When asked for such references, you and G do not provide. G believes the blue plate black body will reflect energy from the green plate because it is at higher temperature. No standard physics text will back him up. You believe that view factors matter in the GPE set up. No standard physics text backs you up.
You and G make up physics.
Wriggler, you will have to forgive me: but I dont see much point in continuing a conversation with an agenda-driven troglodyte, who repeatedly fails basic comprehension.
barry…”My criticism is about unlinking rhetoric from reason, politics from science”.
You’d need to get rid of the IPCC, NOAA, and NASA GISS.
You need to get rid of your bias.
They aren’t even biases, they’re fantasies.
Animated map: Track temperatures across Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/interactives/temperature-tracker/?v=2.0.2
Basics of Infrared Heating
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mdxXJ1et_o&feature=youtu.be
ren…”Basics of Infrared Heating”
Did you notice they use the same diagram as NASA with the only conduction being up the handle of the pot? They are suggesting radiation from the red hot stove ring is heating the pot.
Nonsense, the pot heats by direct conduction from the stove ring and so do their so-called radiative heaters that have a gas flame shooting down a heat exchanger tube. That tube will heat the air in the building as well by conduction and convection.
Their system is not really a good system for large spaces as they suggest. If the heaters were at any appreciable height they’d need a forced air system to blow the heat downward. Radiation with a reflector by itself would not get the job done due to the inverse square law.
Besides, in an aircraft hanger, with highly volatile jet fuel, the safety branch would shut down a heater using an open flame. They won’t even allow electrical circuits in normal conduits and cabinets, they all have to be sealed using threaded steel pipe.
Gordon Robertson, when it is frost and snow outside and there is no wind or clouds, you will feel infrared radiation from the sun on your head. The air temperature remains unchanged. However, your head will be warmed up.
ren…”Gordon Robertson, when it is frost and snow outside and there is no wind or clouds, you will feel infrared radiation from the sun on your head. The air temperature remains unchanged. However, your head will be warmed up”.
True enough, ren. However, the source of that EM is in excess of a million degrees C and thankfully we are receiving it from 93 million miles away. If the Sun was as close as the Moon, life could not be sustained on the planet.
You can’t feel the IR from a 1500 watt electric stove ring from a few feet away. I am willing to bet that any CO2 in the atmosphere close to the surface has already been warmed by conduction and is of such a temperature that it won’t absorb a lot of radiation.
I don’t think there is much radiation from the surface at all. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation tells us the cooling of the surface due to radiation is dependent on the temperature of the surface and the temperature of the atmosphere directly above it. If the latter temperature is about the same as the surface, due to conduction, radiation should have very little effect.
As you know, the spectral diagrams we see from space representing surface emissions represent no more than a very low energy signal. Just as you can see a 12 watt headlight from a car 10 miles away, you can see a scant amount of IR from the planet’s surface from satellites in orbit.
That’s how EM works.
You cant feel the IR from a 1500 watt electric stove ring from a few feet away.
Prove it.
You can’t.
I am willing to bet that any CO2 in the atmosphere close to the surface has already been warmed by conduction and is of such a temperature that it wont absorb a lot of radiation.
The rate of emission is tied to temperature, not the rate of absorp-tion. It is easy to confuse NET flow heat with mutual exchange of radiative energy. It is a mistake often made here, that because heat always flows from hot to cold, that therefore this applies also to radiation from one body to the other. Two objects at different temperature absorb each others’ radiation, but if one object is warmer than the other, the colder will absorb more radiation than the warmer one. The 2nd law is not violated because it pertains only to heat flow, not discrete radiation exchange. 2LoT is about NET exchange only.
Does the 10-day forecast of the polar vortex foresee a change of circulation over North America?
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/6a91kez1qgul.png
Since we’re betting, I bet there are a Bunch of converts to missile defense in Hawaii tonight. Begging the question why don’t we have 5 interceptors for every possible North Korean missile? Is that what went up recently in the secret mission? Maybe the “this is not a drill” in Hawaii were a battery of patriot interceptors being parked over KJI? Perhaps a test launch to calibrate everything?
darwin…”Since were betting, I bet there are a Bunch of converts to missile defense in Hawaii tonight”.
You watch, the US will drop a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead right in fat boy’s back yard.
I’ll bet they have him lined up right now and are just waiting the right moment.
Temperature in Australia.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/h21nhptgkeoz.png
ren…”Temperature in Australia”.
Where’s all this heat we are hearing about? If the next UAH data set does not indicate a significant cooling I’m betting NOAA has intercepted the sat data and fudged it.
Unless I see what I prefer to see, then there must be a conspiracy.
Gordon creates facts — literally — to fit his prejudices.
barry…”Unless I see what I prefer to see, then there must be a conspiracy”.
Pretty ingenuous, Barry, even for an Aussie alarmist.
We’ve had record cold temperatures across North America for the better part of a month that reached far into normally warm states in the US. That frigid air apparently came from Siberia. Unless there is proof of unusual warming over the rest of the planet, there should be significant cooling in the UAH data series.
We are not seeing unusual planetary warming, in fact, in sub-tropical regions like Bangladesh, we are seeing inordinate cooling. Just yesterday, ren posted a thermal map of Australia and it’s obvious the entire continent is experiencing average to below average temperatures.
If I don’t see that cooling, it confirms my suspicion that NOAA is fudging the satellite record before handing it over to UAH. There is no apparent reason why the early 2016 warming from a super EN is carry on this long.
CO2 warming cannot explain that.
“CO2 warming cannot explain that.”
a) why not?
b) no one ever said that CO2 is the only factor that determines temperature.
Unless there is proof of unusual warming over the rest of the planet, there should be significant cooling in the UAH data series.
Manyglobal anomaly maps have been posted here recently showing that while the US was cold, other parts of the globe warm, with warm places outnumbering cold.
But you’re impervious to *proof*. We could post those same global anomaly maps, matching time period for the recent US cold snap, and you would say they were based on fake data.
So why bother?
The layer of clouds now works on the Great Lakes.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/imxinjx4yuip.png
The current temperature (C) in the US.
The pressure in North Dakota exceeds 1050 mbar.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/kt8efr052jli.png
Sorry. The wave of arctic air moves towards the south-eastern US.
@ren, take a breath. Bask in the quiet judgment. 😉
Take your calming pills please.
(that was advice for ren)
profp…”Take your calming pills please”.
I wish you’d get off yours and start thinking clearly.
Entropic man:
I was hoping you would be more specific especially re Climastrology. I start by saying there is no onus on me to do anything other than point out flaws and where it does not fit the scientific method.
That is not trivial; it is everything in science! It is up to the Climastrologists to put forward the case. Failed predictions mean a failed case.
Can you explain why Bayer could only reproduce about 20% of papers they selected to study yet they all supposedly had met the 95% confidence limit (c.l.) criterion?
Can you explain why a paper by NOAA had a 90% c.l.? It implies to me as an after the event decision (if so, totally useless).
With these two points I am addressing confirmation bias. It is pointless carrying out any statistical analysis and determining its suitability once data has been seen. Once data has been accumulated probabilities no longer hold. If a coin turns up heads it is dumb to ask what is the probability of heads. Being creative after the event is straight out statistical bias. The test criteria need to be set when the experiment is designed.
Can you explain why physicists go to five sigma values? Yet you are comfortable with 95% c.l. It is hardly robust thinking when climastrologists then support multi, multi trillion $ economic changes.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of concilliance as you have described: multiple, independent experiments coming from different angles and converging on the a similar point.
That of course assumes we have these different, independent, unrelated actual experiments that you allude to. Now name them and please don’t tell me about model experiments: the models fail!
But a requisite of conciliance is to define clearly what point is being made i.e. what is the hypothesis that we converge on. Without that clearly stated we converge on whatever the butterfly decides is the right landing spot. The Oracle of Delphi had much wisdom!
How do you account for flaws? Massimo Porsio referred earlier to a recent paper on clouds. Models miss it to the tune of 1 to 2 watts m-2 or about half of CO2’s purported effect? If this field was unbiased you would find more papers which conflict and less supposed consensus.
If the hurdles are set so low and are so ardently pursued perhaps you equally would give support to any airline which can show it will land or take off successfully using confidence limits of 95% as you suggest. You would be one of the first to buy a ticket as an act of good faith??
BTW I have asked previously for all the predictions made in climastrology and let warmists tell us the successful ones. That is an unequivocal test.
You are quite wrong that there is no case against this climastrology. Hansen’s failed predictions and FAR failed predictions are sufficient. Try and rebut Gerlich and al; they clearly conclude it is garbage.
What is climastrology?
It is not a branch of science I recognise.
Em, “climastrology” is NOT a branch of science.
It is a branch of pseudoscience.
My error I should have defined it for you.
Climastrology defines that body of work which embarks on or professes alarmist predictions about the physical earth in some way or on how it may affect its constituents. The bulk of these predictions are failures.
In science, if it is to be a physical science, then the predictions are far more robust. Like you, this is why I can’t recognise Climastrology as a branch science: it is but pseudoscience.
Sorry, never heard of it. I can’t help you.
Where did I ask you for help?
Climate science can’t make predictions, only projections.
The doctor says there is a 90% chance you may have cancer.
I suppose you will ignore him?
With your help, we earlier established that you were half a brain short of half a brain. Now you confirm it!
If the Dr had a failure rate of over 97% with his prognostications of course it would be prudent to ignore him and go seek the advice of Drs with a high success rate for a start.
The more than 97% failure rate is about the level of failed predictions in climastrology.
You no doubt are suggesting you would hop onto that airline I mentioned.
profp…”The doctor says there is a 90% chance you may have cancer.
I suppose you will ignore him?”
I’d find another doctor, you don’t want an MD claiming you ‘might’ have cancer. You have it or you don’t.
If I had it and he told me I had a 90% chance of living I’d be relieved.
Both tonyM and GR fail (again).
You have no idea how to interpret confidence levels.
Let me try and help you (again).
A doctor, whose track record of successful diagnoses is unknown, suggests to you there is a 90% chance you have cancer and you should undergo further tests to confirm this.
You, being a mere electrical engineer with only a superficial understanding of statistics say
“90% is insufficient. I will ignore your advice.”
I can tell you it won’t be brain cancer – I don’t think you have enough cells.
profp….”A doctor, whose track record of successful diagnoses is unknown, suggests to you there is a 90% chance you have cancer and you should undergo further tests to confirm this”.
We understand cl’s, it’s you having the difficulty. Since when did doctors render a diagnosis based on statistics? A cl is a measure of statistical confidence, it has nothing to do with a medical diagnosis.
A cl represents a guess and the higher the cl the more confident you are that the guess is right.
Then there’s the IPCC. They offer cl’s on opinion, not science. They review peer reviewed papers then form an opinion as what the papers ‘seem’ to be saying. They have no statistics upon which to base their guesses so they have formed their own scale of cl’s.
Then there’s NOAA and GISS, who fudge temperature data by lowering cl’s till a certain year moves into first place. I put forward 1963 as the warmest year ever based on a 10% cl. That means there is 1 chance in 10 I’ll be right. Does that give you any confidence?
The question that begs answering is why NOAA needs to use a cl when they have 6000 global reporting stations offering real data. Why do they slash over 75% of that data and submit less than 25% to a climate model to bring forth statistically-derived data?
Must you continually prove how brain dead you are?
Why would any sane person heed the advice of any medico who has no success rating to his name as can best be judged. I certainly would not. The best that could do for me is to stimulate me to go seek professional advice from a medico with a proven track record. Even then there would be a lot of questions asked with requisite pathology tests etc etc.
I note you keep changing the problem: a sure sign you are a complete fool called chasing one’s tail. Is it any wonder you posit such absurdities and swallow alarmist garbage from people with a proven track record of failure? Do I need to spell it out for you?
Run along now and do go for a joy ride on that plane. Do it often if you like as you have your confidence limits to hold you up in the sky.
“Since when did doctors render a diagnosis based on statistics?”
Gee, you are now an expert on medicine?
Haven’t you ever heard the diagnosis:”you have a 50% chance of dying within the next 5 years” (or similar) ?
Get a brain transplant for goodness sake.
“Why would any sane person heed the advice of any medico who has no success rating to his name as can best be judged.”
Boy o boy – some people can be obtuse.
You cannot come to terms with the original question – even after I gave you a second chance.
Sorry half-a-brain, no more chances.
You confirm the earlier assessment that you were half a brain short of half a brain.
Do enjoy that plane trip.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
Then theres NOAA and GISS, who fudge temperature data by lowering cls till a certain year moves into first place.
As usual, you have no clue about you’re writing about.
As Barry explained below, those percentages for each year are not confidence levels, they’re probabilities.
NASA and GISS are doing correct science: each year’s average temperature has an error bar, and usually those error bars overlap some for the years. So there is a certain probability a year that has a lower average temperature, might, because of its error bars, be above a slightly higher temperature.
Every measurement in science has an associated error bar attached to it. This is inescapable, and when comparing two different measurements these MUST be taken into account.
Only the people who don’t understand measurements and statistics think there’s something wrong with that.
*N.O.A.A. and GISS….
tonyM says:
“Must you continually prove how brain dead you are?”
See how tonym can’t reply without insults.
Appell
Cmon Appell, is he your brother troll that you wish to defend him or complain?
This is mild compared to my first reply to him. I had never previously interacted with this dumb twit yet he attacked me with choice descriptors, perhaps in the mistaken attempt to defend you.
I have no problem replying to such numbskulls in kind. Are you trying to defend him now? Is he part of your clan?
Perhaps you should look at yourself and some comments you made about some people who have not criticized you like Ren. Not so pretty if you were not so deluded as to be oblivious to your behaviour; cognitive dissonance they call it.
Appell:
DA said: “See how tonym cant reply without insults.”
Such a simplistic statement is proof you are a liar.
tonym…”Can you explain why a paper by NOAA had a 90% c.l.?”
Something new from NOAA, after claiming 2014 the warmest year with a 48% cl. Maybe the Trump government has gotten to them and straightened them out.
Something new from NOAA, after claiming 2014 the warmest year with a 48% cl
The 48% value is NOT a confidence interval, it’s a probability estimate.
At the time of the announcement, 2014 had the highest probability of being the warmest year, at 48% (NOAA dataset). Every other year had a lower probability of being the warmest.
NASA had a “probability estimate” of 38%.
Hilarious.
Why is it that ignorant people always find it hilarious when they don’t understand something?
DunningKruger
“Nevertheless, the weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.”
My model predicts with similar 95% UN IPCC SJW virtue signalling confidence that hell will freeze over before such ‘agreement’ happens, though I would concede that coercion remains an outside possibility.
I say, let’s abolish taxation and regulation.
We don’t need to fund the military – they can ask for donations.
We don’t need to fund meteorologists, universities, schools, the poor, the homeless..
We don’t need road rules – it should be survival of the fittest.
In fact, we don’t even need the constitution – a miserable document that tells me how I should behave in a community. How dare they!
Its astonishing to see an alleged academic apparently seriously employing such a puerile logical fallacy of Extension aka Appeal to Extremes.
“Nevertheless, the weird-weather-is-climate-change narrative will continue until the populace finally agrees with the warmongers that we can control our weather through taxation and regulation.
Its astonishing to see an alleged academic apparently seriously employing such a puerile logical fallacy of Extension aka Appeal to Extremes.
Progressives are Out Of Touch on a Biblical Scale; NAACP Should Demand Re-Direction of Climate Change Funding to Inner-Cities
If you go into a black community and poll the residents, I feel confident that none, not a single resident, would rank preventing climate change as one of their top 10 priorities. The social and economic statics of the black community are horrifying, and yet on MLK day 2018, the NAACP claims that MLKs Vision Cant Be Achieved Without Fighting Global Warming. This, out of all examples, highlights the complete and absolute corrupting force that Climate Change has become. No example I have found demonstrates that absurdity of Climate Change more than the NAACP betraying those whom they claim to represent, and putting the needs of the Democratic Party above them.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/15/progressives-are-out-of-touch-on-a-biblical-scale-naacp-should-demand-re-direction-of-climate-change-funding/
Enjoy a literature review on attitudes towards climate change/global warming across a range of demographics.
http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-412
DA,,, Up-thread you wrote Basic physics: That impeded energy has to go somewhere. Absolutely correct.
But then you say It can only go into the ocean, atmosphere, ice or surface, and those warm up as the planet seeks to reestablish energy balance. The surface is where the energy came from so to say it goes there is bogus.
Thermalization allows the EMR energy from the surface, absorbed by CO2 molecules near the surface, to be redirected to the low energy wavelengths emitted by the much more numerous molecules of water vapor. I show this in my blog/analysis and provide the link to the Hitran web site if you want to check it.
But then you say It can only go into the ocean, atmosphere, ice or surface
Uh… water vapour is in the atmosphere.
Nope. False reasoning.
Whatever is the emitter, be it H2O, O3, CH4 or merely the surface, emitting more “redirected” energy at their specific wavelengths implies a higher temperature of the emitting material because of Planck’s law. No way out of it and this in turn implies higher surface and atmospheric temperatures and is precisely the GHE.
So if more CO2 absorbs more around 15 micrometers in lower layers this implies that it emits less to outer space preciselybecause the relevant radiation can escape to space only from higher and thus colder layers. Thus on top of the atmosphere relevant radiance notch is deeper and broader because of lower emission temperatures at the relevant wavelengths.
TOA radiance must thus increase elsewhere in spectrum to compensate and H2O, O3, CH4 and surface (atmospheric window) radiation increase and thus relevant surface and atmospheric temperatures increase too.
At a specific wavelength for a specific material IR emission is a function of temperature only, nothing else. No change in temperature, no change in emission.
Is the temperature in the troposphere not dependent on gravity?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2017.png
You seem to readily confuse temperature and temperature gradient. Perhaps you even “believe” in the idiotic gravito-thermal effect and similar made up pseudophysics ?
Now, of course, gravity play a major role in atmospheric temperatures and so what ?
No gravity, no convection..
Not even an atmosphere at all.
No climate, no GHE.
The temperature gradient results from the decrease in gas pressure with altitude. Only water vapor reduces this gradient because it changes the state of focus and releases latent heat.
Nope, Ren.
The temperature gradient results from the fact that sunlight heats essentially Earth’s surface rather than troposphere itself.
In fact temperature increases with height once in stratosphere while pressure still decreases !
Why spout idiocies here and not making better use of you spare time and study some atmospheric physics instead ?
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/GoodyWalker/AtmosCh3sm.pdf
gummy, for your imaginative scenario to work you must assume the atmosphere is completely passive.
That, of course, is not the case.
Sure, the whole climate system is not passive and is expected to react to the change.
This is indeed what’s called the various known and unknown feedbacks and is Acchille’s heel of climate science and what makes the models predictions or “projections” so uncertain.
Yet no reason to idiotically deny the GHE itself and naively believe that additional CO2 has simply a negligible irrelevant effect and feedbacks magically are going to cancel the enhanced GHE.
“Yet no reason to idiotically deny the GHE itself and naively believe that additional CO2 has simply a negligible irrelevant effect and feedbacks magically are going to cancel the enhanced GHE.”
Do you believe a bowl of fruit can raise the temperature of a room, everything else being the same?
Yet, no reason naively to believe that it will have a significant impact, either, based upon models so simplified that they miss major components of the overall response, and show little to no skill in projecting temperatures over the past two decades.
Which “major components?”
Gam,,, Part of the way out of it is: Plancks law applies to liquid or solid surfaces, not gases.
Do you realize “absorbs more around 15 micrometers in lower layers this implies that it emits less to outer space” says that at wavenumber range 600-740 more energy is emitted at the surface than leaves at TOA. Thermalization allows that to happen and explains why the first law is not violated.
Plank’s Law doesn’t apply to gases?????????
Tell that to the guys who measured the cosmic microwave background and its temperature…….
Yes, water vapor resides in the atmosphere. Barry is right.
One should also read carefully the accompanying text in this link:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
For instance this:
gummy, how many things are wrong with that?
Not a single one.
So, how many years has the surface been emitting 150 W/m^2 more than goes to space?
“So, how many years has the surface been emitting 150 W/m^2 more than goes to space?”
How many years have you been trying to understand something that a first-year science student can learn. Try getting a science qualification before parading your ignorance.
Well pp, obviously you don’t know.
The greenhouse effect is obvious and depends on the density of the planet’s atmosphere.
Strictly speaking, it depends on the troposphere’s density to about 100 mbar.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2020?WT.feed_name=subjects_giant-planets&foxtrotcallback=true
ren, you’re speaking of the lapse rate. I’m speaking of the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE.
Two entirely different things.
Of course.
You, ren and GR – Moe, Larry and Curly.
What a team!
Yup, the winning team!
The lapse rate is set by convection.
Yet it is not “independent” of the GHE effect.
In the sense that the GHE and radiative exchanges of energy between tropospheric layers drive the instability of the atmosphere with respect to convection and triggers the latter.
No GHG’s at all = no deep convection.
Moreover on Mars, the density of the atmosphere is very low, about 100 times less than on Earth, much below 100 mb. Nevertheless there is also a troposphere there with a lapse rate set by convection as well as a modest GHE.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter12/Ency_Atmos/Planetary_Atmos_%20Mars.pdf
On Earth and Mars both atmospheres condense.
With Earth, it’s water vapor which condenses- which is small part of the atmosphere. And with Mars, CO2 which the major gas of Mars which condenses- it snows a lot of CO2 in polar region in winter- meters of CO2 snow. It also snow outside of polar region. Viking pictures:
https://www.google.com/search?q=viking+snow+mars&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKso78-tzYAhXmjVQKHQ_GCdgQsAQIJg&biw=1024&bih=635
And though only small amount water vapor in the Mars atmosphere it also condenses.
and it’s assumed the global dust storms on Mars are caused by the evaporation of the Mars snow.
But there is no greenhouse effect on Mars. The gas pressure is too low.
Taking Mars’ Temperature
This graph shows the rise and fall of air and ground temperatures on Mars obtained by NASA’s Curiosity rover. The data cover Aug. 16 to Aug. 17 and were taken by the Rover Environmental Monitoring Station. Ground temperatures vary from as high as 37 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) to as low as minus 131.8 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 91 degrees Celsius), showing large temperature oscillations from day to night. Air temperatures vary from as high as 28 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 2 degrees Celsius) to as low as minus 103 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 75 degrees Celsius), indicating, as expected, variations in air temperatures are less extreme than ground temperature variations.
https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/678571main_pia16081-43_946-710.jpg
gam,,, You say “The lapse rate is set by convection.”. Look up the basis for standard atmosphere. Lapse rate (temperature vs altitude) is one of the things determined. Convection is not mentioned.
gamma…”The lapse rate is set by convection”.
Far too much is made of the lapse rate with regard to determining temperature versus altitude. Here’s a graph of pressure versus reality at zero humidity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_pressure#/media/File:Atmospheric_Pressure_vs._Altitude.png
In a constant volume/constant mass system like our atmosphere, temperature is directly proportional to temperature. That means gravity determines temperature with the convective hot air currents creating the lapse rate superimposed on the effect of gravity.
Don’t know where you get: ‘No GHGs at all = no deep convection”. Are you presuming the hot air convection is made up only of CO2 and WV?
When N2 and O2, comprising 99% of the atmosphere, are heated by conduction at the surface, both will rise.
GR writes:
“In a constant volume/constant mass system like our atmosphere, temperature is directly proportional to temperature. ”
Wow !
What a revelation!
The global temperature on the Earth’s surface is directly proportional to the average atmosphere pressure at the surface.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2017.png
GR writes:
“In a constant volume/constant mass system like our atmosphere, temperature is directly proportional to temperature.”
Not only that, but science predicts the proportionality constant is one, but is borne out by observations.
Dan:
Manabe & Wetherald correctly calculated the lapse rate, by including both convection and radiation:
“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
ren says:
“But there is no greenhouse effect on Mars. The gas pressure is too low.”
Wrong. The GHE on Mars is about 6 K.
profp…”GR writes:
In a constant volume/constant mass system like our atmosphere, temperature is directly proportional to temperature.
Wow !
What a revelation!”
*************
So, you know that and yet you insist atmospheric warming is not due to atmospheric pressure caused by gravity but to an extremely rare gas, CO2, that makes up 4/100ths of 1 percent of the atmosphere.
How did you get so easily fooled? Or, were you a fool in the first place?
GR, get a clue. You wrote, “temperature is directly proportional to temperature.”
That’s a trivial equality. A=A.
DA…”….science predicts the proportionality constant is one”
What would you expect it to be if temperature equals pressure? The only proportionality constant required is one that equates pressure to temperature.
PV = nRT
P = (nR/V)T
R is the gas constant and varies from gas to gas.
constant volume, constant mass, P is essentially equal to T, since nR/V essentially becomes the proportionality constant.
We would expect the surface to be warmer than higher altitudes. Who needs a GHE, or AGW for that matter? Add in the oceans as a heat reservoir, stabilizing heat through the night and we have a perfectly natural explanation for planetary warming.
Now add in Dalton’s law of partial pressures. Each gas contributes to T by mass percent roughly. If you have nitrogen and oxygen at roughly 99% mass wise, and CO2 at 0.04% mass, how much heat do you expect CO2 to supply to T?
I’d say about 0.04C.
Gordon Robertson says:
“What would you expect it to be if temperature equals pressure?”
Dude, that’s not what you wrote.
You wrote temperature = temperature.
What is the proportionally constant for temperature ~ pressure?
Clearly, that energy is being dissipated in other ways, or the surface temperature would increase without bound. So, you can’t just assume that increasing concentration will increase that differential, and therefore the surface will get hotter. You also have to look at the other dissipation mechanisms, and how they will respond.
And you look at paleoclimate data, which clearly show that CO2 causes warming. Or Venusian data. Or Earth-ly calculations.
Sure. Effect always precedes cause.
Explain the PETM.
No answer?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281384
Dan Pangburn says:
“But then you say It can only go into the ocean, atmosphere, ice or surface, and those warm up as the planet seeks to reestablish energy balance. The surface is where the energy came from so to say it goes there is bogus.”
Nope.
Look up borehole evidence for warming.
Dan?
No reply, Dan?
No reply ssays you know your idea was wrong……
DA…
Please submit a link to borehole data you are referring to.
https://tinyurl.com/ya4e5nwf
Thanks Barry…
Clearly those “papers on temperature reconstrutions from boreholes” show no evidence that C02 causes warming.
The wave of the Arctic air moves to the southeast US. Visible atmospheric front.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/wi6t0bcf5o0l.png
Current temperature in North America.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00955/96vijvlb7kw8.png
Snowstorm from Texas to New York State.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/o6c78p0ubp5d.png
Very low temperature and high pressure in Texas.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/0ts5gjmuopxq.png
I suggest firing a lot of campfires to raise the troposphere in north.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
ren…”I suggest firing a lot of campfires to raise the troposphere in north”.
That’s a better suggestion than a leading banker in Europe, part of the Club of Rome set, who claimed we should import large amounts of dry ice to the Arctic to cool it.
Other brainstorms from eco-alarmists include dumping barges of iron filings into the oceans to lower the acidity and using giant reflectors to cool the planet by reflecting solar energy.
Left up to eco-alarmists the human race could be wiped out in a century. In fact, that’s what many of them want.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Other brainstorms from eco-alarmists include dumping barges of iron filings into the oceans to lower the acidity….”
No, genius, the iron’s purpose would not be to lower acidity, but to stimulate phytoplankton growth, thereby taking up more carbon from the atmosphere.
DA…”No, genius, the irons purpose would not be to lower acidity, but to stimulate phytoplankton growth, thereby taking up more carbon from the atmosphere”.
Equally stupid idea.
Why stupid?
Your claim was completely wrong. Idiotic. Don’t think you’re gonna just escape that responsibility.
Why stupid?
Robertson, everything you write on this blog — EVERYTHING — has been wrong.
Even the simple stuff.
Why doesn’t this embarrass you? Because your name is too common for anyone to know who you really are?
You’re hiding behind anonymity. Not the first one here….
I wonder when recently so much snow has fallen in Louisiana?
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/krhz9uocxbhy.png
gamma…”In actuality the surface emits about 150 Watts per square meter (W/m2) more than goes out to space”.
Ever heard of the inverse-square law? At what altitude is energy radiated to space? Over that altitude, how much would 150 W/m^2 be expected to diminish at 1/d^2?
I mean what is the radiation in W/m^2 at TOA? Is it less than at the surface? It should be.
Furthermore, there is far less density for radiation particles at the TOA than at the surface, which is a densely packed conglomeration of atoms.
Now put it all together and calculate if the total radiation to space over the increased spherical surface at the altitude of the TOA does not equal radiation from the surface.
Don’t know, just asking.
“Dont know, just asking.”
Never has a truer word been spoken.
FYI:
The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant.
The total infrared radiation from the surface is 150 (units) more than this.
That is the GHE in a nutshell.
profp…”The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant”.
Solar constant = 1362 W/m^2 at TOA. Are you saying the emission at TOA is 1362/4 = 340 W /m^2?
I don’t pay much attention to the Earth’s terrestrial radiation because I think it is largely mathematical bs. However, I’ve heard the value 250 W/m^2 bandied about.
How do you explain that against a radiation value of 340 W/m^2 at the TOA? It’s larger for a sphere of much larger diameter, which makes no sense. It does not allow for the inverse square law.
I fear that all the theory related to a fictitious radiation budget and an equally fictitious GHE is based on bad conjecture.
ps. I fear the Kiele-Trenberth radiation budget is bad fiction. It has as much back-radiation from WV and ACO2 as it does from the original radiation that allegedly warmed the atmosphere.
That implies the atmosphere is absorbing and returning nearly 100% of the radiated surface energy.
https://scied.ucar.edu/radiation-budget-diagram-earth-atmosphere
Complete and utter science fiction. Trenberth oversaw John Christy’s (UAH) grad studies. It’s a good thing John had the intelligence and integrity to distance himself from Trenberth once he saw the truth of the satellite data.
Mind you, Roy and John have been marked men since. Trenberth is a heavyweight at the IPCC reviews and he holds considerable sway with peer review.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
You can’t even read the diagram correctly — it clearly shows 239 W/m2 of IR leaving the TOA.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png
Nothing paints you as a bigger boob than thinking you know more than Trenberth.
The guy really knows his stuff. (Based on what I’ve read, phone interviews, and a lunch talking to him.)
DA…”The guy [Trenberth] really knows his stuff. (Based on what Ive read, phone interviews, and a lunch talking to him.)
I have been right about catastrophic warming/climate change, he’s been wrong. And I have not been running around hassling climate journal editors, causing them to resign, or teaming up with Had-crut’s Phil Jones, as Jones claimed in a Climategate email, to block skeptic’s papers to IPCC reviews.
I am not accusing Trenberth of that, I’m only quoting Jones from Climategate when he inferred that he and ‘Kevin’ would see to it that certain skeptic’s papers would not reach the IPCC review. Since Trenberth is partnered with Jones as Coordinating Lead Author at the reviews, I presume Jones meant Trenberth. Not too many Kevins in climate science.
I don’t have egg on my face for making ridiculous claims about warming then having to back off, admitting I can’t find the warming signal.
As far as him knowing his stuff, I think Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH are light years ahead of him. The student has become the teacher.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have been right about catastrophic warming/climate change, hes been wrong.”
You are a jackass.
You know almost nothing. You’re wrong about everything.
You’re pathetic.
GR wrote:
“….or teaming up with Had-cruts Phil Jones, as Jones claimed in a Climategate email, to block skeptics papers to IPCC reviews.”
Show one instance when that occurred.
Just one.
Or shut your hole.
GR wrote:
“I dont have egg on my face for making ridiculous claims about warming then having to back off, admitting I cant find the warming signal.”
As usual — as always — you have no idea what you’re talking about. Which is why you can’t prove any of what your spout.
Dunning Kruger.
GR: You cant even read the diagram correctly it clearly shows 239 W/m2 of IR leaving the TOA.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png
Afraid to reply?
“The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant “.
Lets see, the Solar Constant = 1367 W/m2
1367/4 = 342 W/m2.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR Global NOAA.gif
The approximate radiation from the earths climate system at the top of atmosphere looks ~234 W/m2.
Over to you professor.
cristopher…for some reason WordPress seems to have truncated your link. I copy/pasted it as:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR Global NOAA.gif
and it worked. Just want to see how it shows up here.
nope…good old WordPress, I guess they think spaces are not allowed in a URL.
Thanks Gordon, I thought it was just me.
FOR DUMMIES.
The solar constant is the amount of solar radiation incident on the face of the Earth at the Earth-Sun mean distance.
This falls upon the area of the disk (pi r squared)
Yet the Earth is rotating and so this amount of radiation is distributed over the entire area
(4 pi r squared).
The average amount received at the TOA at any point is therefore one quarter the solar constant.
Please, this is elementary for any first year science student.
What goes out at the TOA is (correctly estimated at) about 342 (units).
The surface must pump out about 492 units in order to maintain equilibrium.
i.e. it must work harder than would be the case if there were no atmosphere and no GHGs.
profp…”The surface must pump out about 492 units in order to maintain equilibrium.
i.e. it must work harder than would be the case if there were no atmosphere and no GHGs”.
Tell the truth, are you a mechanic, or maybe a sales clerk? Don’t quit your day job.
profp…”The average amount received at the TOA at any point is therefore one quarter the solar constant”.
you said earlier: “The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant”.
Gordon Robertson says:
Tell the truth, are you a mechanic, or maybe a sales clerk? Dont quit your day job
Professor P is correct. You are not.
The factor of 4 is not difficult to understand, and is covered in Chapter 1 of any textbook on climate science.
DA…”The factor of 4 is not difficult to understand, and is covered in Chapter 1 of any textbook on climate science”.
In certain areas of climate science they also misrepresent the meaning of positive feedback, the 2nd law, confuse heat with EM, offer an opinion for the warming effect of CO2 which is wrong, do a lot of work with unvalidated climate models and pass the pseudo-science off as fact, create ridiculous, unverified future climate scenarios based on an extremely rare gas, pass atmospheric gas off as a blanket that traps heat, and pass consensus off a real science.
And you expect me to accept their theories on radiation at the TOA? I don’t really care what it is, Wood made it abundantly clear that surface radiation is of trivial importance for cooling the surface.
We all know the planet must dump its acquired heat to remain in equilibrium but presuming a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere retain heat is not only silly, it’s pseudo-science.
“The approximate radiation from the earths climate system at the top of atmosphere looks ~234 W/m2.”
No.
It has to be 342 in order to balance the solar in.
Sorry professorP…
1367 W/m2 is what the Sun delivers at TOA.
From that you first have to subtract all what is reflected due to albedo (about 30 %).
70 % of 1367 /4 gives you about 239 W/m2 really entering Earth’s thermal system.
And that is what is expected to be returned to space in order to achieve thermal equilibrium.
D’accord, monsieur le professeur?
The “professor” gets schooled by Gordon and Bin!
Hilarious.
“It has to be 342 in order to balance the solar in …”.
The self-styled professor has his theory — measured data is irrelevant.
Bindidon,
342 in
342 out
That refers to TOTAL radiation (sw plus lw).
Your introduction of albedo is somewhat misleading since the the 342 out includes reflected sw.
Otherwise we agree.
Gordon,
The average amount received at the TOA at any point is therefore one quarter the solar constant.
Is correct.
The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant.
Is correct since it refers to sw plus lw.
see reply to Bindidon above.
Chris,
you are referring to outgoing LONGWAVE radiation.
To simplify for you and others
TOTAL TOA RADIATION
342 in = 342 out
SOLAR RADIATION
342 in 103 reflected
LONGWAVE RADIATION
239 absorbed by the system
TOA LONGWAVE out =239
Simple eh?
Bindidon says:
1367 W/m2 is what the Sun delivers at TOA.
That’s not the global diurnal average — you must divide by 4 to get that.
Professor P is correct.
Hello professor,
Your original post said:
“The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant.
The total infrared radiation from the surface is 150 (units) more than this.
That is the GHE in a nutshell …”.
The reflected SW radiation plays no part in the GHE — hence the misunderstanding.
Christopher Hanley says:
Hello professor,
Your original post said:
The TOA radiation to space equals one quarter of the solar constant.
The total infrared radiation from the surface is 150 (units) more than this.
Professor P is correct. So is your last number.
The total LW radiation from the surface is ~150 W/m2 more than the total LW radiation at TOA which is ~234 W/m2, not “150 units” more than 1/4 of the solar constant (342 W/m2).
What is a “unit?”
This diagram clarifies everything:
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png
binny…”70 % of 1367 /4 gives you about 239 W/m2 really entering Earths thermal system”.
On average. The 0.3 albedo must be an average ranging from a low value to a higher value depending on location.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84499
“Taken across the planet, no significant global trend appears”.
I’m curious as to how much the absorbed EM heats the oceans and land along the Equator with a very low albedo and how much of that heat is transferred poleward. Lindzen indicates that is typical.
As you know, I am not much into averages, unless the average represents something that is in plain sight. I think the climate system is extremely complex.
Although I come across as obstinate at times, I have learned over a lifetime to believe nothing I hear and only half of what I see. I don’t have much interest in statistics via blind number crunching or pat answers to complex questions.
christopher…”The total LW radiation from the surface is ~150 W/m2 more than the total LW radiation at TOA which is ~234 W/m2, not 150 units more than 1/4 of the solar constant (342 W/m2)”.
That makes more sense. I’d expect a larger sphere to have a lower radiation per unit area than a small sphere, given the same basic power.
I presume there are other factors, as indicated by Lindzen. He claimed heat is transported poleward from the Tropics by clouds, etc., and they radiate to space at higher altitudes.
DA…”This diagram clarifies everything:”
Excuse me??? It shows 333 units of back-radiation, almost as much as the surface radiates.
Pure science-fiction.
Gordon Robertson says:
“It shows 333 units of back-radiation, almost as much as the surface radiates. Pure science-fiction”
Why? Prove it.
Prove it or you will again be labeled an ignorant liar.
David Appell: “what is a unit?”
Search me, I assumed he meant W/m2 but you will have to ask the professor.
Gordon worships Lindzen like a puppy. But has never looked up the letter written by 18 other faculty members of Lindzens department at MIT. Why not? Just laziness? Or does he prefer to remain ignorant.
“The total LW radiation from the surface is ~150 W/m2 more than the total LW radiation at TOA which is ~234 W/m2, not 150 units more than 1/4 of the solar constant (342 W/m2).”
Chris, you are right, my hurried mistake.
The point is that the 234 units corresponds to a black body temperature of about -18 degC
Yet the observed SURFACE temperature is about +15 degC.
i.e. 33 degC warmer.
You don’t need to know anything about CO2 to see that the presence of an atmosphere causes this difference.
I was curious about the dismissiveness of geophysics as not being a discipline that encompasses atmospheric effects. Geophysics means ‘the physics of the earth’. Is there something inherent in the definition that precludes atmospheric dynamics?
So I looked it up in case I’d misunderstood.
*
Geophysics:
noun
1.
(functioning as sing) the study of the earth’s physical properties and of the physical processes acting upon, above, and within the earth. It includes seismology, geomagnetism, meteorology, and oceanography
Collins English Dictionary
*
geophysics in Science
geophysics
The scientific study of the physical characteristics of the Earth, including its hydrosphere and atmosphere, and of the Earth’s relationship to the rest of the universe.
The American Heritage Science Dictionary
*
geophysics in Culture
geophysics definition
The science devoted to the study of the physical properties and processes of geological phenomena, including fields such as meteorology, oceanography, and seismology.
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy
*
noun, ( used with a singular verb)
1.
the branch of geology that deals with the physics of the earth and its atmosphere, including oceanography, seismology, volcanology, and geomagnetism.
dictionary.com
*
Definition of geophysics
a branch of earth science dealing with the physical processes and phenomena occurring especially in the earth and in its vicinity
Merriam-Webster
*
geophysics
noun UK
the study of the rocks and other substances that make up the earth and the physical processes happening on, in, and above the earth
Chambers dictionary
*
geophysics
PLURAL NOUN
(treated as singular) The physics of the earth.
… Oxford Dictionary
A primer for Norman and David Appell, from Columbia University, on the role of electrons in EM radiation….by a climate scientist!!!
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/heat_xfer.html
I don’t know why people, as in this article, insist on getting caught at the molecular level, as if molecules are different than atoms made up of electrons and protons. They speak of the atomic bonds in molecules as if they are not made up of electrons in orbit yet they reveal that it is the electron that radiates the EM.
This article explains for DA how heat is transferred from the Sun via EM. Of course, you have to dig for it and DA will resort to calling me a liar because he lacks the comprehension to get that.
I offer a disclaimer now. I don’t agree entirely with the rest of the lecture notes, in case you come back at me with them later. Overall, I think it’s a good presentation, however.
“It was the physicist Max Planck who determined the relationship between the radiative energy flux emitted from a blackbody and its absolute temperature. This expression is known as the Planck blackbody radiation law. It is by using this law that the spectra of Sun and Earth emitted radiation were calculated in Figure 1. In that figure we substituted in Planks law values of 5780 K and 288 K for the Sun’s and Earth’s temperatures, respectively.”
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/blackbody.gif
ren…Planck and Boltzmann seem intertwined, Boltzmann coming slightly before him. Planck picked up on the work of Boltzmann and refined it.
The basic Stefan-Boltzmann equation is q = σ T^4 A where q = radiation from body, σ = Boltzmann’s constant, T = absolute temperature, and A = area of body.
The net radiation loss from a hot body to a cooler body is:
q = ε σ (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ac
That’s what I am referring to and this came out 25 years before Planck. ε = emissivity.
Planck’s Law gives the SB equation, by integrating over all frequencies.
Better, it also predicts the value of the proportional constant in the SB law.
The Planck Law is more fundamental then the SB law.
DA…”The Planck Law is more fundamental then the SB law”.
Not arguing that. Planck had the benefit of Boltzmann’s expertise in the field and 25 years to develop his equation. I just noted that people tend to quote S-B when making theoretical calculations involving the planet.
I imagine it’s a lot easier than dealing with ‘e’ raised to some crazy power.
In fact, Planck did not rely on Boltzmann’s expertise, or Boltzmann would have discovered the Planck Law instead of Planck.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I just noted that people tend to quote S-B when making theoretical calculations involving the planet.”
Not really. Gordon, are you aware of the two-stream equations?
ren…you may find this interesting. It’s a comparison between the approaches of Boltzmann and Planck.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jther/2016/9137926/
I don’t particularly agree with either since they seem to have perverted what Clausius meant by entropy. Clausius did not define the 2nd law with entropy, he introduced entropy after he’d stated the 2nd law.
Both Boltzmann and Planck seem to view entropy as the end law and they seem to lose the implication of the 2nd law about heat transfer from hot to cold only. If you read the article at the link above it explains how each developed his strategy via statistical mechanics.
Correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that because the emitter temperature is higher, so it produces waves with more energy than the absorber. So how can the absorber raise the energy of the emitter? The emitter is the Earth and the absorber is atmospheric gas.
The air can only heat the surface as a result of conduction. This happens when the wind directs the warmer air over the cooler surface.
ren knows about wavelengths.
I wonder if any Perps will learn. ..
ren said:
So how can the absorber raise the energy of the emitter? The emitter is the Earth and the absorber is atmospheric gas.
Infrared radiation from the surface and atmosphere increases the energy level of the molecules of the greenhouse gases. (But not in the way Gordon thinks; it’s not the atomic electron energy levels, but the molecules energy levels of its rotational and vibrational quantum states.)
But when in an excited state the GHG molecules quickly emit an IR photon, in a random direction. Some of this radiation goes downward, warming the molecules below it; in particular, near the surface.
There is “heat source” or no energy “being created,” just energy redirected.
davie, photons do not increase internal energy if they are not absorbed.
ren…”Correct me if I am wrong. It seems to me that because the emitter temperature is higher, so it produces waves with more energy than the absorber. So how can the absorber raise the energy of the emitter? The emitter is the Earth and the absorber is atmospheric gas”.
That’s the point some of us skeptics are trying to make. I have tried to take it to the atomic level because my background is in electronics and we are given good atomic theory while learning the discipline. After all, electronics is based on the electron, it would be dumb not to explain basic electron theory to us.
Electrons emit electromagnetic energy and absorb it. There is a whole branch of theory below the basic electron-proton interaction taking place in the nucleus. From the little I know, electrons can be manufactured by the interaction of forces within the nucleus.
However, the electron has a negative charge and carries a magnetic field with it when it moves. When electrons move in a conductor, there is an electric field and a magnetic field around the conductor. That’s how electric motors and transformers work as well as inductors.
It appears to be the same in the atom. The main difference appears to be that electrons in an atom make a transition between energy states in a quantum manner. They simply disappear at one energy level and appear at another.
When they make such transitions, they emit or absorb EM and the intensity and frequency of the EM corresponds to the energy level and the energy in eV between states, as in:
E = hf
Of course, the difference in potential energy increases as the electron moves to a level away from the nucleus. To overcome that potential field, the electron requires external energy of a certain intensity and frequency. From what I can gather, EM from a cooler atom cannot provide that energy.
The higher energy states are associated with heat. As an electron drops to a lower level it converts heat to EM. The atom loses heat to the surroundings as EM. The 2nd law suggests that process is not reversible. I take that to mean EM from a cooler source cannot reverse the process and increase the heat in atoms.
DA…”its not the atomic electron energy levels, but the molecules energy levels of its rotational and vibrational quantum states.)”
A molecule is two or more atoms bonded by electrons or charges produced by electrons. The vibrations in a molecule involve electron bonds interacting with protons in the nucleus. Molecules that rotate are linear and their shape comes from electron bonds.
All radiation from molecules comes from electrons. There is no other source of radiation in an atom/molecule other than in special cases where high velocity particles collide with the nucleus.
False, Gordon. Completely wrong. Ignorant.
You are the most stupid, ignorant person I have ever encountered in my life. And the worst is that you insist on remaining ignorant. You refuse to learn from those who know more than you. It is truly very pathetic, and very sad too, to observe such a lost individual. And I mean this sincerely.
DA…”Some of this radiation goes downward, warming the molecules below it; in particular, near the surface”.
What molecules? Do you mean WV or CO2 molecules? If so, what are the chances that a randomly fired photon from an upper level CO2 molecule will strike another WV/CO2 molecule below it when CO2 has a density of 0.04% and WV near the surface about 1%?
Besides, it’s not the atmosphere we are concerned about in AGW. They are actually claiming that the solid surface warms to a temperature higher than it is warmed by solar energy due to the back-radiation you describe.
It’s radiation from the solid surface that warms the GHGs, not radiation from the atmosphere, which is 99% nitrogen and oxygen. The surface is too warm to absorb EM from cooler atmospheric gases.
Unless an inversion is in progress, upper altitude CO2 will be cooler than lower altitude CO2. The 2nd law states that a heat transfer from cooler gases to warmer gases is not possible.
Having said all that. I’m not convinced that the IR portion of incoming solar does not warm the atmospheric gases. Short wavelength EM is absorbed by both nitrogen and oxygen in the stratosphere so why would that not be true in the lower atmosphere?
DA…”You refuse to learn from those who know more than you”.
If I learned from you I’d be dumb as a sack of hammers.
You don’t even begin to understand that molecules are made of atoms and that atoms are joined by electrons in orbit. You fail to understand even the most basic aspects of atomic theory.
GR wrote:
“Clausius did not define the 2nd law with entropy, he introduced entropy after hed stated the 2nd law.”
All popular versions of the 2LOT are equivalent, whether they mention entropy or not.
Entropy is much more fundamental than statements about “work.” And Clausius’s 2LOT version is equivalent.
This blog’s refusal to send email replies to one’s comments is ridiculous, and shows the blog’s owner (Roy) doesn’t care at all how anyone thinks about his pronoucements.
Wonder how many copies sold of Roy’s economics treatise.
Roy?
DA…”This blogs refusal to send email replies to ones comments is ridiculous, and shows the blogs owner (Roy) doesnt care at all how anyone thinks about his pronoucements.
Wonder how many copies sold of Roys economics treatise”.
************
Now your being a complete ***hole. Do you think Roy has nothing better to do than reply to your pseudo-science and general ranting? Or reply to an insulting comment on his own blog?
I have never had a problem receiving a reply from Roy or John Christy if the query was polite and to the point. The replies were short because they are too busy to reply at length, but both have replied to me on several occasions.
Why don’t you comment on the outright refusal of Phil Jones of Had-crut to release data to Steve McIntyre for independent audit, then conspiring in the Climategate emails to prevent McIntyre’s success with an FOI request to the UK government to have the data released?
Why don’t you comment on posters being banned from realclimate and skepticalscience for going against what they deem to be correct science. You have been granted polite admission to this site although you present nothing but alarmist propaganda.
I’d have booted your butt out of here long ago.
DA…”Entropy is much more fundamental than statements about work. And Clausiuss 2LOT version is equivalent”.
Clausius defined entropy in words as the sum of infinitesimal change of heat into or out of a system at the temperature T at which the changes took place. Through integration of a reversible process the sum is zero. For a reversible process, the sum is positive.
What does that tell you about the 2nd law? Nothing. He had already explained the 2nd law before introducing entropy. He stated that heat cannot of itself be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body. I think that states far more than a concept that no one can understand other than the degree of distinction between reversible and irreversible processes.
Both Boltzmann and Planck focused on entropy as a basis for statistical mechanics with reference to heat. They attached probabilities to atomic cells to average heat transfer at a microscopic scale. For years after formulating his equation, Planck wondered whether it had any real function and I am wondering the same today.
You can derive mathematical relationships by sheer chance and many observers have debated whether Planck fluked on his equation. Even Planck admitted his work cannot be visualized so how do we know to which degree it applies to the real world?
Neither Planck nor Boltzmann proved the 2nd law is wrong, their equation still must be applied with the presumption that heat can only be transferred hot to cold, without external compensation. It is a few modern scientists who are making such claims for a two way heat transfer even though neither Planck nor Boltzmann indicate that in their equations.
We have to remember than neither scientist knew about electron theory a la Bohr and neither would have been privy to Bohr’s theories on electron emission and absorp-tion of EM. The constraints of that alone uphold the 2nd law.
What in that Columbia link am I supposed to be looking at? I’m not going to guess…?
This article explains for DA how heat is transferred from the Sun via EM.
EM is the “kinetic energy” of photons — hence heat. In particular, infrared EM waves are heat — because they carry energy. That’s how the Sun heats the Earth.
DA…”EM is the kinetic energy of photons hence heat. In particular, infrared EM waves are heat because they carry energy. Thats how the Sun heats the Earth”.
The link from Columbia I posted explains how electrons convert EM to heat and vice-versa.
EM is converted to heat when it strikes a mass, provided the EM is of sufficient intensity and frequency to be absorbed. Coming from the Sun, whose average temperature is much higher than the surface of the Earth, solar energy is absorbed right across its spectrum.
If EM does not strike a mass it has no thermal energy associated with it. Thermal energy is NOT a property of EM, just as heat has no electric/magnetic fields or frequency.
With heat transfer, the 2nd law must be obeyed, and summing the mythical net energy of EM does no satisfy the 2nd law. That means radiation from the Earth has absolutely no effect on the Sun.
Dan Pangburn: in your post of Jan 15th at 1.52pm, I was interested to note your comment that ‘CO2 has no significant effect on climate because of thermalization. Thermalization means that absorbed energy is immediately (starts in less than 0.0002 microseconds) shared with surrounding molecules by conduction.’
Can you tell me where the 0.0002 microseconds figure came from please? – I’ve been looking for details as to how long the molecule retains energy, because this is obviously important to the discussion.
The link to the source is Ref 7 in my blog analysis. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/frecol.html
Input: Po=101 kpa, T=288 K, dia=4E-10 m, M=29amu gives 0.12 nanosec
peer reviewed?
DA…”peer reviewed?”
Who cares? Peer review is not a requirement of the scientific method and most peer review today is corrupt.
Thanks for the reference, Dan. Not having a background in the physical sciences, I can’t comment on the ‘ins’ and ‘out’ of what appears to me to be a very important and relevant aspect of the CO2 story. Hopefully there will be some insightful comments and discussions couched in general terms for the benefit of all.
I notice that DA asks ‘peer reviewed’? Gordon Robertson quite rightly points out that peer review is not a requirement of the scientific method itself.
There’s more that has to be said regarding peer review. If a researcher can’t get something published in one journal, they’re free to try as many others as they wish until they find a sympathetic editor and reviewers. Having worked in a university research laboratory, I know that this is how it works! Peer review isn’t a guarantee of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, nor are all reviewers necessarily fellow experts on the topic covered.
Peer review is a filter against junk science. Not perfect, but much better than, say, the internet. Which is to say, if you can’t even clear that hurdle with your references, then you have a serious problem.
The mysterious cycles of ice ages
Published on: Friday, 12 January, 2018
Orbital wobbles, carbon dioxide and dust all seem to contribute
–Burning coal, Arrhenius said, was therefore a good thing: By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates.–
And near bottom:
–The argument goes like this. Colder oceans evaporate less moisture and rainfall decreases. At the depth of the last ice age, Africa suffered long mega-droughts; only small pockets of rainforest remained. Crucially, the longer an ice age lasts, the more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the cold oceans. When the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drops below 200 parts per million (0.02 per cent), plants struggle to grow at all, especially at high altitudes. Deserts expand. Dust storms grow more frequent and larger. In the Antarctic ice cores, dust increased markedly whenever carbon dioxide levels got below 200 ppm. The dust would have begun to accumulate on the ice caps, especially those of Eurasia and North America, which were close to deserts. Next time a Milankovich great summer came along, and the ice caps began to melt, the ice would have grown dirtier and dirtier, years of deposited dust coming together as the ice shrank. The darker ice would have absorbed more heat from the sun and a runaway process of collapsing ice caps would have begun.–
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/explaining-ice-ages/
linked from:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/01/14/matt-ridley-the-mysterious-cycles-of-ice-ages/#more-35570
I guess you could say, saved by dust and dirty ice.
“Linearly extrapolating this trend upwards to 180 km altitude would imply a discrepancy by a factor of around two there, in agreement with the discrepancy found by VExADE via Precise Orbit Determination at higher altitudes (176186 km; ref. 10). This suggests scale heights in Venuss polar atmosphere to be systematically lower than predicted by VTS3 above around 100 km. This is consistent with our earlier finding of Venuss polar upper atmosphere being cooler than predicted by VTS3. The broader significance of these differences is that the assumptions of solar zenith angle symmetry underlying VTS3 are too simplistic for high latitudes, where other factors such as winds may lead to polar temperatures in the lower thermosphere being cooler than expected from solar forcing alone.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3733
Very interesting links, gbaikie.
gbaikie…good stuff.
Gordon,
There’s the snow/ice albedo feedback again:
“The darker ice would have absorbed more heat from the sun and a runaway process of collapsing ice caps would have begun.”
I’ve seen dark paper being put on snow, it raised the temperature from something like -5 to +10.
You can try it in your garden next time you have snow and sun.
I once thought this could explain most of global warming, soot landing on snow, when it starts melting it will expose more particles in a positive feedback loop.
gbaikie…”Crucially, the longer an ice age lasts, the more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the cold oceans”.
Could that not explain why CO2 concentrations may have been lower during the Little Ice Age, where the IPCC tried to establish a baseline for CO2 levels? I am not convinced that ice gas proxies are all that accurate, especially when used by IPCC-types who are looking to establish AGW.
— Gordon Robertson says:
January 18, 2018 at 1:12 AM
gbaikieCrucially, the longer an ice age lasts, the more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the cold oceans.
Could that not explain why CO2 concentrations may have been lower during the Little Ice Age, where the IPCC tried to establish a baseline for CO2 levels?–
Hmm. Glacier periods have average ocean temperature of about 1 C, and compared to current average ocean of about 3 C.
I would say that during LIA average ocean was about 3 C.
And very roughly speaking during our Ice box period [millions of years- so many many glacial and interglacial periods] during interglacial average ocean warms to about 5 C.
And I am not particularly confident that our present interglacial will warm to average ocean of 5 C, but I will give it 50% chance. Of course, in thousand years, who knows what humans will be doing- changing Earth average temp might become hobby/fetish [this year we will freeze Earth and for change the year after it will be hot house climate- it will be hideously expensive, but why not?].
Anyhow, why do glacial periods have such low levels of CO2.
Or what does an ocean with average temperature of 1 C “look like”?
Is it more ocean will well below O C waters? Is it more uniformly cool?
As far as I know, 40% of our planet [the tropics] doesn’t change much- the existence of tropical plants indicates it couldn’t have changed much. And I haven’t heard anyone make the case of the tropics changing much.
Though one expect tropics in terms of weather and weather patterns could get somewhat brief period in various regions which get fairly cold.
Anyhow, it’s agreed the polar sea extends a lot further, but it seems the polar regions covered in ice [thick ice] would inhibit CO2 being absorbed by the ocean and it seems one less open ocean with cold water. Or, there is less gradient- a sharper boundary between warm surface water and cold surface waters.
“Or, there is less gradient- a sharper boundary between warm surface water and cold surface waters.”
One way to answer my question, is life processes of ocean dominate [which I forgot about]. So with a more ocean covered
with ice, it greatly inhibits CO2 absorbed by the ocean.
Or with much larger polar ice, one creating huge ocean “desert”- though a more sterile environment, might be a better term. Though of course there are actually no sterile anywhere in earth’s crust. And in this “sterile” environment other life process “might” inhibt the remaining open ocean from adding CO2 to atmosphere. Or Ocean adds and subtracts vast amounts of CO2 [completely dwarfing Human CO2 emission] So more polar ice may affect both sides [absorbing and emitting].
And of course the reason Earth has low CO2 for last tens of millions of years is due to weathering. So this weathering may remain at same level [or be even less] but if ocean is not adding as much CO2, the reducting of CO2 from weathering effect is relatively increased.
Gordon, I think you’re right here:
“Could that not explain why CO2 concentrations may have been lower during the Little Ice Age”
That’s another positive feedback.
If someone thinks that the current state of the polar vortex results from the warming of the stratosphere over the polar circle, then it is wrong.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2018.png
ren…”If someone thinks that the current state of the polar vortex results from the warming of the stratosphere over the polar circle, then it is wrong”.
My understanding is that colder air from the upper altitudes descend on the Arctic when solar radiation becomes low or absent. That’s the Arctic air we have seen recently over North America.
Dan,from up-thread;
No, this is simply wrong.
Please think of it: if Planck’s law didn’t apply to gases, Roy Spencer could not infer atmospheric temperatures from satellite borne microwave radiance measurements. There would simply be no theoretical basis at all to do that.
Planck’s law applies of course to any matter, gases included, and has strictly nothing to do with the presence or absence of a “surface”. It’s a property of matter as soon as it exhibits at least local thermodynamic equilibrium i.e. can be described at least locally by a well defined temperature T ( a property that is, by the way, precisely the result of active collisions and resulting thermalization) .
Planck’s law is a fundamental property inferred from equilibrium statistical mechanics and amply verified experimentally in innumerable instances. Exactly as is at thermodynamic equilibrium the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of the speeds of the molecules in a gas. They are both specific universal functions of temperature T only.
Briefly, let’s consider at a molecule of CO2 in atmosphere at temperature T. From a mechanical point of view it’s an oscillator with frequency around 700 cm^-1. At high enough temperature a sizable fraction of the collisions in gas manages to transfer enough energy and excite the oscillator in a given molecule, that is make it oscillate and emit radiation (because the oscillator is actually a tiny oscillating electric dipole). The higher the temperature, the larger the excitation and thus the larger the emission. Now the atomic oscillators are actually quantized and taking this into account is all what is necessary to deduce Planck’s law from standard statistical mechanics considerations.
An elementary introduction in paragraph 41.2 and 3 (and Plank’s law 41.16) in Feynman’s lectures: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_41.html
gam,,,measuring atmosphere by satellite has nothing to do with Plancks law.
Plancks law: Planck’s law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
If all gasses emitted full BB spectrum radiation spectroscopy would not work.
Thermalization is the process of a ghg molecule absorbing the energy of a photon and sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules. It has nothing to do with collision between molecules.
Then how does this “sharing” work?
Dan,
Why do you continue to spout nonsense ?
Of course satellite temperature measurement is directly based on Planck’s law which gives the temperature dependence of thermal emission at any specific frequency or wavelength.
That’s what we’re interested in here.
In microwave range Planck’s law is well approximation by the Rayleigh-Jeans law with intensity merely proportional to T
Please learn what above sentences mean mathematically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightness_temperature
Planck’s law does not just describe the familiar full BB emission spectrum or intensity as a function of frequency at a specific temperature and it does not just apply to BB emission !
It’s a function of both temperature and frequency !
So it also describes how emission varies with temperature at any specific frequency whatever the emissivity of the emitting material might ever be, that is even if it is not a BB 8 !
gam,,Wow, you have just about everything wrong about this stuff. I suggest you start over. First find out what Planck’s law is about and then try to understand what thermalization means. I wonder what else . . .
Then how does this sharing work?
Dan wont reply. Wonder why.
DA,, I must have been experiencing a mental eclipse. I even call them collisions in my blog/analysis. Of course that is gas phase thermal conduction which is how the absorbed energy is shared.
And of course nobody claims or assumes that gases emit like a BB spectrum.
Emission of any material is actually given by e ( f ) times P ( f , T) where e ( f ) is its emissivity versus frequency f and P ( f , T ) is Planck’s function.
If, as is the case here, we’re interested in temperature dependence of emission at a given frequency ( IR at 700 cm^-1 of CO2, or microwave at 60 Ghz for atmospheric temperature measurements) the Planck function gives all of the temperature dependance since emissivity is temperature independent.
gam,, Apparently you have never taken a course in heat transfer analysis.
Where do you get 60 Ghz from??
Just more idiocy.
For your info, I’m a physicist
Hilarious !
You obviously don’t know what you talk about as so many other crackpots posting here or elsewhere and you are just one more of those numerous very nice textbook examples of Dunnig Kruger effect at work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DunningKruger_effect
So funny (
Sorry, from now on, google is your friend !
Do now learn a little bit about satellite temperature measurements in particular and physics in general just by yourself.
Up to now I kindly provided many references for you to read, make an effort to understand, learn a bit about physics and so become less ignorant. To no avail, you just idiotically ignored them and spout more nonsense instead.
So funny, indeed !
dan…”Where do you get 60 Ghz from??”
It’s a ballpark emission frequency for oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. The range of frequencies over which oxygen emits with different temperatures forms a bandwidth wrt altitude in that vicinity.
An article by Roy on the AMSU:
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page55.htm
Range of gigahertz frequencies involved per receiver channel on this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_microwave_sounding_unit
gamma…”Please think of it: if Plancks law didnt apply to gases, Roy Spencer could not infer atmospheric temperatures from satellite borne microwave radiance measurements. There would simply be no theoretical basis at all to do that”.
If you look at the history of Planck’s Law he was trying to resolve the ultraviolet catastrophe whereby the EM spectrum of a blackbody ‘should’ rise to infinity beyond the ultraviolet. It did not and he was trying to fit a curve mathematically to explain why.
He was not dealing with real, physical gases, he was dealing with a form of statistical gas, if you will, where the entropies of theorized atoms constituted a gas of probabilities. I know that sounds crazy, but Planck explained in his book on heat that heat transfer at the atomic level can neither be visualized nor measured, therefore it is necessary to attach probabilities to very theoretical atomic arrays to guess at the way heat is transferred at the atomic level.
If you make the guess, and it can be corroborated by experiment then you have something. However, that’s why I am suspicious of many of the propositions of quantum theory. It’s based on fudged math. Feynman claimed that QM works but that no one knows why. I don’t think it works to the degree avid proponents of QM claim. A lot of it is sci-fi. Such is life when you live in an entirely mathematical world with no reality to verify it.
As far as a gas is related to a blackbody, Gerlich and Tsheuschner, both experts in thermodynamics summed that up succinctly. They claimed that a given microscopic volume of CO2 in the atmosphere can in no way be considered a blackbody (cavity resonator). Planck was dealing with a theoretical blackbody, not a gas.
With regard to AMSU units on sats, AFAIK, they have nothing to do with Planck’s equation. The bandwidth of the channel amplifiers may take the shape of a curve similar to a Planck curve, but they are detecting the gigahertz radiation from oxygen molecules in specific bands, not across the entire available oxygen emission spectrum.
There is quite a range in Ghz of the full oxygen spectrum representing the entire temperature spectrum. The AMSU units divide it into bands, trying to isolate temperatures to certain altitudes. Planck’s equation does not operate in bands, it describes the entire spectrum at a specific temperature.
His equation produced the desired spectral response over the EM spectrum of a blackbody and he admitted to fudging the math to achieve that result. That troubled Planck deeply, he was a Newtonian reality type of scientist who resorted to mathematical means out of desperation.
The current temperature in New Orleans.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/h7ybga0vpv58.png
You cares?
Dan says:
Of course, I “realize” it !
I even pointed it out (for you, in vain) up-thread and this is precisely nothing else than the GHE itself.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281162
And this does by no means imply a violation of the first law. Energy is conserved at surface because of the atmosphere’s back radiation, a simple consequence Planck’s law once more.. Loss in the form of radiation exchanges at surface is much less than what’s radiated upwards from surface.
By the way, topic already addressed before, to no avail;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276474
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-276475
gam,,,You say ,,Energy is conserved at surface because of the atmospheres back radiation, a simple consequence Plancks law once more ,, This would mean that energy could spontaneously flow from a cooler place to a warmer place. Violating the second law to avoid violating the first law does not work either.
,,Loss in the form of radiation exchanges at surface,, Loss of what?
There is no violation of the 2LOT. Do you know why?
DA…”There is no violation of the 2LOT. Do you know why?”
He just told you why. The 2nd law states that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler mass to a warmer mass.
How many times do you need to hear that before it sinks in?
Gordon Robertson says:
“The 2nd law states that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler mass to a warmer mass.”
Wrong.
How many times do you need to hear this before it sinks in?
The Earth emits radiation in all directions. Some of it is in the direction of the Sun.
What happens to this radiation as it encounters the Sun?
Nonsense !
Total net energy flow ( radiation exchanges , latent heat, convection and conduction) is what”s called heat and has to flow spontaneously from hot to cold.
And it does of course.
Loss of energy by the surface via IR emission and absorp-tion at surface.
again topic already addressed before
IN VAIN
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281329
+1
gam,, Your comments vacillate between wrong and irrelevant.
Do you know why the 2LOT isn’t violated?
DA,, Yes, but I see no indication that you do. Perhaps Fig 0.5 in my blog/analysis will help you understand.
Dan,
Tell us why the 2LOT is not violated.
Dan doesnt know.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281495
gamma…”Total net energy flow…”
Summing EM does not satisfy the 2nd law. It’s a bogus claim created by alarmists who have completely misinterpreted the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. S-B describes a heat loss at a surface when the emitting surface is hotter than the surrounding atmosphere, or the emitter is contained in a cylinder or sphere where the emitter is hotter than the surrounds.
S-B describes a one-way heat loss with the subsequent EM produced after thermal energy is converted to EM. Heat cannot flow through space hence a net thermal energy balance is impossible with heat.
The 2nd law is about HEAT transfer. Heat is the energy related to atoms in motion, specifically their electrons. EM is not heat and it can be used to transfer heat from hot to cold only.
It should be obvious that EM can pass through a vacuum but heat cannot. Why??? Because there are no atoms in a vacuum through which thermal energy can be conducted or convected. Heat requires mass to be transferred directly.
Gordon Robertson says:
“S-B describes a heat loss at a surface when the emitting surface is hotter than the surrounding atmosphere, or the emitter is contained in a cylinder or sphere where the emitter is hotter than the surrounds.”
Wrong.
The only physical factor in the SB Law is the BB’s temperature, T.
There is no factor characterizing the surrounding atmosphere.
Because a BB’s radiation does not depend on what’s surrounding it. I only depends on its temperature and the radiation’s frequency (Planck Law).
Gordon will not be able to prove otherwise.
Current temperature in North America.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/c3sf8phyhmhm.png
Sorry.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/21wpfujkmgo6.png
Dan says:
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapse_rate#Convection_and_adiabatic_expansion
Briefly, in order to trigger convection there must be something that tends to establish a vertical temperature gradient larger than some (moist) adiabatic lapse rate in order to make the atmospheric column unstable with respect to convection and this ‘thing” is precisely the radiative exchanges in atmosphere and relevant GHE.
Deep convection and atmospheric circulation then take place and determine the actual environmental lapse rate. Ask a gliding pilot about atmospheric stability, role of convection and what triggers it.
Look up for the basis of atmospheric physics, for instance read carefully and learn this “whole” (convection in second part) chapter in following link:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/GoodyWalker/AtmosCh3sm.pdf
“The temperature profile of the atmosphere is a result of an interaction between radiation and convection. Sunlight hits the ground and heats it. The ground then heats the air at the surface. If radiation were the only way to transfer heat from the ground to space, the greenhouse effect of gases in the atmosphere would keep the ground at roughly 333 K (60 C; 140 F), and the temperature would decay exponentially with height.”
The ground is about 60 C during time of sunlight. But very roughly the sunlight only present about 25% of the time.
Of course the ocean can’t warm to 60 C and the ocean covers 70% of planet. The warmest the ocean gets is about 35 C, due to evaporative heat loss. Water in a plastic bag can get to 60 C.
“Briefly, in order to trigger convection there must be something that tends to establish a vertical temperature gradient larger than some (moist) adiabatic lapse rate in order to make the atmospheric column unstable with respect to convection and this thing is precisely the radiative exchanges in atmosphere and relevant GHE.”
When clouds form they removing water vapor, which is another
“thing”.
No, because clouds are not the cause of convection but its consequence.
gam,, I wonder if the folks doing the work described at the link realized there was something wrong with their assessment when they drew Fig 3-8.
Being too stubborn to even look up standard atmosphere is, well, too stubborn.
Do you know why the 2LOT isnt violated?
DA,, Yes, but I see no indication that you do. Perhaps Fig 0.5 in my blog/analysis will help you understand.
Don’t play games. Tell us why the 2LOT is not violated……
Dan, I see you replying below, But ignoring questions above. I will assume thats because you cant address those questions, because your ideas cant handle reality.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281495
gamma…”Ask a gliding pilot about atmospheric stability, role of convection and what triggers it”.
Ask a climber on mount Everest why it’s infinitely easier to climb near the top using bottled oxygen. The available oxygen at that level is 1/3 that at sea level. How do thermals cause that?
Also, ask him why it’s so cold above 8000 metres on Everest. Without proper clothing they can die of hypothermia even in summer. Again, what has that to do with the thermals used by gliders? You won’t see anyone gliding around the summit of Everest.
It’s gravity that produces the pressure gradient hence the temperature gradient. Lapse rate operates on top of that and may add to the temperature. However, at high enough altitudes, the air thins too much from lack of gravitational force and no amount of rising hot air will mediate that.
As hot air rises it will thin out and loose its buoyancy and it’s heat. However, the pressure/temperature gradient will still be in effect.
It takes both convection (a function of gravity) and radiation to set the lapse rate. See Manabe & Wetherald’s famous 1967 paper, which was the first to correctly calculate it. It’s a masterpiece, and a great introduction to climate modeling, so naturally, Gordon, you will run away from it as fast as possible.
Yes, indeed.
Manabe was a great pioneer in playing with modern computer modeling of atmosphere and climate and so performed much outstanding and decisive work.
Now the importance of convection besides radiation in explaining the origin of atmospheric temperature profile and lapse rate was already known long before.
https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.38.1876
This links to a relevant article by Hulburt in 1931 that by the way also estimates the GHE of additional CO2. …
Most of the morons who idiotically dispute or deny such things were likely not even born by then.
And anyway, confronted to any pertinent scientific paper, they “look like a chicken that found a knife”, as a great picturesque expression puts it in French::
” Ils se retrouvent comme une poule qui a trouve un couteau”
gummy conferring with davie utilizes a “great picturesque expression”–“Most of the morons”.
Circulation over North America does not change.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/tu6uc3termqo.png
Circulation in the north will not change because solar activity decreases.
http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/latest2day.imagemap?331,121
As of 10:19 AM on Wednesday 17 Jan 2018 (Local Time)
Huntsville, Alabama
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/u7vthklj3x5q.png
Here’s one for Gordon Robertson and others who don’t understand infrared radiation. A demonstration of the Green Plate Effect (PDF warning – 541k).
https://app.box.com/s/wcego4vf3hevzrah43alw83icxgm55xk
This one is easier to download.
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
Love the adds on your link, troll boy. Hot! Hot!!
You must have got so heated up you forgot how to spell “ads”. ..
g*,, But wrong. Flux must be the same assumming no loss or gain at the sides. T1 to T2 and T2 to surroundings should both be 200 W/m/m. To keep it simple, assume surroundings at absolute zero and both plates BB. Then, with no green plate, T1 is 244 K. Add the green plate, it must be at 244 K to radiate the 200 W/m/m. Then T1 must be 290 K to achieve 200 W/m/m between the two plates.
As sort of a corroboration, the temperature increase of T1 by adding the green plate is 46 K compared to 54 K in Swanson’s experiment.
Dan, always make certain to understand the problem before using the word “wrong”. Both plates emit to space.
If you go with blue, at 290 K, and green, at 244K, then you’ve then got the system radiating 602 Watts total to space, with only 400 Watts incoming!
You’re welcome to try again.
g*,, apparently you skipped over this part: “assumming no loss or gain at the sides” That means only the green plate emits to space.
If you are changing the problem, why did you say I was wrong?
Dan, if you are not willing to be responsible for your comments, that’s fine. There are that are in that category.
It just helps to know which category to put you in.
“There are those here that are in that category.”
(Stupid fingers.)
Dan, these might help:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31333
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31395
Both the blue and green plates emit to space, given the geometry between the sun and the blue plate (as explained in the first link). The sun must be far enough away from the blue plate that as viewed from the blue, it appears as only a tiny disc, or point source. So most of the energy emitted from the blue plate on the sun-facing side will not hit the sun, and will just be emitted to space. Since only an infinitesimal amount hits the sun, and the rest emits to space, you can consider the sun-facing side as emitting to space to pretty much the same extent as the side of the green plate facing space.
So that means the blue plate will be gaining energy from the sun on that one side, facing the sun, but can still also lose energy from that side, to space. It can obviously lose energy from its other side. With two sides to lose energy from and one to gain, the incoming 400 W/m2 is effectively split by two, and the blue emits 200 W/m2 at equilibrium (temperature = 244 K).
With view factors = 1 between the blue and green plate, the green plate only sees the blue plate, on the side of the green facing the blue. Since the green plate only sees the blue here, and not space (so, it cant lose energy to space on that side facing the blue), then, unlike the blue plate, the green only has one side to lose energy from, and one to gain (it gains its energy from the blue plate). So the incoming 200 W/m2 from the blue plate is not split by two, and the green then also emits 200 W/m2 at equilibrium (temperature = 244 K).
And, here’s the picture of what “J” explains:
https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/
Ah yes, g*e*r*a*n*s 4th law of thermodynamics:
4) Objects of the same temperature will emit 200 W/m^2 towards the right.
svante entertains us with more nonsense, completely devoid of science.
g*,, The picture at https://postimg.org/image/y9etf4d8p/ is bogus: If the two plates are the same temperature, there can be no net energy flow between them. Common sense should tell you that. To correct, the blue plate must be at 290 K.
Given that, the only way to have 200 W/m^2 out the left side of the blue plate is with an emissivity on that surface of 0.5. If that surface is assummed black, the radiation from it would increase to 400 W/m^2 and the energy from the sun would have to be 600.
The two green arrows between the plates have no net effect and don’t belong.
This problem was readily solved using only fundamentals from my undergrad course in heat transfer analysis. Added knowledge from my grad course in radiation heat transfer was not needed.
Poor Dan.
He doesn’t understand, and just keeps flailing about. It’s fun to watch.
Dan, you don’t even understand the original problem.
* Two identical plates, 1 square meter each face, very close together (face to face).
* 400 Watts/m^2 input to blue plate only.
* Plates are in a vacuum, radiating to space.
Your solution of 290 K (blue plate) and 244 (green plate) is wrong because that would require 600 W/m^2 to the blue plate.
Let me emphasize: WRONG
Consequently, your remarks about my correct solution are also wrong.
Let me emphasize: WRONG
Glad to help.
I click on G’s link and it says: “Internal error”
Now that is hilarious, knowing what the image shows.
barry discovers: “I click on G’s link and it says: ‘Internal error'”
barry, I just checked the link and it is no longer working. Either the link only had a limited lifespan, or miker disabled it. He was the one that put it up.
I will put up a new link tomorrow. Just now heading for slumber.
Hopefully everyone can hold out.
☺
Okay, just so my faithful followers won’t have to wait any longer, here is the CORRECT solution to the blue/green plates problem:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
“here is the CORRECT solution to the blue/green plates problem”
Ha! That is a correct solution to a blue/green plates problem but not the CORRECT solution to the blue/green plates problem.
As anger has pointed out previously, the solution 6c3 is for a blue plate with one SW illuminated surface at albedo = 0.0 and the LW illuminated surface at albedo = 1.0. This is not the original proposition which is inherently by def for the blue plate to be at albedo 0.0 from both sides whether illuminated by SW or LW.
5:28am is the definition of a comedic strawman anger, answering one proposition with another proposition. Hilarious! More please.
I see this year is starting out with great climate comedy comments from anger. Topping this comedy will be difficult but I’m sure anger is up to the task employing the faithful followers supporting cast of Halp-less and Robertson sans experiment.
Long live anger’s comedy! Keep up the good work anger. Leave the mundane science to others – those that actually employ proper experiments as a supporting cast.
Worms and cabbages–never a good combination.
Dan,
You are of course quite correct that g*’s answer has to be garbage for the reasons you point out. There appears to be only 3 people who in the known universe (maybe more in a parallel universe- who knows?), to believe the temperatures of the two plates are identical. These being g*, his mini-me and of course Joe Postma who should probably get all the credit.
But Dan the thought problem is posed as two infinite parallel plates so all the energy radiated by the blue in the direction of the green plate is intercepted by the green plate and vice versa. In other words the view factors are both 1 .
So the consensus is that the temperature of the blue plate, as outlined in the thought experiment, is 262 K for the blue plate.
I believe Dan’s numbers come from applying G’s mistaken beliefs.
Good to see that there are ‘skeptics’ here who don’t tacitly condone into G’s nonsense by ignoring it, namely Bart, Kristian, Dan and you.
miker and barry, both wrong.
Nothing new.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n,
You mean everybody on this forum is wrong except you, Halp-less and Gordon.
I only keep track of the blatant “Perpetrators of Pseudoscience”. LIst is now at 15.
You haven’t made the list yet, because you’re too timid to comment much. You seem to just lurk and wait for a chance to take a cheap shot.
You need to expound on why you believe I am wrong. That might be hilarious.
Oops I forgot about Gordon. So there are 4 people in this universe that think the two infinite black body plates are at the same temperature. This is despite one plate receiving 400 W incident on one side while the other plate is fully shielded by the presence of intervening plate of infinite width and height, that absorbs all incident radiation.
These 4 people are clearly not the sharpest tools in the shed.
Svante, see how miker made the list. It doesn’t take much.
He just can’t imagine how the green plate can receive energy from the blue plate. It’s well above his “pay grade”. So, he tries to justify his beliefs by trying to ridicule others.
It’s fun to watch.
“You need to expound on why you believe I am wrong.”
2LOT says: Heat flows from hot to cold.
g*e*r*a*n says: Heat flows one way at equal temperatures.
And please show the math that gives you 200 W/m^2 between two plates at the same temperature.
Who said the green plate doesn’t receive energy from the blue plate? Not I.
It doesn’t receive energy directly from the sun because it is in the shadow of the intervening blue plate, see –
https://postimg.org/image/6pmbtv6l5/.
I did say above that g* wasn’t the sharpest tool.
It seems I may have to reconsider. He is just a useless tool and a total waste of bandwidth.
Finally, Des has summarised the debate about the plates succinctly –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-281510.
E-Lie did the skeptics a huge favour. Long may these discussions continue!
Yes Halp-less, feel free to show the math that gives you 200 W/m^2 between two plates with the same temperature.
Svante, feel free to show evidence of where you have accepted real physics. When you verify that you will accept truth, folks may be more inclined to teach you.
For example: Does a horse “rotate on its axis” when running an oval racetrack?
Until you can answer that simple question truthfully, you are not ready, grasshopper.
“J”, I thought the same thing. The blue/green plate is a great way to show how the GHE is bogus. The Warmists shot themselves in the foot this time, and many of them know it.
Poor Svante gets confused again. He implores: “And please show the math that gives you 200 W/m^2 between two plates at the same temperature.”
Okay Svante, since you said “please”.
You are confused how heat can flow between two objects that are nearly at the same temperature. In this situation, you have to look at the energy flow. The plate temperatures are NOT causing the heat energy flow. The heat energy flow is causing the plate temperatures.
If you remove the source, the plates would then be at the same temperate, and there would be no heat energy flow between them.
Does that help?
Barry –
“Good to see that there are skeptics here who dont tacitly condone into Gs nonsense by ignoring it, namely Bart, Kristian, Dan and you.”
What good would it do? Haven’t you ever heard that expression about feeding the you-know-what?
You forgot the math, i.e. physical formulas with numbers.
I understand it’s not Stefan-Boltzman, since these plates do not radiate according to their temperature.
Svante, here’s all the temperatures and flows worked out:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
If you have a responsible question, I’ll be glad to respond.
Ha ha, yes exactly, g*e*r*a*n. Hence all the desperation!
Halp-less,
Can you help g*e*r*a*n provide the formulas and calculations that gave those numbers?
Svante, you obviously havent been following previous discussions. Thats OK though, I dont mind you being confused.
Svante had no responsible questions for me. Instead, he went way down thread to insinuate I had no calculations!
In his pea-brain, I had the solutions, but no calculations! Obviously he does not know how to work the algebra for the S/B equation.
Hilarious.
The climate clowns never cease to amuse us.
Hey Bart, sorry I didn’t notice your vacuous comment until just now. That probably happens often, huh?
Anyway, you should learn about what being a “skeptic” implies. You don’t currently qualify.
Sorry.
E. Swanson
I like that you are willing to experiment. I think the “skeptics” will not accept your experiment in this condition. You will have to run it in a vacuum. I believe the claim will be that your pan above the plate is stopping a heat loss mechanism (convection) so that the plate gets hotter when you put the pan over it reducing a heat loss mechanism. If done in a vacuum as you desire, it would clearly show that a cooler object can allow a powered object to reach a higher equilibrium temperature.
norman…”If done in a vacuum as you desire, it would clearly show that a cooler object can allow a powered object to reach a higher equilibrium temperature”.
I agree that it’s good to experiment and I applaud e. swanson for his experiment. It’s actually well thought out. I have offered suggestions as to how he could test for relative temperature change without using a vacuum.
Radiation will not be affected by a cooling fan. If you use a forceful fan, before and after applying the cookie sheet cover, there will likely be a bit of increase in temperature but not to the level detected by e. swanson.
If you want to get really serious, you could measure the actual wattage coming from the tin sheet and calculate the expected warming of the cookie sheet, allowing for convection and radiation. You could calculate an expected value and see what your reading indicates.
I enjoy experimenting but I have learned that you have to allow for all variations in the ambient conditions. That’s far easier said than done. Also, you need to eliminate directional errors on your IR meter. What is it really measuring? I would think a directly applied high temperature thermistor or some kind of temperature detecting wire would work better.
With regard to your point above, why go through all that unless you’re trying to disprove the end law? There are people out there convinced that perpetual motion is possible and they try to find it despite good science that shows why it doesn’t work.
As it stands, you’re using a technicality to disprove the law. Or, at least, you are trying to get around it using a technicality. There is no such thing as a net EM flow that can get past the 2nd law.
e.swanson…”Heres one for Gordon Robertson and others who dont understand infrared radiation. A demonstration of the Green Plate Effect (PDF warning 541k)”.
The heating of the stove top tin piece is so easy to explain, I don’t understand why you did not see it immediately. You have cut off it’s means of cooling by placing the cookie sheet over it.
All you have done is restrict the convective heat flow from the tin on the stove allowing heat to build up below the cookie sheet while reducing the tin sheets ability to shed heat. The heating has nothing to do with radiation.
If your theory is correct, you should be able to replace the cookie sheet with a similar sized sheet to the tin sheet and see if the temperature drops. If so, replace it with an even smaller piece and see if the temperature drops further.
Alternately, place a small fan so it’s blowing through the space between the tin sheet and the cookie sheet. That should not affect radiation but it will show you if the problem is a lack of convection.
The same applies to power transistor cooling on an electronic amplifier. I have seen a case where a transistor carrying 8 amps, a lot for a normal power transistor, was mounted on a metal rear door of a cabinet. It heated the metal door to the point you could have fried an egg on it.
If that cabinet had been enclosed by another metal cabinet of similar measurements, there is no doubt in my mind the metal door used as a heat sink would have continued to rise in temperature to the point where the transistor would likely have failed.
It’s the reason computer cabinets have at least one fan in them. The convection created by the fan is enough to carry heat away from higher power devices.
I was monitoring the internal temperature of my processor and it was reading a dangerously high 88C on a hot summer’s day. I had the side of the cabinet off while working on it and the internal fan was not working as well. I placed a small external fan with a one foot diameter blade close to the cabinet, blowing on the processor from 18″ away, and in a matter of minutes the processor heat had dropped below 50C.
It’s a lack of convection heating your tin sheet, not back-radiation from the cookie sheet. Exactly the same reason a greenhouse heats.
Lack of convection is a major reason why electronic components over-heat and burn out. You block off the air intakes on your laptop by allowed dust to block the air intake vents and there’s a good chance the laptop will eventually fail.
GR and Norman, I noted the possible effects of convection in my piece. An experimental verification of the Green Plate model could be performed in a thermal vacuum chamber, which would eliminate convection, leaving only radiant energy transfer. I suspect that NASA has already performed many such experiments, indeed, the whole purpose for building a thermal vacuum chamber is to test satellites in conditions similar to outer space, including the heating from solar energy and the cooling from emitted infrared radiation. I worked briefly on the Space Station thermal control system. There’s no natural convection on orbit, fans and plumbing are required to remove excess energy via external radiators. My experiment is intended to bring the results of many decades of work down to a level which an above average redneck would comprehend.
It also occurred to me that a fan could be used to direct the heated air away from the plate, minimizing the influence of adding the cookie sheet. And, as I noted, the infrared thermometer has a problem resulting from it’s position within the high IR field. I’ve ordered a thermocouple probe, which I will place on the plate if I am able to repeat the experiment. I will also include a small fan.
e. swansom…” My experiment is intended to bring the results of many decades of work down to a level which an above average redneck would comprehend”.
I don’t understand why you are going through all this when a highly regarded scientist like Rudolph Clausius did stellar work on heat engine theory to arrive at the 2nd law. Neither Boltzmann nor Planck tried to disprove the law all they wanted to do was verify it at the atomic level.
It would serve you better to get at the basics and try to understand why heat cannot be transferred from the cookie sheet to your ring top tin sheet. I have tried to explain it at the electronic level, but rather than offering a scientific rebuttal, alarmists on this blog have attacked with ad homs, especially about me lying about physics.
That’s a serious accusation when the information I am sharing is so well known in physics. Anyone who does not understand that atoms are made of electrons and protons and that those two particles are responsible for forming molecules, and any EM emissions from them, is in serious trouble with regard to basic science.
The notion that heat can be transferred from a cooler object to a warmer object is based on a misunderstanding of heat transfer by EM, as well as a misunderstanding of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Many people are still caught up in the delusion that EM is the same as heat and presume that a summation of EM radiated by two bodies means heat has to be transferred in both directions.
Several people on this blog have expressed the opinion that a generic energy exchange is all that matters. That’s why they cannot understand the basis of the 2nd law, which applies only to thermal energy and NOT to EM. You cannot sum EM fluxes and claim they satisfy the 2nd law, which is only about heat transfer.
Until you understand that clearly you will drive yourself nuts trying to prove that heat can disobey the 2nd law and be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.
If you fall for the sheer nonsense of a net energy exchange involving EM, you will be caught up in an illusion that will stop you reaching your goal. Simply ask yourself why the 2nd law stipulates a heat transfer from hot to cold only then ask what that means with regard to an EM flow from a colder body to a warmer body.
The solution to the blue/green plate is dead simple. The blue plate absorbs solar energy and warms. The blue plate could warm the green plate depending on proximity but the green plate has absolutely no effect on the blue plate. The 2nd law makes that clear.
Start with the 2nd law then prove to yourself why that’s the case. I have already explained it.
Even with convection, this demonstrates that a cooler object when introduced to a system can reduce the cooling rate of a warmer object, whereby the warmer object becomes even warmer.
What does it matter to the 2LoT if the action is convective, radiative or conductive? The premise that cooler bodies can cause warmer bodies to get warmer (by slowing their rate of heat loss) is amply demonstrated by this experiment. As Robertson not only agrees but explains.
Voila!
“The premise that cooler bodies can cause warmer bodies to get warmer (by slowing their rate of heat loss) is amply demonstrated by this experiment. ”
Warmists keep making that same mistake. They claim they are not violating 2LoT, as they violate it!
You can “slow the heating” all you want. No one will complain. But, once you try to “get warmer” (i.e., raise the temperature), you need more energy. Trying to raise the temperature without more energy violates 2LoT.
It is amazing that you say so much when knowing so little.
But, once you try to “get warmer” (i.e., raise the temperature), you need more energy.
An object can also have its temperature raised if it receives a constant flow of energy to it, but something else lowers its rate of heat loss.
That’s exactly what Gordon was describing re convection and the stove top. The cooler body (tray) suppresses convective heat loss from the stove top, which causes it to heat up with a constant supply of energy to the heating element.
barry gets something correct: “An object can also have its temperature raised if it receives a constant flow of energy to it, but something else lowers its rate of heat loss.”
But, you have to know how that applies. It can get you into a trap.
For example, suppose the blue plate were perfectly insulated on its “dark” side. It could only radiate from one surface. With 400 Watt/m^2 input, it would then have an equilibrium temperature of about 290 K. But, if the 400 Watt/m^2 source continued, the plate would not go above 290K. That’s the trap the uneducated fall into.
So how do you explain Swanson’s result g*e*r*a*n?
Not having a clue about physics, he got the result he believed in.
For example, suppose the blue plate were perfectly insulated on its dark side. It could only radiate from one surface. With 400 Watt/m^2 input, it would then have an equilibrium temperature of about 290 K. But, if the 400 Watt/m^2 source continued, the plate would not go above 290K.
Yep. In that set-up there’s nothing slowing the rate of heat loss from the blue plate, so it equilibrates with input.
Try it yourself then g*e*r*a*n.
barry states: “In that set-up theres nothing slowing the rate of heat loss from the blue plate”
“Nothing”? What about the perfect insulation? What are you talking about?
g*e*r*a*n says:
“he got the result he believed in”.
You mean his thermometer measured the temperature it believed in.
This experiment demonstrates that the expectations based upon radiative exchange are correct.
However, let us not lose sight of the fact that this experiment is of a specific configuration. What happens if we connect the eye and the plate with a series of heat pipes?
That is more analogous to the situation at hand, where the CO2 layer is connected to the surface via the other constituent gases of the atmosphere.
The warm and very humid air from the Pacific will now break into western Canada. The frost will weaken, but snowfall will increase.
https://scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/26757823_762453250627290_8613920945842931766_o.jpg?oh=2bee04b8465a5835b5bbab1f742ef4d4&oe=5AF90707
Gordon, if you don’t think EM radiation is heat, are you willing to stand on the sun-facing surface of Mercury, with just a thin spacesuit and a breathing apparatus?
Are you willing to be in a spaceship just 100,000 km from the top of the Sun’s photosphere?
DA…”Gordon, if you dont think EM radiation is heat, are you willing to stand on the sun-facing surface of Mercury, with just a thin spacesuit and a breathing apparatus?”
I don’t need to go to Mercury and get burned to a crisp, I can do the same on Earth’s on a hot summer’s day. UV from the Sun will give me severe burns if I expose myself to it long enough and over the years may give me skin cancer.
You might ask yourself, why UV? UV interacts with a thin layer of skin and when it’s absorbed it is turned immediately to heat by carbon-based molecules in the skin. Suntan lotions work by temporarily filtering the UV portion of the spectrum, allow the rest of the spectrum to get through.
If a sunscreen products blocked heat you’d get cold, or feel chilled.
I have tried to explain how atoms and molecules absorb heat via electrons, I even posted a link for you from Columbia University climate science department. You seem to think I am lying, what can I do?
So you agree that the Sun’s UV rays — EM radiation — will heat you. Therefore, they carry heat (energy).
Q.E.D.
DA…”So you agree that the Suns UV rays EM radiation will heat you. Therefore, they carry heat (energy)”.
That’s the same as claiming the EM carrying information from a radio station to a home receiver is carrying acoustical energy. You are not getting it that EM, as UV, from the Sun is CONVERTED to heat in the skin. There is no heat until the EM is absorbed by molecules in your skin.
By the same token, a radio wave using EM has no acoustical energy. You cannot hear it while it’s in the air. Even if you amplified the EM you could not hear the audio. However, at the receiver, the audio information that has been modulated into the EM is removed, processed, and amplified. When the signal is pumped out of speakers you can hear it because the speakers are pumping air molecules just as they did in the studio.
By the time you hear the acoustic energy at home, the EM has been stripped off and discarded. In the same manner, once the EM is received by your skin, it is converted to heat and no longer exists. You cannot have heat and EM in the same transmitted wave.
Snowstorm in North Carolina.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/8pefe23feiyz.png
In conclusion Dan Pangburn’s claim up-thread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281099
and general reasoning in his blog is definitely plain wrong.
As I readily pointed out in my reply:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281155
Actually even the first two sentences in popular Wikipedia article, about Planck’s law, state very clearly my point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law#Radiative_transfer
As I said up-thread, more “redirected” emission at any specific wavenumber because of additional CO2 implies a higher temperature of emitting material.
No way out of this and relevant GHE.
Period.
gamma…”As I said up-thread, more redirected emission at any specific wavenumber because of additional CO2 implies a higher temperature of emitting material.
No way out of this and relevant GHE”.
There’s an easy out. The redirected energy as you call it is EM in the IR spectrum. The spectrum sits beside the solar energy spectrum that would be much closer to Planck’s equation rep.resented by a blackbody.
You fail to get it that Planck’s equation covers an entire spectrum, not a specific emission frequency related to CO2 absorp-tion. You are also not getting the implication of a gas representing 0.04% of the atmosphere radiating back enough energy to replace the mam.moth amount of energy emitted by the surface.
Furthermore, you are neg.lecting what Dan said about the 2nd law. Most of the re-directed energy is coming from CO2 molecules in a cooler part of the atmosphere. The 2nd law states they cannot warm warmer surface molecules, especially molecules that created the warming for the GHGs in the first place.
Read about energy losses.
testing WordPress for neglecting.
nope…neglecting works.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Most of the re-directed energy is coming from CO2 molecules in a cooler part of the atmosphere. The 2nd law states they cannot warm warmer surface molecules, especially molecules that created the warming for the GHGs in the first place.”
Wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Wrong^N where N -> infinity.
But Gordon has no interest in why, only in repeating his lies.
DA…”Wrong”.
But you cannot explain why it’s wrong. I used to feel that way when I was about 6 years old and got frustrated when I could not understand something. Sometimes I’d cry. Is that what you do, jump up and down crying while shouting, “wrong, wrong, wrong”.
It is wrong because you are applying a NET function (2LoT) to a discrete exchange. Energy is always passing between objects, even at the same temperature. HEAT flows from hot to cold, but radiative energy flows both ways.
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/black_body_radiation.htm
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
Sorry barry, you’re still trying to confuse the application of 2LoT.
Why?
You are confused.
barry, why do you fear truth?
g*e*r*a*n says: barry, why do you fear truth?
Now we are getting somewhere. GR and g*e*r*a*n both seem to think they can ignore many decades of science, i.e., truth finding. They are acting just like people who hold on to fundamentalist beliefs, in spite of scientific evidence which refutes their beliefs, such as genetics and Evolution.
So, where is our highly regarded NASA scientist, Dr. Spencer, in this maddening discussion? Nowhere to be found, it seems, unless he is commenting under an alias (or 2)…
E. Swanson claims: “Now we are getting somewhere. GR and g*e*r*a*n both seem to think they can ignore many decades of science, i.e., truth finding.”
Swannie, what “decades of science” do you believe I am ignoring?
I guess swannie won’t be answering, for “decades”.
Hilarious.
I don’t feed the trolls…
swannie, you’ve just proved your words have no value.
You can’t even stand by our own words.
Hilarious.
Gordon Robertson,
As you might have noticed, I do not and will not usually reply to your posts. Hopeless . Useless.
It is sad, you might well be a nice fellow otherwise, but here you relentlessly talk about things you really don’t know anything about. Why keep making a fool of yourself ?
Gordon is the Dunning-Kruger effect in spades.
DA…”Gordon is the Dunning-Kruger effect in spades”.
I am greatly encouraged by the notion that you, gamma, and your alarmist brethern cannot offer rebuttals based on physics but must resort to ad hom attacks. You are not alone, even at the professional level you have company at realclimate, NASA GISS, and the cartoonist at skepticalscience.
When Michael Mann cannot find an answer for Dr. Judith Curry expressing skepticism about AGW, he attacked her with chauvinist insults. In the Climategate emails he was caught interfering with peer review. You alarmists are a load of small-minded twits.
I mean, someone who calls himself a science writer and cannot even begin to understand the distinction between heat and electromagnetic energy is not only deluding himself but all the people he reaches through his writing.
That’s how all this fear-mongering about catastrophic warming/climate change came into being. It was created by fools who confused the rantings of Arrhenius over a century ago with sound principles that had been established before him.
The 2nd law is king in thermodynamics, it’s the very foundation of heat transfer. Yet climate modelers, who count among their peers, astronomers, mathematicians, computer programmers, and sundry folks lacking the basics of physics, have turned the 2nd law into a notion whereby heat can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body as long as there is a mysterious positive net energy flow.
It doesn’t work that way. In real science, we have a scientific method. If heat can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body at the same time heat is being transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body, then prove it.
Clausius proved the 2nd law through following a heat engine meticulously through its different phases, watching the effect of temperature on changing levels of volume and pressure. He concluded the process of heat transfer could not be reversed.
So let’s see you alarmists prove the opposite.
You can’t prove it through consensus and that’s all you alarmist fools are doing. You all agree that it can be done yet not one of you, nor your professional counterparts, can prove it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Gordon Robertson
Everyone has tried to reason with you with actual science on many occasions. Real science does not work with you. If it does not fit your distorted view of reality you go into Conspiracy mode and believe that all science that does not conform to your limited belief system, is intentionally deceptive. With such a mental state there is not a way to reason with you.
What part of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics agrees with you false and made up claim that energy from a cold object can’t be absorbed by a hotter one. Your delusional understanding of the 2nd Law is the only reason you refuse to understand what it is saying.
Heat is a NET energy transfer. Even with conduction energy is moving both ways all the time. A slow molecule will transfer energy to a faster one. It is very established physics and only a lunatic would not be able to understand it.
Here look at this webpage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
Look at the little animations of collisions. The slower moving block transfers its energy to the faster moving block and visa versa. You just don’t know physics and you really do not want to learn the real stuff.
You are in the same camp, mentally, as the extreme alarmists. Neither of the extreme camps use actual science and both seem to have conspiracy thought process over rigorous science. I like the more scientific posters on this blog. People that actually know real science and communicate it. I can learn valuable things from those. From you I can only learn you are stuck in a closed religious mind. Religion being whatever you think reality is, you will reject all real science that does not align with your faith on the topic. You are in a Cult but don’t realize it. So are all the extreme skeptics. Brainwashed by manipulative types. Joe Postma and Claes Johnson are two exmaples. They really don’t care a lick about science, they like the power a Cult leader gives them. You are a sucker to fall for these two crackpot cult personalities. You will never wake up! You like your created dream world far more than reality.
gamma…”It is sad, you might well be a nice fellow otherwise, but here you relentlessly talk about things you really dont know anything about. Why keep making a fool of yourself ?”
You’re about as much a physicist as my dead Granny. Dan exposed you, he was trying to lay out some basic physics for you and all you could do in return was insult him. Any legitimate physicist would have replied with sound scientific reasoning, something that obviously escapes you.
gamma…”As you might have noticed, I do not and will not usually reply to your posts”.
So why don’t you try behaving like the scientist you claim to be and respond with a good scientific rebuttal. Your response to me and Dan reveals you only as an immature kid who cannot stand to be contradicted.
gam,, Read the Wicki thing again. It says PHYSICAL BODY. Your interpretation of that to include gas molelcules is misguided. Radiation from ghg molecules according to HITRAN at near zero altitude and with meaningless lines <0.0001 intensity blocked, is shown here http://i67.tinypic.com/2e2111t.jpg
The 'redirection' is not a result of molecule to molecule radiation. It is a indication of which molecules, all warmed because of thermalization, emit radiation. Water vapor molecules preferentially emit because they can emit photons at lower energy levels as shown by HITRAN. The energy absorbed by CO2 is thermalized. Thermalized energy contains no identity of the molecule that absorbed it.
And so “misguided” are the scientists who apply Planck”s-law to the Sun which is nothing but a gas ( an ionized one called a plasma ).
Hilarious.
And so “misguided” is Roy Spencer who applies it to the measurement of the temperature of O2 in atmosphere, O2 which again is nothing but as gas, a neutral one, this time..
Hilarious.
And so “misguided” am I of course who applied it repeatedly to the temperature measurements of gaseous samples in my synchrotron radiation experiments.
Hilarious.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281495
So funny.
Gam,, As you should know:
The high temperature of the sun causes all gases to radiate
The measurement of earth atmosphere using O2 is not related to Planck’s law.
I know nothing about your synchrotron experiments.
For those people who are interested in real physics and science and don’t want to be fooled by the idiotic and laughable claim that Planck’s law would not apply to thermal emission at a specific frequency from gases.
http://barrettbellamyclimate.com/page47.htm
This is an article who presents the famous Schwarzschild equation of radiation transfer in any medium in particular in gases such as, guess what, in a planetary atmosphere or in a star.
Quantity B is nothing but the Planck function, that according to the hilarious made-up clown physics of the crackpots posting in this blog, would not apply to gases.
More about use of Planck’s law in measurement of atmospheric gas temperature that according to the ridiculous deniers posting here is allegedly “misguided”:
http://images.remss.com/papers/rsstech/2012_011012_Wentz_Version-7_SSMI_Calibration.pdf
This links to a description of the calibration process;
Quote from page 9:
Snow cover in the USA.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00955/c8i15h4kq9z2.png
A C Osborn says:
January 17, 2018 at 7:22 pm
They forgot a few other places that have been having really cold & snow weather problems.
They havent noticed the Cold & Snow in
China
Italian Alps
French Alps
Bangladesh
Morocco
Sahara Desert
Nepal
Spain
India
Pakistan
Greece
Ukraine
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Australia/Tasmania
Afghanistan
Switzerland
Brazil
Denmark
Russia
Bavaria
Turkey
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/thermometer-in-worlds-coldest-village-breaks-as-temperatures-plunge-to-62c/
In Poland today will be a snowstorm from noon until morning the next day.
“They havent noticed the Cold & Snow in”
Who is “they?” What point are you trying to make?
And why are you ignoring all the warm places and only looking at cold?
You’re as bad as “they,” whoever they are.
barry asks: “Who is ‘they?'”
barry, maybe he’s referring to the folks that try to ignore record cold and snow.
Pffft.
In which advanced physics class did you learn that term, barry?
Hilarious.
Gordon Robertson
You are using a flawed version of the 2nd law.
You are thinking “There can be no energy flow from a colder object to a warmer object”
The actual law says “There can be no NET energy flow from a colder object to a warmer object.”
Energy can flow both ways, but when you add and subtract all the flows, the overall flow is always from warmer to cooler.
Try a simple example of two black bodies beside each other. A is warmer than B. Both radiate and absorb photons.
A radiates 100 photons towards B, which are absorbed by B.
B radiates 90 photons towards A, which are absorbed by A.
The net flow is 100-90=10 photons carrying energy from warmer A to cooler B.
Energy flows from A to B and from B to A, but the whole system, A and B, obeys the 2nd law.
A similar simplified thought experiment for the greenhouse effect might look like this.
Without the greenhouse effect 100 photons come in from the Sun. The surface absorbs 100 photons and radiates 100 photons.
Net result, 100 in and 100 out.
Now add the greenhouse effect.
20 photons radiated from the surface are absorbed. 10 are reradiated to space. 10 are reradiated back to the surface and absorbed.
The surface receives 100+10 photons=110 and radiates 110 photons.
Net flow 100 photons in from the Sun, 110-20+10=100 photons out to space.
No extra photons are created, but the surface has 110 photons, not 100, i.e. it is warmer with GHGs than without.
Where did the extra photons come from? When you first add greenhouse gases the system goes out of balance for a while. Fewer photons go out to space, being retained by the surface instead. Balance returns when the surface radiates enough extra photons to balance out the effect of GHGs.
The transition looks like this.(note, the transition usually takes time, and calculus to describe. I have made it instantaneous so that I can use arithmetic.)
100 photons in from Sun.
20 photons radiated from the surface are absorbed. 10 are reradiated to space. 10 are reradiated back to the surface and absorbed.
The surface has not yet warmed so emits 100 photons, then absorbs 100+10=110.
Net flow 100 in, 100-20+10=90 out to space, 10 absorbed by surface.
10 photos which would have been radiated to space have been absorbed by the surface instead.
No new photons magically created, no 2nd law violation.
entropic…”No new photons magically created, no 2nd law violation”.
The violation is in relating photons to the 2nd law. The summation of photons does not satisfy the 2nd law.
The 2nd law is about heat and heat is about atoms, specifically electrons. In solids, valence electrons pass heat energy atoms to atom just as they do electrical charge. Within the atom, heat is represented by the energy levels of the electron. If you heat a body enough, the electrons will jump right out of their atoms.
When a solid is heated, the atoms start to vibrate and the body expands. That’s because the atoms are joined by electrons or charges related to electrons. As the electron becomes hotter, so to speak. it varies in it’s orbit, allow vibration between the electron and the +vely charged nucleus. The work in that vibration, according to Clausius, is equivalent to heat.
Photons only come into play when an electron converts heat as energy level to EM. Or when an electron absorbs a photon of EM. If you try to add them you run into a major issue in that not all photons are absorbed. Sometimes none of them are absorbed. So how do you add them?
Furthermore, electrons cannot absorb photons of EM if the electron is at a higher energy level than a photon can supply. In that case, the photon is ignored.
Net energy flow means nothing, at any time. It’s a bad idea put forward by an alarmist trying to push AGW theory.
Em, you’re making the same mistakes as many. Your assumptions are wrong.
Here are the facts:
1) ALL photons are not ALWAYS absorbed.
2) Not all photons have the same energy.
Now, you may go back and correct your comments.
Your welcome.
3) Photons are NOT conserved.
(I didn’t mention that one because most folks wouldn’t understand.)
g*e*r*a*n on January 18, 2018 at 8:40 AM
ALL photons are not ALWAYS absorbed.
As always, the same response:
Please provide us with a credible, valuable scientific document showing that. Otherwise it keeps no more than your personal opinion.
Bin, you would have to understand quantum physics. But, I can give you some observable “proofs”, that are easily understood.
If ALL photons were ALWAYS absorbed, then your house would burn down.
If ALL photons were ALWAYS absorbed, then you could bake a turkey with ice cubes.
If ALL photons were ALWAYS absorbed, then you wouldn’t need any heat in the winter.
Does that help?
No it doesn’t, and you perfectly know that. Your answer is pure blah blah every high school student would be able to write.
As always, the same response:
Please provide us with a credible, valuable scientific document showing that. Otherwise it keeps no more than your personal opinion.
But I know that you won’t be able to provide us with such a document: simply because it does not exist.
Bin, it is not my job to teach you advanced physics. If you are unwilling to consider the simple examples I presented, then you have demonstrated your unwavering bias.
Your closed mind is your problem, not mine.
Your score for failing to provide any authoritative source for your views is 10/10.
Your score for providing any authoritative source for your view is 0/100.
Because there is none. You cannot teach Bin or anyone else about this because you know nothing about it.
The jig is up, G. You don’t provide reasonable sources for your whacky views because they don’t exist.
And we all know it.
barry, your score for understanding basic laws of physics and thermodynamics is a big “FAIL”.
The jig is up, barry. You refuse to change your beliefs because you are close-minded and uneducated.
And we all know it.
I reckon you’ve been asked about 50 times to provide a credible source for your strange views on physics and the 2LoT.
I’m going to start counting.
Please provide a source demonstrating that warmer objects absorb no radiation from cooler objects.
50 and counting…
The funny thing is, I presented 3 basic facts of quantum physics:
1) ALL photons are not ALWAYS absorbed.
2) Not all photons have the same energy.
3) Photons are NOT conserved.
But, barry, Bin, and Em are all in denial! They believe I need to provide a “credible, valuable scientific document showing that”.
It tells us a lot about their lack of background in physics.
So, I presented 3 real-world examples, to help them understand:
If ALL photons were ALWAYS absorbed, then your house would burn down.
If ALL photons were ALWAYS absorbed, then you could bake a turkey with ice cubes.
If ALL photons were ALWAYS absorbed, then you wouldnt need any heat in the winter.
They just don’t WANT to understand.
Hilarious.
They don’t want to learn. They don’t want to understand.
They just want to promote their false religion: “Please provide a source demonstrating that warmer objects absorb no radiation from cooler objects.”
This is shaping up to be a great year in climate comedy.
51
Well barry, that may not be your funniest comment today, but it’s the shortest.
binny…”Please provide us with a credible, valuable scientific document showing that. Otherwise it keeps no more than your personal opinion”.
There’s plenty of evidence out there. How about reading Neils Bohr on the requirements of absorp-t-ion? He wrote the book on it.
Or you could read on spectral lines related to atomic emission/absorp-tion.
An atom can only absorb EM that meets the requirement of the electrons that do the absorbing. They reside at a certain energy level and require EM of a specific frequency and intensity to get them to the next level. If that energy frequency is not there the atom ignores the EM.
ps. strikes me that you lack the interest, or you’re too lazy, to do the research for yourself.
Do you think I make this stuff up? If you think me or g*r are wrong, then do the research and prove it using scientific evidence. I have spent hundreds of hours studying the masters and it’s ironic that what they have proved is now regarded by many as wrong, and claiming that without the slightest bit of evidence.
You pride yourself on quoting one set of words from Clausius that seems to uphold your alarmist views. Why have you not put the time into understanding the rest if what he proved?
I would think as a German you’d have an interest in how this brilliant German scientist arrived at his conclusions. It’s a joy to read the man, he is one of a few who could describe his work subjectively without asking the reader to follow convoluted math. And he did it based on a very high and remarkable understanding of atomic theory.
The reason I got annoyed at you misquoting him was his inability to understand in his day that heat is not generated through space in rays. Clausius had not a clue about the effect of electrons on the radiation he called heat rays and if he had, he’s would have immediately gotten it. As it stood, he did magnificent work with what he had at hand.
He did know that heat was transmitted through solids from hot to cold and that in the vibration of atoms there was work with a heat equivalent. He coined the U for internal energy and wrote the 1st law as well. Had he known about electrons and their role in EM emission he would never have made the statement you are fond of quoting.
Clausius actually thought that heat flowed through an aether in space. It seems Planck thought the same. He had already noted that heat was the energy of atoms in motion and he must have known that heat could be conducted/convected through air. He just did not get it that infrared radiation did not carry heat as heat.
entropic…”There can be no NET energy flow from a colder object to a warmer object…”
I have read Clausius repeatedly and very closely, there is no NET in his definition of the 2nd law and he refers specifically to heat transfer, not a generic energy. All he said was something to the effect that heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body. He went on to explain that an external compensation of energy is required to reverse the process.
I have explained via Bohr’s theory that electrons emit and absorb EM. That applies equally to molecules as to atoms. An electron emits EM when it falls from a higher energy level to a lower energy level. The relationship is E = hf, where E is the magnitude in eV of the energy level distance, f is the frequency of the emitted EM and h is Planck’s constant.
Admittedly, the EM generation is not always due to such energy transitions. The electron is a negative charge that carries both an electric and magnetic field, when it moves. In molecules, electrons form the bonds of the atoms in the molecule and any molecular vibration causes the electrons to emit EM.
Electrons do the same in conductors, as they move, they emit electromagnetic energy. In computer jargon that’s called EMI, or electromagnetic interference. It all comes from electrons in motion.
Here’s a weakness of the wiki. They describe EMI as being due to induction but fail to point out that induction is a product of electrons moving through a conductor. I fear that modern science is giving way to partial explanations of a phenomenon. A molecule is atoms bonded together by electrons yet when I mention that certain alarmists on this blog flip out.
f is also related to the temperature of the body, the higher the T, the higher the frequency emitted. That’s likely because at higher Ts, the electrons will be vibrating much faster, or orbiting the atom nucleus much faster.
Temperature is a relative measure of heat and heat is directly related to the energy level of the electrons orbiting a nucleus. When an electron drops to a lower energy level the atom cools, albeit in an infinitesimally incremental manner. As it cools it emits EM.
That process cannot be reversed using EM from a cooler body. I imagine it could to a degree if the temperatures of the bodies were really close.
To absorb EM, the EM must be at least the intensity and frequency of the emitted EM and that is not possible with EM from a cooler body.
entropic….”Energy can flow both ways, but when you add and subtract all the flows, the overall flow is always from warmer to cooler”.
Please pay attention to the following, not because I think I’m right, because it’s vital to your understanding of energy that you are missing.
You cannot lump thermal energy in with electromagnetic energy and sum them. Here’s why.
EM can pass through a vacuum. Heat cannot pass through a vacuum because it requires mass. A vacuum is defined as a space with no mass. So how does heat pass through a vacuum as EM if heat cannot pass through a vacuum?
Thermal energy cannot pass through a vacuum but EM can. Don’t just dismiss that, focus on it. There is no heat in EM. When you sum EM fluxes you are not summing heat flow.
By definition, EM is an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field having a specific frequency or range of frequencies. Heat is the energy of atoms in motion. There is no heat in the definition of EM and no EM in the definition of heat.
Two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, rebutted a claim similar to yours by Eli Rabbett, telling him the 2nd law applies only to heat and not to EM.
Please get this notion out of your head….somehow…that you can sum EM and satisfy the 2nd law. EM is not heat and Clausius stated specifically that the 2nd law is about heat transfer.
GR replies to himself, repeating absurdities. There are numerous reports on thermal energy transfer in space, courtesy of NASA. Search “Thermal control” and “multi-layer insulation” for many hits. Here’s a Wikipedia article to consider.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
With multi-layer insulation, energy radiated from a body is returned to that body by reflection. Where’s the difference between that situation and energy absorbed then re-radiated by the intervening body? Both mechanisms add energy to the hotter radiating body, increasing it’s temperature.
swannie, now you don’t understand emissivity, either?
Also, don’t forget to respond to my comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281689
You wouldn’t want people to think you just talk big, but can’t support what you say, would you?
Yet another source corroborates the GPE.
The principle behind MLI is radiation balance. To see why it works, start with a concrete example – 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 from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer.
Standard physics texts and even wikipedia corroborate the GPE. 2LoT is not violated.
So where are the standard physics texts corroborating the ‘alternative facts’ presented by G et al?
Let’s see them.
barry, I know you have stated that you don’t have a background in physics, but this is pathetic.
Do you not understand how that works?
I suggest you draw a sketch on paper. It might save you some embarrassment later.
53
MLI has already been discussed.
And, it was from the same physics text that Postma used to debunk that particular argument, that it was demonstrated that two infinite parallel plates would come to the same temperature at equilibrium. This was agreed here in a previous discussion. However, the argument made against it was that this situation wouldnt apply with a source supplying power to one of the plates. This counter-argument was never backed up by reference to any physics text, though. It seems like a strange argument, given that without a power source anywhere in the picture, the equilibrium temperature that the plates would could come to would be 0 K (or, if in space, about 3K).
But, it seems previous debates are conveniently ignored here when necessary. Then, if anyone brings them up again, they will no doubt be argued through, step by step, from the beginning, as if it had not already been done.
“And, it was from the same physics text that Postma used to debunk that particular argument, that it was demonstrated that two infinite parallel plates would come to the same temperature at equilibrium. This was agreed here in a previous discussion.”
Not agreed at all by anyone here, in fact thoroughly discussed and thoroughly debunked.
It was agreed that this was what the physics text showed. There was a counter-argument made, which was as I outlined.
Postma argued, oddly, that equilibrium and equal temps would be reached WITH the power source applied to one plate. This was debunked.
And the problem was solved by Eli and people here using textbook physics.
Why is it that you are unable to correctly comprehend? Yes, you guys disagreed about the plates being the same temperature at equilibrium. You (and others) made the counter-argument I referred to. All I was doing was referring back to a previous discussion.
It is very misleading to say we agreed with his debunking. We didnt.
“It seems like a strange argument, given that without a power source anywhere in the picture, the equilibrium temperature that the plates would could come to would be 0 K (or, if in space, about 3K).”
Would be strange NOT to get a different result with power applied to one plate.
You raise one valid point, that in equilibrium, all objects come to the temperature of the surroundings (3K).
Clearly in the JP solution, the temperatures of plates are not coming to the temp of the surroundings. Therefore we are NOT in equilibrium in this powered case.
JPs use of ‘equilibrium’ is incorrect.
Nate, I didnt say you agreed with his debunking. My God you are confused.
First, Postmas debunking I was referring to was about MLI. You should know. You talked directly to him at his website.
Second, I mentioned the text-book Postma used for that debunking. Then, I changed the frame of reference to be about two infinite plates rather than MLI. Because we had a *separate* discussion about that (two infinite plates), *here* at Roy Spencers blog, using the same reference (but different pages).
It was agreed in this *separate* discussion that the reference showed, on rearranging the equations, that with Q = 0, T1 = T2. Why it should even be necessary to have to do this in the first place I cannot fathom, but apparently everyone seemed convinced that textbook physics would show two objects being at different temperatures at equilibrium.
So, to get around this, you simply redefine what equilibrium means. Now, when theres a power source, for some (never explained or sourced) reason, two objects are never the same temperature at equilibrium! Yes, you disagreed at the time. No, you never agreed with me, or Postma. Of course not! Stop lying about recorded events, and stop trolling.
Halp,
“I cannot fathom, but apparently everyone seemed convinced that textbook physics would show two objects being at different temperatures at equilibrium.”
No, No, No. ‘different temperatures at equilibrium’ is NOT what people agreed to. Stop trolling and confusing.
In equilibrium, everyone agrees that two objects will come to the same temperature (and = to the surrounding temp)
The powered situation is NOT equilibrium, so it is pointless to rehash equilibrium case.
I gave references to definition of equilibrium. Look it up yourself and tell me what you find.
Youre trolling…no youre trolling…no *youre* trolling…blah blah blah.
Nate, its textbook physics that the two plates will be the same temperature at equilibrium. You want to change the definition of equilibrium, and/or assert that its all somehow different when theres a power source? Prove it!
“Nate, its textbook physics that the two plates will be the same temperature at equilibrium.”
I dont disagree with this and never did. Have you been reading my posts?
This issue is very simple to resolve. Look up anywhere the definition of equilibrium.
Can you find a source that agrees with your definition? Show us one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium
Ok, a quick read and already see a problem for the plates:
“Thermal equilibrium of a body in itself refers to the body when it is isolated. The background is that no heat enters or leaves it, and that it is allowed unlimited time to settle under its own intrinsic characteristics.”
Clearly the plates have heat entering (from sun) and leaving them (to space).
Do you see that they are not in equilibrium?
Keep reading.
Halp,
“The background is that no heat enters or leaves it”
Do the plates satisfy this condition, a key one in your cite, or not?
The main point is this, objects must be isolated from their surroundings. If not, they need to come to equilibrium with the surroundings (space and sun).
Im not sure how to proceed. You dont understand the difference between singular and plural? You dont understand what heat is?
Im still waiting for any evidence from either you or the Wriggler, confirming and explaining your idea about what difference a power source is supposed to make. At this stage I make that 7 diversions. No evidence yet.
“Im not sure how to proceed.”
We were talking about equlibrium and its definition. The fact that when heat is flowing into a system, or out, it is not in equilibrium.
Have we put this issue to bed?
N: Clearly the plates have heat entering (from sun) and leaving them (to space).
J: If a plate had heat entering it, it would be warming up. If a plate had heat leaving it, it would be cooling down. You dont seem to understand what heat is.
And, thats 9 now.
N: The main point is this, objects must be isolated from their surroundings. If not, they need to come to equilibrium with the surroundings (space and sun).
J: The sun is *not* surroundings! You also said:
N: The powered situation is NOT equilibrium, so it is pointless to rehash equilibrium case.
J: So, you are also contradicting yourself here. If the sun (power source) *was* surroundings, then you would be saying in the first quote that an object can reach equilibrium with a power source present, which contradicts the second quote where you say the powered situation is NOT equilibrium.
Your arguments are all over the place Nate. With the way you try to redefine equilibrium, equilibrium could never exist anywhere in reality. There is always a source of power, somewhere.
Halp, when you are willing to go as far as to say the sun is not a heat source, it is obvious that rational discussion is not possible.
When definitions that you found are denied, then its obvious that facts dont matter.
I havent said the sun isnt a heat source. But, if youre happy that youre correct, I guess you have no need to respond further.
P.S: the count is at 10 now.
“N: Clearly the plates have heat entering (from sun) and leaving them (to space).
J: If a plate had heat entering it, it would be warming up. If a plate had heat leaving it, it would be cooling down.”
No other interpretation, Halp, you are claiming the sun, though in clear view of the plates, is not providing heat to them.
According to you, if on a cold winter day, the heated inside of my house reaches a steady temp, then my furnace is no longer providing heat. Yes? Then I may as well it off!
To make this point very very clear:
The sun is at 6000 K. The blue plate is at roughly 250 K.
You are saying there is no heat flow from sun to plate? Yet you have been quoting and using the radiative heat transfer eqn that
would say otherwise. Q ~ T(sun)^4 -T(plate)^4.
You are clearly led by ideology not facts.
Ah, Nate, you replied! How strange.
Allow me to help you understand some of the absolute basics here. The quote that you have isolated and are deliberately over-analysing, out of context (naturally) refers to *a body* (hence my question about whether or not you understood singular vs plural). So, lets consider the blue plate.
Despite what you have said, we do not know what the temperature of the sun is, in E-Lies thought-less experiment. We dont know its 6000 K. All we know is that the blue plate is receiving 400 W/m2. We also know that we are splitting this input by two for the blue plate, so we know that the sun must be at some distance away from the blue plate. With that understood, its safe to assume the sun will be at a higher temperature than 290 K. The further away it is, the higher the temperature the sun must be, to still be providing the blue plate with 400 W/m2. Yes, it could be as high as 6000 K, or even higher. Who knows, E-Lie didnt specify.
Basically, the sun will provide heat to the blue plate up until equilibrium. So, the sun will be providing heat from the point that the blue plate is at 0 K (assuming it is introduced at 0 K) right up until it the blue plate reaches 244 K (its equilibrium temperature, given that the 400 W/m2 is being split by two). Once the blue plate has reached 244 K, the sun is no longer providing heat to the blue plate. It supplies energy, not heat.
This should be obvious to anyone who understands the definition of heat. Hence why I asked if you didnt understand what heat was. There is nothing in that link which contradicts the correct definition of equilibrium. Thats why I linked to it. There is nothing in that link which backs up your (E-Lies) bizarre redefinition of the term.
We are now at 11.
“Once the blue plate has reached 244 K, the sun is no longer providing heat to the blue plate.”
The radiative heat transfer equation describes the flow of HEAT between objects at different temperatures, Halp. So your statement is absolutely FALSE.
This what you and your ilk do. Caught in an error, you can never admit it. So you dig yourself deeper and deeper into a death spiral of denial.
In order to deny your misunderstanding of equilibrium, you have to deny that the sun supplies heat. To justify that weird idea, you have to deny the validity of the radiative HEAT transfer equation. Whats next? Heat does not exist?
Ordinarily I wouldnt get so hung up on what things are called, energy or heat. But in this case it matters. Because the definition of equilibrium involves heat.
And the fraud JP and you have relied on a false definition of equilibrium to find the incorrect solution to the plates.
Nate, I dont deny that the sun supplies heat. I just explained.
12 evasions now. Look, E-Lie invented this idea that equilibrium is not possible with a power source present. His followers have backed that up all the way, apparently without checking anywhere if thats correct. They just blindly accepted it, because he said it. How about you find and present some evidence that this idea is correct? You will have to do better than deliberately misrepresenting one paragraph from the Wiki page of the correct definition.
Halp, you are redefining heat, in order to justify your other wrong ideas. If heat is only heat when it produces a certain result, then many things in thermo are misuderstood: water boiling, heat engines and work, etc.
Temp rise is only one possible outcome of heat transfer. There are others.
Im not redefining heat. I leave that to you guys.
13
H: “Once the blue plate has reached 244 K, the sun is no longer providing heat to the blue plate. It supplies energy, not heat.”
H:”Im not redefining heat”
Go explain it to your grandmother. See if she agrees.
When your grandmother is heating water on the stove, you can explain to her that once the water reaches 212 F, the stove is no longer providing heat to the boiling water. See how she feels about that.
14.
Well actually, 15, I guess. Two additional comments.
H: Once the blue plate has reached 244 K, the sun is no longer providing heat to the blue plate. It supplies energy, not heat.
“Heat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about a mode of transfer of energy. For other uses, see Heat (disambiguation).
Heat is the amount of energy that transfers from a warmer object to a cooler one.”
H:Im not redefining heat
What are you having trouble understanding? How can I help?
16.
Halp,
I think your the one that needs help facing the reality that you’ve made mistakes, and that its possible to learn from them.
See if this helps:
If a body is warming up, the energy supplied to it is acting as heat.
If a body is cooling down, the energy leaving it is heat.
If a body is at equilibrium, it is therefore neither receiving, nor emitting energy as heat (yes, it is receiving and emitting energy, but *not* heat).
Pretty much as explained in the paragraph you intentionally misrepresented.
17.
Halp, if you are not prepared to accept and use the standard science definitions of heat and equilibrium, but instead insist on making up your own definitions, then there is no way to have a rational discussion. Have fun with your made up reality.
Nate, Im sorry E-Lie has convinced you that the definitions of heat, and equilibrium, are something other than what they are. Clearly you have no evidence, as were at 18 evasions now. Your last comment made it seem as though you wouldnt respond further. I think you will, though. This could be your first ever opportunity to actually prove me wrong on something! Id love it if you did.
P.S: this
N: If heat is only heat when it produces a certain result, then many things in thermo are misuderstood: water boiling, heat engines and work, etc.
J: is of course a non-sequitur.
P.P.S: as are your remarks re the radiative heat transfer equation.
e. swanson…”Search Thermal control and multi-layer insulation”
I have already mentioned that in another post about insulation in a home. We also discussed the sweater issue. Normal insulation in a home is not designed to stop radiation, which goes straight through. You might ask then why thermal insulation designed to slow down conduction is so effective. If the interior of a house is cooled significantly by radiation, why are people not rushing to install IR reflectors?
It’s because IR is not an effective means of cooling. I have no argument against the EM/IR reflecting materials you mention and some homes employ them. What does that have to do with the 2nd law and the fact heat cannot be transferred on its own from cold to hot?
In space, the outside walls of the spacecraft could be at absolute zero. There won’t be any loss of heat due to direct conduction because there are no atoms in such a vacuum to receive the conducted heat. There is no convection either. However, such a temperature differential is an ideal situation for radiation.
I would imagine that all spacecraft heat loss is due to radiation. What better way to conserve thermal energy than to reflect the radiation back to the spacecraft? I think it’s a rather ingenious idea.
Please don’t confuse that with what we were talking about regarding a cooler surface warming a hotter surface. That’s not the case here, the reflecting material is at the same temperature as the skin of the spacecraft. All they are doing is conserving thermal energy by directly slowing down the loss of radiation from the skin. The reflected energy is not warming the skin.
You have tried to prove that placing a cooler sheet of metal a few inches away from a hotter piece of metal will back-radiate IR to the hotter plate and warm it. That is not what is going on with the spacecraft.
GR fails again. The IR emissions from the “skin” is a function of the surface temperature. You claim the skin temperature would be absolute zero, which is impossible as the cosmic background radiation is about 2.8K. In any event at such low temperatures, there would be no IR emissions from the surface. Adding multiple reflective layers provides back radiation, which boosts the surface temperature compared to your “skin” temperature. Only the outermost layer is very cold. Do you think NASA is really as stupid as you suggest?
Do try to read the Wiki article and take note of the math.
swannie, do you not understand “emissivity”? Do you not understand a “space blanket” is specifically engineered with the exact emissivity to reflect IR? Do you actually believe a “space blanket” is relevant to the atmosphere?
How incompetent are you trying to appear?
Oh, and don’t forget to respond to:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281689
It’s almost as if you’re trying to run from your own statements.
Sorry, at the time I was writing my last comment, it was 7. Now my comment has posted, I see you have made another one. So thats 8 now.
entropic…” Try a simple example of two black bodies beside each other. A is warmer than B. Both radiate and absorb photons.
A radiates 100 photons towards B, which are absorbed by B.
B radiates 90 photons towards A, which are absorbed by A”.
**************
You have to be seriously careful when applying blackbody theory for the simple reason there is no such thing as the absorber/emitter you describe. Planck defined the BB as a sphere that will absorb all energy incident upon it. However, he stipulated that a small hole would be drilled in it to allow radiation to escape.
Unlike what many claim, a BB does not emit all energy. It emits only a restricted range of frequencies of EM. There is a cutoff frequency above which the BB will not radiate energy.
You could liken the Earth to a BB in the sense it absorbs all energy from the Sun but only radiates a restricted band of IR frequencies at a much lower amplitude. By the same token, how can you rate the Sun as a BB? What does it absorb?
You just can’t reduce physics to a thought experiment where one BB is shooting out photons like peas at another BB. Photons are defined as having a specific frequency. How can a particle have a frequency and how can one exist as an individual particle?
entropic…” Without the greenhouse effect 100 photons come in from the Sun. The surface absorbs 100 photons and radiates 100 photons.
Net result, 100 in and 100 out.
Now add the greenhouse effect.
20 photons radiated from the surface are absorbed. 10 are reradiated to space. 10 are reradiated back to the surface and absorbed”.
************
Why and how are the photons absorbed and emitted? You are bypassing an entire range of theory, presuming any photon can be absorbed by any mass.
How did you arrive at that notion? Have you read Bohr, or any other books on atomic theory?
Put simply, you cannot add photons and claim it is heat. In essence, within an atom, photons play no part in heat level or temperature. Electrons do that and they obey certain quantum laws.
“Gish gallop is a term for a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming one’s opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.”
It is a term often used by pseudoscience types that can’t understand the actual facts.
snape…”Gish gallop is a term for a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming ones opponent with as many arguments as possible…”
This is no gish gallop it’s simply a process of one person have been trained in the field passing the information on. However, those receiving the information, unable to comprehend it, prefer to ad hom than look it up and verify its accuracy.
That won’t work either if those doing the research are determined to prove it wrong, coming back with a gish gallop.
G*e*r*a*n
Note “simplified thought experiment”.
I am not attempting a detailed description of the greenhouse effect, just enough to illustrate to Gordon Robertson that it obeys the 2nd law.
Note: “Pseudoscience”.
The point is the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE DOES violate 2LoT.
G*e*r*a*n
Easy to say, but where is your evidence?
Let’s see your numbers.
???
Em, the oceans are not boiling.
Entropic man, there is no chance to see any number, any equation nor any link to a paper coming from that person.
I fear not.
Bin and Em, where’s your evidence that ALL photons are ALWAYS absorbed?
And no, an imaginary black body is not evidence.
Hilarious.
Entropic man on January 18, 2018 at 9:16 AM
… just enough to illustrate to Gordon Robertson that it obeys the 2nd law.
And it is (nearly) correct.
What is a bit incorrect here is that those IR photons emitted by the surface in response to solar radiation and absorbed by trace gas molecules (H2O, CO2 etc) will not all reach space or the surface directly either.
They will again be absorbed by other such molecules which reemit them the like in all directions.
But all in all: the only really interesting thing here is that not all IR emitted by the surface will reach outer space. So the surface will have to warm a bit in order to reestablish the equilibrium at TOA.
Bin believes: “So the surface will have to warm a bit in order to reestablish the equilibrium at TOA.”
Bin, the atmosphere is constantly adjusting the equilibrium. It is different in different parts of the atmosphere. Some people call it weather. It is never in exact equilibrium. It is always moving, changing, adjusting, etc.
You want to be able to “model” it so that you can prove AGW. You won’t admit that, but that’s what you are attempting.
But, I am here to save you from yourself.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“???
Em, the oceans are not boiling.”
Similar idiot logic:
G: If there was a greenhouse effect, the oceans would be full of unicorns.
Entropic Man: where is the evidence that supports such a stupid claim?
g*: ??? Em, the oceans are not full of unicorns.
g*: Not all photons are absorbed. If they were, I would be the smartest man in the world.
Entropic Man: Again, what evidence do you have?
g*: Em, I’m dumb as a post.
Continued….
Bin: We all know you’re stupid, but what does that have to do with photons being absorbed?
g*: To understand, Bin, you would need to study quantum physics. Clearly you haven’t.
Bin: I don’t understand how there could be a connection between quantum physics and your intelligence (or lack thereof)?
g*: Bin demonstrates his ignorance. Hilarious!
Snape, you forgot to mention his major contribution:
But, I am here to save you from yourself.
Reminds me James at the end of ‘Dinner for one’:
I’ll do my very best!
Bin
I had to look up “dinner for one” on Wikipedia to get the joke. Looks funny.
This is going to be a GREAT year in climate comedy!
The troposphere is dense enough to equalize the energy of molecules as a result of direct collision.
And, it is a two-way street. CO2 passes its intercepted energy to neighboring atmospheric molecules, and those molecules pass their heat energy to the CO2 to be radiated away. The state of convective overturning is key to the ultimate outcome.
bart…”And, it is a two-way street. CO2 passes its intercepted energy to neighboring atmospheric molecules, and those molecules pass their heat energy to the CO2 to be radiated away”.
You do realize that ALL CO2 makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere? With nitrogen and oxygen accounting for 99%, could you explain exactly how that works? You are claiming essentially that 1 particle in 2500 can heat all the rest and act as a heat sink for all the rest. How does that work, especially if CO2 is at the same temperature as the rest?
N2/O2 can pick up heat directly from the surface, they don’t need CO2 for that. Furthermore, all atoms radiate energy and N2/O2 can get rid of theirs as well.
ren pointed out that collisions play a big part, especially at lower altitudes where the air is denser. As hot air rises, it also becomes less dense and will cool naturally due to less collisions.
The atmosphere is a highly complex place and AGW has done us no favours by reducing it to kindergarten level. Wood, an expert in IR radiation, has claimed he doubts if radiation plays a significant role in warming the atmosphere. He made the observation that atmospheric heat is likely picked up directly from the surface and convected into the atmosphere.
He added that due to the poor radiating power of gases, the heat will tend to be retained. That makes far more sense than the AGW theory or the GHE.
Bindidon January 18, 2018 at 9:32 AM
“But all in all: the only really interesting thing here is that not all IR emitted by the surface will reach outer space. So the surface will have to warm a bit in order to reestablish the equilibrium at TOA.”
Not necessarily. There are other avenues for heat dissipation from the surface, and there are responses in cloud cover and other temperature related variables.
binny…”So the surface will have to warm a bit in order to reestablish the equilibrium at TOA”.
Why??? What does surface emission have to do with the TOA? The only thing governing surface emission is the temperature of the air adjacent to the surface.
Balancing the incoming/outgoing energy is not a matter of Mother Nature calculating ins and outs, it’s done automatically via different processes. We humans are a strange lot, some of us actually think energy balance is based on a human mathematical law.
Energy balance has to do with atomic structure. It has to do with quantum levels in atoms at which electrons live. When they move from a higher energy level to a lower level they emit EM. If they encounter the right kind of EM, they absorb it and move to a higher level.
Even in molecules (this drives DA nuts) electrons rule. Of course, the proton is equally important in the nucleus because its offsetting +ve charge works with the -ve electron charge. However, electrons are free to move, and in the movement as an electrical charge they carry an electric field and generate a magnetic field.
The electrons in molecules generate all the EM…electric field/magnetic field…electromagnetic energy. Doesn’t anyone get that? Do you seriously think it’s a coincidence that a particle with an electric/magnetic field generates EM?
Whenever that electron moves it generates EM. Whenever it gains energy it adjusts the vibration in the atom. A rotating molecule is the very thing an electron needs to generate EM. All molecular emission/absorp-tion is due to electrons.
Electrons don’t care about a TOA and if we humans insist on getting hung up on our mental models without understanding what they are based on, we will produce garbage science like AGW. The notion of GHGs in the atmosphere acting like a heat trapping blanket, or a mechanism to slow down surface radiation is garbage science. The notion of back-radiation acting outside the bounds of the 2nd law is also garbage science.
binny…”What is a bit incorrect here is that those IR photons emitted by the surface in response to solar radiation and absorbed by trace gas molecules (H2O, CO2 etc) will not all reach space or the surface directly either”.
I have asked you alarmists to calculate how much of the immense surface radiation is absorbed by GHGs. When converted to a heat equivalent in the GHGs, that should tell us how much of the surface EM is being back-radiated.
Even at that, you have not explained how heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it. You cannot do that photon by photon as entropic has claimed, first you need to explain the mechanism by which a photon from a colder source can be absorbed by a warmer body. That old 2nd law again.
No one has ever done that, not NOAA, NASA GISS, Had-crut, or anyone. Rather, they have put forward an opinion based on consensus as to how much GHGs are warming the atmosphere and the surface.
I have given you guys a very rough estimate, based on the Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law, as to how much heat all CO2 should contribute to the atmosphere. Based on it’s mass, it’s contribution should be no more than about 0.04C.
UAH satellite data is reflecting that. There seems to be little or no CO2 warming, most of it coming from major El Nino’s. Even Trenberth admitted in the Climategate emails circa 2009 that he could not find the warming.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Even Trenberth admitted in the Climategate emails circa 2009 that he could not find the warming.”
That’s a lie.
Trenberth has stated: “It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_E._Trenberth#Short_term_climate_variability
The current temperature in the US.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00955/ti2qd7cpy7zz.png
E. Swanson on January 17, 2018 at 2:35 PM and January 18, 2018 at 9:46 AM
Sounds pretty good. It seems that you don’t get confused so quickly by people lacking any scientific understanding of the matter.
An interesting document:
Wood’s 1909 greenhouse experiment, performed more carefully
Vaughan R. Pratt
Stanford University
http://clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/
In the paper, Pratt pretty good explains
– how superficial and inexact Wood had been in 1909, both while conducting his experiment and while writing his resumee about it;
– where the flaws could be detected in Wood’s experiment.
What dumb skeptics intentionally dissimulate since decades:
– his paper was no more than 1 1/2 pages long;
– he concluded it himself with a pretty blue-eyed disclaimer:
“I do not pretend to have gone very deeply into the matter…”
Cela explique tout. Hilarious pseudoscience, some would say.
A hint you may find in Pratt’s paper is this:
clim.stanford.edu/WoodExpt/AbbotReplyToWood.pdf
Not everybody knows of him.
binny…”Vaughan R. Pratt…Stanford University…”
rebuttal by Nahle…Pratt is a mathematician and an alarmist.
http://climaterealists.com/?id=8073
“Put simply, one of the aforementioned professors has their reputation perilously on the line and Nahle is gunning for an explanation from his U.S. Rival. A clue to the outcome: Pratt isn’t even qualified in science – he’s a (warmist) mathematician specializing in computers”.
When I read Nahle’s reconstruction of the Wood experiment he mentioned Pratt. He claimed Platt allowed water vapour to foul his experiment.
Should we now be calling WV a pollutant?
As it stands, the no greenhouse theory is upheld by two scientists to one mathematician. I should point out that Wood was a seriously eminent expert on infrared. Neils Bohr once consulted him for his expertise on emissions from sodium vapour. Nahle runs a very tight ship when he conducts an experiment.
Both NOAA and NASA confirm the continuation of #GlobalWarming with NASA ranking 2017 second warmest and NOAA ranking 2017 third warmest as did the Japan Meteorological Agency. The differences between the data sets are quite small. More importantly 17 of the 18 warmest years since modern record keeping began have occurred since the 21st century started.
https://nyti.ms/2Dgq1Dv
Ah those pesky data sets all seem to be in a conspiracy to confirm global warming.
Saying it is warmest towards the end of a warming period is about as profound as saying 1700 was coldest at the end of a cooling period.
The mistake is believing climate change has anything significant to do with CO2 and ignoring the rising risk of the tragedy from precipitation related flooding resulting from increasing water vapor.
The influence of CO2 on climate is utterly obvious:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif
Is that the 88th or 89th time you’ve tried that scam, davie?
Unless you understand thermalization and what that graph is demonstrating.
Yes, this indeed an excellent graph. The relevant data actually demonstrate without any ambiguity the GHE.
Of course to interpret it and understand its meaning one must have a good background in real as opposed to made-up physics.
What’s definitely not the case at all of the crackpots here like GR, G, DP etc etc.
Hilarious.
gummycrud, that graph is NOT “excellent”! Climate clowns keep trying to use it to promote their false religion. And, as you did here, they always try to appear as if they “have a good background in real, as opposed to made-up, physics”.
So, here’s your chance to demonstrate your “good background”.
The graph claims to be the “spectral flux” leaving the planet. What is wrong with the graph?
(Please, not help from the audience. This question is for gummy or davie.)
Hi g*e*r*a*n,
“(Please, not help from the audience. This question is for gummy or davie.)”
Ok, got it… You just want to have fun by yourself.
; – )
Hi Massimo.
Yes, it’s going to be a fun year in climate comedy.
DP does not even remotely belong in the same bin as GR and G. And, the graph confirms a global (in a mathematical sense) GHE, but it does not confirm significantly positive incremental sensitivity of surface temperature to CO2 concentration.
Well, it’s been more that 3 hours and gummy hasn’t responded. I guess he can’t find his “good background”!
Hilarious.
davie keeps using the link to “prove” the GHE. gummy believes it is an “excellent graph”.
There are several things wrong with using that graph as “proof” of the GHE.
1) The graph identifies itself as a “spectral flux”. But, it is NOT Earth’s spectral flux.
2) The spectrum leaving the Earth, even if it were correct, would prove NOTHING about the GHE.
Yes, there are more things wrong, but either of those shuts down their pseudoscience.
Well Grumpy, be patient, actually we quite agree, this is indeed hilarious.
What’s particularly hilarious is that one wonders how you or any of the other amusing morons blabbering in this blog might ever tell what might be wrong or right with the NASA graph.
Since neither you nor any of the other amusing morons don’t know anything about physics.
No trouble with this. One may perfectly well make a living without knowing anything about physics.
Even the monkeys in Congo tropical forest make a living and they are quite happy with it.
Hilarious !
gummy finally returns, rambling like an inebriated toddler. And, disappointingly, he forgot to perpetrate any pseudoscience.
Maybe next time. ..
Indeed, Dan. Saying a warming trend is proof of the influence of CO2 is like saying the Earth rumbling is proof of the displeasure of the gods. Time to sacrifice a virgin to the volcano.
Sheep are easily startled, and post hoc ergo propter hoc gets them every time.
Rising atmospheric CO2 (whatever the cause) is neither a necessary condition for the GAT to rise, nor a sufficient condition for the GAT to rise more than ~1C per doubling of concentration.
mark…”Both NOAA and NASA confirm the continuation of #GlobalWarming with NASA ranking 2017 second warmest and NOAA ranking 2017 third warmest…”
Did you check the confidence levels? NOAA declared 2014 the warmest year based on a 48% confidence level and GISS has been known to use CLs in the 30 percentile range.
Now why would someone use such low CLs? Hmmmm???
How many times can you get thing wrong, Gordon?
The 48% is a probability estimate, not a confidence level.
Your ignorance really is shocking.
38%, for NASA.
Actual “probability estimate”, 0.001%
Hilarious.
Actual “probability estimate”, 0.001%
Please show your calculations for that.
Sure barry.
1/100,000 = 0.00001
Converting to percent –>0.001%
Glad to help.
(If you get time, would you mind showing the calculations for the bogus NOAA and NASA figures, also. Thanks mucho.)
Your calculations are not based on the data. Surprise surprise.
I used “adjusted” data.
You got a problem with that?
You double down on the BS. Surprise surprise.
You don’t like “adjusted data” all of a sudden?
And, please don’t forget the calculations for the bogus NOAA and NASA figures. Hopefully, there won’t be any “adjusted data” there. ..
☺
Trebling down on the BS. Yes, it’s funny, but not in the way you intend.
NOAA and NASA calculations?
You don’t have them?
Surprise, surprise.
You provide a credible source that a black body cannot absorb radiation from a cooler black body, and I’ll provide a link to the methodology for calculating the probability of warmest years. I know NOAA at least have published this. Show your source/s and I’ll return the courtesy. If not, you’ll have to google it for yourself.
One-way street, huh?
55
One way street? This is a reciprocal deal.
Unless….
Are you admitting there is no standard physics text to back up your notion that warmer bodies generally cannot absorb radiation from cooler bodies?
If so, then yes it’s a one way street because you have no goods to trade.
I have what you requested standing by on another tab. As this is a reciprocal offer, pony up and then I will.
barry tries his debate tricks, again: “Are you admitting there is no standard physics text to back up your notion that warmer bodies generally cannot absorb radiation from cooler bodies?”
No barry, what I am admitting is that you don’t understand 2LoT. It’s explained in all standard physics texts, but you just can’t understand it, and don’t want to.
Now then, where are the bogus NOAA/NASA calculations. I already gave you my adjusted, estimated, massaged, re-calibrated, synchronized, pasteurized, manipulated, whimsical calculations.
I want to see the same from NOAA/NASA.
I love climate comedy.
57
Your position has become very shifty. First it was that warmer objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler objects. Now they can.
Let’s be specific – you said a black body cannot absorb radiation from a cooler black body.
As soon as you present a credible physics text verifying that, I will post what I promised to post.
While you refuse to corroborate as requested, you will get nothing.
I feel sorry for you – every physics text you look for that comments on black bodies on this matter will tell you that black bodies absorb all incident radiation. None will say it is temperature dependent. This is basic stuff, and that you get it so totally wrong is telling. I feel no joy about that. It’s sad.
But I’ll keep my promise when you pony up. I’ll also do it if link to a credible physics text that doesn’t corroborate what you’re saying, and also if you admit that you were wrong.
If you don’t provide such a reference, google is available to you to find the paper on how NOAA worked out the probability estimates for warmest year from their data. Good on you for being curious about it.
barry: “Your position has become very shifty. First it was that warmer objects can’t absorb radiation from cooler objects. Now they can.”
g: No barry. Study my comments carefully. Do not let your imagination fool you.
barry: “Lets be specific you said a black body cannot absorb radiation from a cooler black body. As soon as you present a credible physics text verifying that, I will post what I promised to post.”
g: It’s called 2LoT. Even wiki gets it mostly correct.
barry: “I feel sorry for you every physics text you look for that comments on black bodies on this matter will tell you that black bodies absorb all incident radiation. None will say it is temperature dependent. This is basic stuff, and that you get it so totally wrong is telling. I feel no joy about that. Its sad.”
g: barry, do those texts also emphasize a black body is an imaginary concept? You keep wanting “imaginary” to be “real”. It’s kind of like a child and Santa Claus. 2LoT is REAL. I win every time someone tries to get around it. So don’t feel sorry for me.
G* has been asked to provide support for this claim about black bodies many times by me and by Norman, as well as others.
He is clearly unable to provide it, though it ought to be fairly easy. He has used many strategies to avoid it.
‘You just dont understand!’ Sounds like my teenager
‘2LOT, 2LOT, 2LOT !’ reminds me of ‘The second amendment!’
‘BB are not real’ Doesnt him you from using and abusing them.
Saying the magic words to make us disappear: ‘pseudoscience’ ‘hilarious’ ‘climate comedy’
I wish he would get some new words, maybe from an SAT study guide.
barry: “Lets be specific you said a black body cannot absorb radiation from a cooler black body. As soon as you present a credible physics text verifying that, I will post what I promised to post.”
g: “Its called 2LoT. Even wiki gets it mostly correct.”
The 2nd Law does not in any way prohibit warmer bodies receiving radiation from cooler bodies. It only states that the NET transfer must be hot to cold. Classic thermodynamics ONLY deals with macroscopic systems and beginning and end states. It has nothing to say about discrete energy exchanges, which are continuous throughout the universe.
You mentioned wiki. Here is the description of a black body.
“A blackbody is an object that absorbs all radiation (visible light, infrared light, ultraviolet light, etc.) that falls on it.”
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbody_radiation
You claimed that a black body cannot absorb radiation from a cooler body. You are wrong. This is your invented physics.
I don’t know why you need to harp on about black bodies being theoretical constructs, pretending that I think they are real objects. Is this a debate tactic? It’s pretty lame.
Please provide a credible physics text that says the opposite of the wiki description of a black body, in line with your view that they cannot absorb radiation from cooler bodies.
You are up to 59 refusals to do so.
I’ll be a good sport. Even though you haven’t once provided any references for your specific views on radiation transfer from cooler to hotter bodies, here is the paper on how the probabilities of warmest temps are calculated for NOAA.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057999/full
Referenced in their methodology page on 2014 temps.
https://tinyurl.com/y9ue4ksu
Is this a 2-way street, G?
barry, you remain confused, yet you boast about it!
It’s fun to watch.
What you will have to do is admit a black body is NOT real. It is imaginary, somewhat like Nate’s imaginary “advanced physics”. It’s NOT real-world.
So, once you understand that a black body is NOT real, then you can understand that you can NOT it to violate 2LoT.
Does that clear things up?
Also barry, thanks for the link to the NOAA “calculations”. It was even funnier than I had expected.
I wonder what the probability of finding a temperature record that revealed different results. For example, one location that had records for over 100 years that showed declining temps. Then, I wonder the probability of finding two, three, etc.
Hilarious.
G*,
When i explain something to many people, and nobody understands it, it is very likely I havent explained it well. Its on me.
Thats where we are with with your black body (or grey body) arguments. Nobody here understands your argument. That’s on you.
You have neither explained it well, nor provided any evidence to support it.
Like Trump saying he ‘is the least racist person we will ever meet’, continuing to assert something you cannot explain or support just becomes a joke.
Nate, in your particular case, there is no evidence you WANT to understand. I have tried several time to educate you, but you run in different directions. Instead of trying to understand, your effort is to try to confuse the issue.
Here’s a perfect example:
A black body is an imaginary concept.
Do you understand?
G*, you need to support your assertions with actual facts or evidence. If you can’t, they are not going to be believed by anyone.
G*, A black body is a useful concept, used even by you. Saying they are imaginary does not support statements you have made about their properties.
You have said warm black bodies cannot absorb radiation from cold ones. Said the same about grey bodies.
Either it is supportable or not. If not, stop saying it. Simple as that.
Nate, in your particular case, there is no evidence you WANT to understand. I have tried several times to educate you, but you run in different directions. Instead of trying to understand, your effort is to try to confuse the issue.
Thanks for proving me right Nate, AGAIN.
‘I have tried several times to educate you’
When i understand real physics why would I want to learn fake physics? Why is this such a difficult concept?
Nate, you don’t want to learn.
That’s your problem, not mine.
A black body is an imaginary concept.
Learn it, love it, live it.
60
What you will have to do is admit a black body is NOT real. It is imaginary, somewhat like Nates imaginary “advanced physics’. Its NOT real-world.
So, once you understand that a black body is NOT real, then you can understand that you can NOT it to violate 2LoT.
Does that clear things up?
This is hilarious.
Pretending I’m not aware that a black body is a theoretical construct is the weakest debate tactic I’ve seen for a while. It’s adolescent.
While you’ve been happy to apply a black body in your GPE comments – you even have a graphic with your name on it showing them radiating to each other – you do not know how they function. By definition they absorb all radiation incident on them.
When called on that, you then disown black bodies, making much of the fact that they are theoretical to divert attention from your misconception of how they function. The blue plate in your set up is not a black body, because it reflects radiation. Black bodies do not reflect. By definition.
Given umpteen chances to corroborate your views on the matter, you are incapable. Because there is no corroboration.
It’s blatantly obvious you are talking through your arse. It’s been worth trying to pin you down, as it has further exposed your BS. I’m satisfied that you have nothing of insight or value to add.
Mr Shapiro’s comment is best confirmed using a comparison of JMA, NOAA, GISS and Had-CRUT4.6:
http://4GP.ME/bbtc/1516304880992.jpg
JMA has my preference: it shows cooler anomalies, especially since 1979. See the OLS trends for 1979-2017 in C / decade:
– JMA: 0.14
– Had-CRUT: 0.17
– GISS: 0.17
– NOAA: 0.17
The reason for this ‘cooler’ behavior is evident: JMA performs less interpolation in Arctic & Antarctic, what every ‘good’ skeptic considers perfectly correct, isn’t it?
In comparison, UAH6.0 shows 0.13 C / decade. But… the troposphere isn’t the surface.
I omitted to mention a detail. JMA’s ranking list is
1st. 2016(+0.45 C), 2nd. 2015(+0.42 C), 3rd. 2017(+0.39 C), 4th. 2014(+0.27 C), 5th. 1998(+0.22 C)
Bindidon says:
JMA has my preference
And you base that solely on their numbers (the ones you prefer), and not their ideology….
By the way, it’s “JMO” not “JMA.”
Such comments, Appell, discredit what you arrogantly pretend to defend. You are a specialist of such nonsense.
I propose this:
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/jmo
JMA
http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/indexe.html
binny…”Mr Shapiros comment is best confirmed using a comparison of JMA, NOAA, GISS and Had-CRUT4.6:…”
All the cheaters, in other words.
The best cheater and manipulator visible here: that’s undoubtedly the Robertson troll.
Robertson knows absolutely nothing about JMA. And yet he calls them “cheaters.” Intellectual integrity = 0.
davie tells us it is not “JMA”, it’s “JMO”.
Hilarious.
Bin and barry, you clowns should open an ice cream factory!
Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: study
–That “known unknown” is called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), and for the last 25 years the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the ultimate authority on climate science — has settled on a range of 1.5 C to 4.5 C (2.7 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit).
Cox and colleagues, using a new methodology, have come up with a far narrower range: 2.2 C to 3.4 C, with a best estimate of 2.8 C (5 F).-
https://www.afp.com/en/news/2265/worst-case-global-warming-scenarios-not-credible-study-doc-wx0de1
So doubling of CO2, as in going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm
if this happens before 2100 causes 2.2 to 3.4 C.
Or since already increase temperatures from the Little Ice age period [when CO2 levels were apparently around 280 ppm] by about 1 C, that increase from doubling CO2 to today’s temperature is about 1.2 to 3.4 and best guess is 1.8 C increase.
Linked from:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/26041/new-study-just-threw-cold-water-worst-case-global-james-barrett
Where Richard Lindzen discusses scientists which believe CO2
in main driver and people like himself who think CO2 is only partly responsible for some warming. And another larger group of political activists.
The latter third group [the know nothing, idiots which use global warming for political purpose- ie Al Gore and other famous pols. Or includes the unfortunately misinformed Stephen Hawking who apparently imagines Earth could get hot like Venus.
Anyways the skeptics tend to not think CO2 has as much warming affects from CO2.
I tend to think if CO2 were to get to about 600 ppm that the warming effect is at most 1 C [less than 1.2 or 3.4 C] and I tend to think it’s probably around .5 C due to doubling CO2.
I also seems to me unlikely that by 2100 CO2 will be as high 600 ppm.
But sort of agree with:
As MIT atmospheric physician Richard Lindzen explains in the video below, all the variables, or “known unknowns,” make accurate predictions about the climate “impossible” a reality the IPCC admitted in its 2007 report, which stated, “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Here’s Lindzen discussing the science (and politics) behind climate change models”
Predicting anything 82 years in the future is also near impossible. And if picked say 2050 it’s has more possible of being somewhat close.
for example by 2050, China will probably have emitted the most CO2 of all countries “from beginning of time” and probably have long past it’s “Peak Coal” whereas other large countries and with large amount of coal deposits will have not done so. So I think China can burn the most coal and be the greatest emitter of CO2 for next 30 years.
So China will do what France and England already did- use up most of it’s available coal. And US and Russia will not. Mainly because either of them have better sources of energy available. And big question about China is when to get the skill and capability to mine oil. Probably there vast amount of oil in china which can fracked. And one also has minable oil in the ocean. And big question about methane hydrate mining of ocean {vast resource which no one knows how to mine].
And the Dailywire was linked from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
gbaikie…”Where Richard Lindzen discusses scientists which believe CO2 in main driver and people like himself who think CO2 is only partly responsible for some warming”.
Lindzen suggested an upper bounds to warming of 0.4C/century.
Page 7….
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf
UAH has more than that since 1979.
Svante, what year will the oceans start boiling?
Within a billion years.
Although I think our descendants will fix that, just like we will fix global warming.
Hilarious.
Yes, that was one wild statement, and one quite likely.
The next tropical storm will hit North Australia.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Test
Gordon Robertson
“Heat is work and work is heat”
Energy (defined as the capacity for doing work) is convertable between forms. Thus heat in a material can be emitted by converting it to EM photons. These can travel through a vacuum, be absorbed by another material and the energy they carried converted back to heat.
It is quite possible for a photon to be emitted from a cooler object, traverse the vacuum and be absorbed by a warmer object. Each stage is a separate process allowed by the laws of physics. Together they transfer a measurable amount of energy from a cooler object to a warmer object.
Considering just this subset of the system it might be interpreted as violating the 2nd law.
However, when you consider the whole system the 2nd law is obeyed. More photons are emitted by the warmer object, so overall more energy flows towards the cooler object.
Your mistake is to expect every subset within the system to obey the 2nd law. Talk to any modern physicist and they will tell you that the 2nd law applies to energy, not just heat, and that it applies to the whole system, not just subsets.
By your interpretation a refrigerator is impossible because it pumps heat from a low temperature inside the fridge to a warmer kitchen in violation of the 2nd law. However,when you consider the larger system including the electric motor which drives the heat pump and the power station producing the electricity the 2nd law is obeyed.
G*e*r*an and yourself got hooked on my use of photon. Try replacing that with “unit of energy” if it makes you happier.
What is absorbing? There are molecules in the atmosphere which resonate at specific energy levels. These can absorb a photon carrying the correct amount of energy (is of a specific wavelength) store the energy briefly, then emit another photon of the same wavelength in a random direction.
Em: “It is quite possible for a photon to be emitted from a cooler object, traverse the vacuum and be absorbed by a warmer object.”
g: Only if there were an atom or molecule within that “cooler” object that was NOT “cooler”. Even then, the photon would not increase the temperature of the object. Em is soooo desperate to promote his false religion.
Em: “Your mistake is to expect every subset within the system to obey the 2nd law. Talk to any modern physicist and they will tell you that the 2nd law applies to energy, not just heat, and that it applies to the whole system, not just subsets.”
g: The rambling obfuscation begins.
Em: “By your interpretation a refrigerator is impossible because it pumps heat from a low temperature inside the fridge to a warmer kitchen in violation of the 2nd law.”
g: And, now comes the mis-representation. That is NOT “my” interpretation. A refrigerator demonstrates that work MUST be added to “pump heat from cold to hot”. Em’s desperation is increasing.
EM: “G*e*r*an and yourself got hooked on my use of photon. Try replacing that with unit of energy if it makes you happier.”
g: No Em, I didn’t get “hooked” on anything. You were wrong in your “story” about photons, got caught, and now are trying to avoid admitting your mistakes.
Please continue with your comedy routine.
Entropic Man
It’s not a fair fight. Your argument is governed by logic, evidence and established science.
An idiot’s argument has no such constraints.
snake, perhaps to make it fair, you could help Em with some of your vast “logic, evidence and established science”.
(That would be REALLY hilarious.)
Should I explain to g* that joining forces wouldn’t help – we would still be arguing with an idiot?
I should explain to snake that his inability to comment as an adult just makes him that much funnier.
Entropic man @ January 19, 2018 at 8:55 AM
“It is quite possible for a photon to be emitted from a cooler object, traverse the vacuum and be absorbed by a warmer object. Each stage is a separate process allowed by the laws of physics. Together they transfer a measurable amount of energy from a cooler object to a warmer object.”
This isn’t really accurate. Although photons from the cooler object do travel to the warmer object, there are more photons traveling from the warmer to the cooler, so the net flow is always from warmer to cooler.
The problem with the argument is not that the flow is reversed. The flow never stops, and is unidirectional. But, the flow is not the quantity of interest. The integral of the flow is. The integral of the flow is the stored energy, and, when the outward flow from the cooler object is momentarily reduced relative to the inward flow, the integral, a.k.a. the stored energy, increases.
This isnt really accurate. Although photons from the cooler object do travel to the warmer object, there are more photons traveling from the warmer to the cooler, so the net flow is always from warmer to cooler.
You write absolute evidence here stated by Rudolf Clausius in 1887.
What is less evident is the fact that many people here simply pretend that photons emitted by a cool body can’t be absorbed by a warmer one. Of course without showing any proof, e.g. a link to a text book or whatever else.
We are here slowly but surely moving below WUWT’s niveau.
Maybe you help in moving the niveau higher again?
Bin states: “Of course without showing any proof, e.g. a link to a text book or whatever else.”
Bin, you don’t want anything that counters your belief system. If ALL infrared were ALWAYS absorbed, you could bake a turkey with ice cubes. I know you can understand that. You just don’t want to face the truth.
g*e*r*a*n
I was hoping you had a limit to your stupidity. Your last post proves this is not the case. Your thought process is such poor quality. You are a Stupid Troll!
Real objects can absorb 99% of the incoming IR (all wavelengths) and they do not just keep getting hotter and hotter.
Duh, you need to read some physics. You are just dumb.
An object that can absorb 99% of the incoming IR can also radiate 99% of the IR it is able based upon its surface temperature. How can you even claim to have studied any physics when you are so stupid? You studied nothing and are just here as a stupid troll to say stupid childish comments that have no purpose. You are an idiot! Plain and simple. That is not an insult but an honest assessment of your mental abilities.
Norman
g* is stealing a page from Mike Flynn: “if clothes made you warmer, you could bake a turkey with a coat”.
The yelping chihuahua is NOT insulting me!
Hilarious.
52
The poor con-man wallows in pseudoscience and spews insults, but often he wraps himself around his own axis. It’s fun to watch.
Today, he stated: “Real objects can absorb 99% of the incoming IR (all wavelengths) and they do not just keep getting hotter and hotter.”
He’s telling us that “real objects” can absorb 99% of incoming IR, and not get hotter.
Think about that for a microsecond.
So, Earth’s surface (real object) can absorb 99% of everything from atmosphere, and not get hotter.
Goodbye GHE!
Now enjoy, as the pathetic uneducated keyboard pounder struggles to “unwrap” himself.
g*e*r*a*n
I see you are still as stupid as ever. Quit lying and say you studied higher level physics. You did no such thing!
You are a blithering bozo and you lie constantly. A liar and a moron, bad combo!
I clearly stated: “Real objects can absorb 99% of the incoming IR (all wavelengths) and they do not just keep getting hotter and hotter.”
Then you distort with malicious dishonesty and complete stupidity:
“Hes telling us that real objects can absorb 99% of incoming IR, and not get hotter.”
Idiot, I did not say that a real object would not get hotter. I stated it would not get hotter and hotter. It would reach a temperature where it would emit energy at the same rate it is absorbing it. You are a complete moron.
I think the best way for all posters to deal with you is to respond to everyone of your idiot posts with the simple “Stupid Troll”.
If that is all you get maybe you would take your stupidity elsewhere to irritate a different group of humans.
Stupid Troll. Dumber than one can imagine!
The poor con-man loses it again. It’s fun to watch.
He claims I distorted his words, but I exactly quoted his words!
Hilarious.
But, it gets better.
In his illogical confusion, he believes there is an important distinction between “get hotter” and “get hotter and hotter”!
(It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy.)
Stupid troll pretender. Maybe not the dumbest, I see Mike Flynn is back. You certainly are very stupid though.
An idiot today and an idiot tomorrow. Sad, not hilarious.
Here this is a really short link that makes me think of your mental abilities and what you think is really funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAg1r6zw7Bg
entropic…”It is quite possible for a photon to be emitted from a cooler object, traverse the vacuum and be absorbed by a warmer object. Each stage is a separate process allowed by the laws of physics. Together they transfer a measurable amount of energy from a cooler object to a warmer object”.
According to Neils Bohr, EM is emitted as E = hf where E is the photon energy and f = its frequency. In order for that photon to be re-absorbed by the same atom, it must have exactly the same energy and frequency.
It is not possible for a cooler atom to emit energy of that frequency or energy level therefore it is not possible for an atom in a hotter body to absorb the photon.
We are dealing with harmonic oscillators with resonant frequencies. A resonant device can only absorb energy with the correct frequency. It should be noted that frequency is proportional to temperature.
I suggest staying away from blackbody theory unless you really know what you’re doing. A blackbody is a thought experiment that can only be manipulated by experts in the field. I am no such expert.
Unfortunately, there are people in climate science who think they are experts in the theory. They have applied it to climate science without having a clue what they are doing.
Snape
I spent a career as a science teacher. When I see g*e*r*a*n and Gordon Robertson getting it wrong some very old reflexes kick in.
Em, I feel sorry for your students.
You can’t even understand basic accounting, let alone thermodynamics.
In your comment above
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281553
You are trying to show how Earth’s surface gains photons. Forget your hilarious “science”, let’s just look at your accounting. In fact, let’s use the analogy of a bank account.
You put $100 in the account (solar input). Then, you take $20 out. Of that, $10 is spent (goes to space). And the other $10 you put back in the account. And the account is now $110.
So, in your “accounting”, 100 – 20 + 10 = 110!
(This is going to be a GREAT year in climate comedy.)
You missed a bit. You forgot to mention the 100 outgoings.
If you want a bank analogy try this.
You put 100 in your bank account, then take out 100.
You spend 80 and give 20 to your wife. She spends 10 and puts 10 back in the account.
The account now has 10 more than when you started.
You keep switching the amounts. Upthread you claimed: “The surface receives 100+10 photons=110 and radiates 110 photons.”
One time it’s “110”, next time it’s “100”.
Your accounting is messed up, but it’s not worth spending more time on.
It’s your knowledge of thermodynamics and radiative physics (photons) that has you really confused.
G*e*r*a*n
Stop cherrypicking bits and read the whole comment in sequence. You will find that it makes more sense.
The first part discusses energy flow between warmer and cooler objects.
The second part discusses the flow of energy in an atmosphere without greenhouse gases.
The third part discusses the flow of energy in an atmosphere with greenhouse gases.
The supplementary comment discussed the transition when greenhouse gases are added, but their effect has not yet worked through the system.
Sorry Em, it just bogs down in logic, and make-believe. But, it does qualify you. (See below.)
Entropic man
Maybe they were students of yours?
https://goo.gl/images/S3JQBF
😕
My reply got separated from your comment and ruined the joke. Here they are together:
I spent a career as a science teacher. When I see g*e*r*a*n and Gordon Robertson getting it wrong some very old reflexes kick in.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/?replytocom=281736#respond
Bart
“Although photons from the cooler object do travel to the warmer object, there are more photons traveling from the warmer to the cooler, so the net flow is always from warmer to cooler.”
I made that point in my comment.
I have been trying to keep this simple enough for non-physicists to understand, but people keep nitpicking details. It makes for interesting discussion if you have the education to understand it, but too many of those here lack even the basics.
Hilarious.
Bart, David Appell
The OLR spectrum graph is what you would expect to see if CO2 is acting as a greenhouse gas. It is strong evidence for the existence of a greenhouse effect, but not of the effect of increasing CO2.
If there is a link between increasing CO2 and increasing energy retention it would show as decreasing OLR in the 13-17 micrometre band and an increase in the area enclosed between the OLR spectrum and black body spectrum at those wavelengths.
Is ennough data available to show that the shape of the OLR spectrum is changing over time?
DA,, Up-thread I allowed as the energy absorbed by CO2 molecules near the surface could not return to the surface because of the second law of thermodynamics (2LOT). Your repeated questions and assertions imply I picked the wrong law or something.
2LOT has been expressed in different ways. One of them is the net result of any process is an increase in entropy of the system and its surroundings The process of energy spontaneously moving from colder to warmer would result in a decrease in entropy, i.e. a violation of 2LOT.
Dan Pangbourn
The 2nd law describes the direction of heat flow from warmer to cooler, but does not mention the origin of the heat.
You could say instead that heat flows form heat sources to heat sinks. As long as the overall heat flow continues, details may vary.
Consider yourself. If you go for a New Year swim in the sea your body temperature drops because you lose heat to the water faster than your metabolism could produce it.
You then wrap yourself in a blanket. That reduces the rate of heat flow out of your body below the rate at which you produce it. Your body temperature increases to normal.
The blanket slows the rate of heat flow out of your body, increasing its temperature. It does not reverse the heat flow or violate the 2nd law. It does not, as you suggest, create a spontaneous flow from cooler surroundings to a warmer body.
Greenhouse gases act like the blanket. Energy flows into Earth’s atmosphere from the Sun as visible light and then back into space as infra-red variation. GHGs reduce the rate of outward flow, allowing heat to accumulate within the system. They do not reverse the energy flow, any more than an eddy in a stream reverses the water flow.
Em believes: “GHGs reduce the rate of outward flow, allowing heat to accumulate within the system.”
Em, you have the right to believe that, but it’s NOT science. That’s simply the old “trapping heat” mantra. Sing it is you want, but it is not reality.
G*e*r*a*n
You delight in being wilfully obtuse, and clearly do not believe the science.
If your comments accurately reflect your thinking you lack a coherent world view of your own. May I offer my condolences.
Congrats Em! As of today, you’ve earned a place on the list of “Perpetrators of Pseudoscience”!
You may write “PERP” on your forehead with a permanent marker. And, you also get an adult beverage of your choice. The party starts now.
(I’ll be celebrating with you.)
EM,, Yes, I agree that is how it all works. IMO the difference between what I perceive and what many others perceive is what happens as a result of thermalization. First, all absorbed radiation energy is thermalized. This results in warming of the atmosphere. The warm atmosphere significantly radiates only at certain wavenumbers. Favored wavenumbers are the lower wavenumbers of water vapor. HITRAN calculates the comparative intensity of the active wavenumbers as shown at http://i67.tinypic.com/2e2111t.jpg . This tells me that the energy absorbed by CO2 at near surface altitude is not significantly emitted by CO2 molecules there, but is emitted by water vapor molecules instead. At high altitude, 10 km or more, the diminishing water vapor results in increasing radiation from CO2 molecules. The same argument applies to the other non-condensing (in the atmosphere) ghg.
entropic…”The blanket slows the rate of heat flow out of your body, increasing its temperature”.
You seem to be suggesting the blanket reflects EM. It does not, EM will go straight through a normal blanket. The blanket serves as a barrier between your skin and the cold outer air and allow the trapped air molecules to warm between your skin and the blanket.
A blanket has nothing to do with radiation unless you have a specially designed EM reflector built in. That’s likely why when they treat hypothermia they wrap a space age blanket around people to reflect back the radiation. Such a blanket would also act as a normal blanket.
Gordon Robertson says:
“A blanket has nothing to do with radiation unless you have a specially designed EM reflector built in.”
Does IR pass through a blanket?
barry…”Please provide a source demonstrating that warmer objects absorb no radiation from cooler objects”.
You are proceeding from a false premise and asking people to prove it wrong. The 2nd law already states that heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body without compensation of energy to the cooler body from an external source. The law says nothing about net energy flows or two way heat transfers, it talks only about heat being transferred one way.
Where do you get the idea that heat can be transferred both ways? That notion contradicts the way electrons operate in atoms. Neils Bohr laid out that theory circa 1912 and it is still valid. Heat transfer is about energy levels in atoms in which electrons live. The temperature of an atom is related to its kinetic energy and that is directly related to the energy in the atom.
When an atom is at a higher temperature (I know it’s absurd to speak of one atom) the electrons in the atom have a higher energy level than atoms in a cooler atom. To raise the temperature of the hotter atom you must provide it energy that will raise the electron energy level.
The 2nd law makes it clear that cannot happen when the energy comes from a cooler body.
GR, I know it’s tough to actually use math, but please do explain where the equations regarding multi-layer insulation in space are incorrect. Remember, there’s no convection in orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation
Yep. Every single minute of every single day, satellites in orbit use this stuff, and it works exactly as advertised.
It does not prove AGW by any stretch, but it does show that the flaws in the argument are not elementary flaws.
bart…”Every single minute of every single day, satellites in orbit use this stuff, and it works exactly as advertised”.
Satellites are launched and orbit based on Newtonian mechanics. Even their communications systems use Newtonian theory.
I debated one guy who claimed GPS systems are based on time dilation. I had to point out to him that no communications equipment exists that uses time dilation. Sats use two time systems for their tracking, one on the ground and a separate time system on board. Allowances are made for discrepancies between the two.
The theory we are discussing here has extremely rare applications. Quantum theory has little use in mainstream life. Electronics is based on QM at a fundamental level but there’s no need for QM at a macro level.
There is no reason to apply blackbody theory to the climate, it is what it is. I am delving into it because certain people are making ludicrous claims about EM radiation that bypass the 2nd law.
My main interest is the UAH data which shows little or no sensitivity to CO2 warming. None that can be proved. I am also interested in natural explanations for the warming in the 20th century.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Satellites are launched and orbit based on Newtonian mechanics. Even their communications systems use Newtonian theory.”
GPS requires general relativity.
Without GR, GPS is off by 10 km/day. With it it’s accurate to 1 m.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The theory we are discussing here has extremely rare applications. Quantum theory has little use in mainstream life.”
Pure ignorance and stupidy.
Devices based on quantum mechanics account for about 1/4th of the US economy.
bart…my error, by stuff, I thought you meant QM theory.
Gordon –
I meant the MLI. It works, and it works according to the same radiative principles as are being applied for the AGW hypothesis.
But, that is a very specific, very simple application, under very specific conditions. The Earth’s climate system is far more complex. That is why I have referenced the old “spherical cows in a vacuum” joke in regard to AGW.
“My main interest is the UAH data which shows little or no sensitivity to CO2 warming.”
None of the data sets show sensitivity of surface temperature to CO2, they only show they are going vaguely in the same direction, a slender reed, indeed. And, it is a fact that the rate of change of CO2 matches the temperature readings for all of them, which tells anyone smart enough to understand it that the arrow of causality is the reverse of what is commonly believed.
Bart says:
“And, it is a fact that the rate of change of CO2 matches the temperature readings for all of them, which tells anyone smart enough to understand it that the arrow of causality is the reverse of what is commonly believed.”
False.
I disproved this already, by looking at temperature’s annual cycle, which does not show up in the CO2 measurements.
Bart says:
“None of the data sets show sensitivity of surface temperature to CO2, they only show they are going vaguely in the same direction, a slender reed, indeed”
When are deniers like you going to learn that CO2 isn’t the only factor that changes climate, especially in the short-term?
Is that honestly too hard for you to understand??
“I disproved this already, by looking at temperatures annual cycle, which does not show up in the CO2 measurements.”
Laughable.
For some reason, this part of my response to Gordon kept getting blocked. Trying again with different words at a later time.
“I had to point out to him that no communications equipment exists that uses time dilation.”
GPS satellites have their clocks set to run precisely 0.44 nanoseconds/second slower on the ground. In their intended orbit, time runs that much faster, so that way, the satellites are synchronized to ground.
e swanson….”I know its tough to actually use math, but please do explain where the equations regarding multi-layer insulation in space are incorrect”.
The equation offered q = UA (delta T) is another form of Stefan-Boltzman. They have replaced the emissivity factor and the Boltzmann constant by U.
S-B represent a one way direction (emission) not two as they have claimed. The wiki article is wrong. Q can be taken as the heat loss inside the ship but it would be ludicrous to speak of a heat loss from empty space.
As I said in the last post, there are no atoms in space therefore heat transfer is not possible by conduction. However, there would be conduction through the skin followed by radiation from the outer skin.
If they did not generate heat within the spacecraft any ambient heat would gradually bleed off via radiation till the spacecraft interior was the same temperature as space.
I don’t see where I have claimed their equations are wrong I have only claimed there is no warming in the spacecraft due to reflected IR from the skin.
From the link, where’s the discrepancy between what I am claiming and they are saying: “…primarily intended to reduce heat loss by thermal radiation. In its basic form, it does not appreciably insulate against other thermal losses such as heat conduction or convection…”
More…”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 from the surface have been reduced by half by adding the additional layer”.
This is nonsense from someone who does not understand heat transfer. The inference is somehow that the back-radiated energy will warm the skin, which is nonsense. The outer skin has to be colder than the inner skin. All they are trying to do is slow down radiation by reflecting it back.
Remember, you or I could write wiki article. A surface initially radiating 460 watts while bare would not radiate the same power when covered. All they are doing is slowing down the inevitable…even the best of insulator transfer heat.
There are so many people caught up in the notion of getting something for nothing. That’s what AGW is about and it comes down to a misunderstanding of heat and heat transfer.
BTW…those IR reflectors might be better off on the inside of the skin. I wonder if the exterior skin serves another purpose as well.
GR, you still aren’t willing to think about what’s going on. At least, you admit that: “… All they are trying to do is slow down radiation by reflecting it back….” Yup, that’s how it works.
But, you are still clueless, suggesting that placing the multi-layer insulation within the “skin” of the satellite would work OK. That’s wrong if there’s air within the shell which would allow conduction and convection. Of course, we know that multi-layer insulation works, it’s routinely used on satellites to retard the energy flow to deep space from within. And, the “Green Plate” model is just a model using a single insulating layer with an larger emissivity.
E., you still haven’t responded:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281689
Git ‘er done, Ernesto.
Gordon Robertson says:
“S-B represent a one way direction (emission) not two as they have claimed. The wiki article is wrong.”
Gordon has to deny entire sections of reality in order to maintain his cartoonish views of the world.
DA…”Gordon has to deny entire sections of reality in order to maintain his cartoonish views of the world”.
Put up, or shut up. If you have scientific proof to counter mine then let’s see it.
I won’t hold my breath. Anyone as confused about the 2nd law, heat transfer, atomic basics, and general physics should not throw stones.
I’ve put up a huge amount of scientific evidence against you.
You aren’t smart enough to understand it.
barry “Please provide a source demonstrating that warmer objects absorb no radiation from cooler objects.”
Gordon: You are proceeding from a false premise and asking people to prove it wrong. The 2nd law already states that heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body without compensation of energy
You have misstated my question. I’m not talking about heat flow.
g*e*r*a*n and possibly you believe that objects cannot possibly absorb any thermal radiation emitted by a cooler body.
I would like to see a credible source that corroborates this notion.
NB: this does not violate the 2LoT, because the cooler body absorbs MORE thermal radiation from the warmer body, and the flow of heat remains from hot to cold.
This is the constant mistake I see here – confusing bulk heat transfer with discrete energy exchange.
barry, I NEVER said that a “hot” object cannot absorb photons from a “cold” object. I have indicated that a “cold” object can NEVER warm a “hot” object. THAT’s a major distinction.
I could teach a course on photons, but would you believe it? I experimented with some teaching with the Moon/axis issue. I clearly proved that the Moon was NOT rotating on its axis. But, you saw the reaction. People were claiming that a horse is rotating on his axis as he runs an oval track! Almost absolute insanity prevailed.
False religions are hard to de-program. It takes generations.
barry, I NEVER said that a “hot” object cannot absorb photons from a “cold” object.
Yes you did.
The blue plate can NOT absorb photons from the colder green plate.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-280164
Did you change your mind, or can you explain this apparent discrepancy?
Now barry, is that really a discrepancy, or are you just wanting it to be? Are you so desperate that you can’t think straight? That’s what false belief systems can do to a person’s brain.
The blue plate can NOT absorb photons from the colder green plate because it is a perfect black body. It is perfectly homogeneous. There are no molecules that are not at exactly the same energy level. So, not one molecule could accept a photon from a colder source.
But, in the real world, certain exact conditions may allow a photon from “cold” to be absorbed by a “hot” molecule. For example, say a molecule of the “hot” surface had just emitted a photon. But, within a second, a photon from the “cold” arrives. The molecule could absorb the photon, with no net increase in energy to the surface. It’s not something you can depend on, but it could happen. That’s why I would never say a “hot” object cannot absorb photons from a “cold” object. But, it will NEVER raise the temperature of the “hot” object.
Now, don’t you feel silly?
g*r…”But, in the real world, certain exact conditions may allow a photon from cold to be absorbed by a hot molecule”.
Alarmists seem to be focused only on radiation. We need to remember what is required to transfer heat from cold to hot in a refrigerator or air conditioner.
A compressor driven by external power is required to compress a low density gas to a high density liquid. The liquid is pumped through a condenser where it radiates heat to a warmer atmosphere. Then the liquid goes through a metering jet where it is partly atomized and sent to an evapourator. The evapourator allows further expansion of the atomized gas and absorbs heat from another compartment as the gas expands. Then the low pressure gas goes back to the compressor.
Why is all that necessary if heat can be easily transferred from a cold body to a warm body?
G, where is the credible physics text that corroborates what you say?
I believe you have mistaken emissivity for absorp-tion.
Black bodies (yes, a theoretical construct) emit at a given frequency dependent on temperature. They do not absorb radiation on the same dependency. Neither do non black bodies.
Please provide a standard physics text explaining otherwise. I bet you can’t.
barry, you try to discredit me. You used phraseology like “change your mind” or “apparent discrepancy”. You don’t have anything you can discredit me with, so you have to make things up. Such desperate attempts by you, and your ilk, only adds to my credibility.
You don’t realize what you’re doing, and that makes it hilarious.
With more of the same, now you use “mistaken”. No, I have NOT “mistaken” emissivity for absorp-tion. (You probably meant “absorp-tivity”.)
And, your recurring theme of demanding “physics text” is a joke. You, and the rest, wouldn’t understand real physics. In fact, you oppose it. You try to pervert physics. It’s fun to watch.
You want an example?
“[Black bodies] do not absorb radiation on the same dependency [wavelength]. Neither do non black bodies.”
Completely WRONG! Blatant pseudoscience. Perverted physics.
Hilarious.
More, please.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Why is all that necessary if heat can be easily transferred from a cold body to a warm body?”
What does the Second Law say about that?
And why do you pretend we’re as stupid as you and don’t understand that?
And, your recurring theme of demanding physics text is a joke. You, and the rest, wouldnt understand real physics. In fact, you oppose it. You try to pervert physics.
54
barry…”g*e*r*a*n and possibly you believe that objects cannot possibly absorb any thermal radiation emitted by a cooler body”.
Your mistake is calling it thermal radiation. That suggests heat is being radiated and thermal energy does not leave the body. It is first converted to EM. Thermal radiation indicates nothing more than the frequency of the EM is in the IR band, which is often related to heat.
If you don’t understand that, it’s easy to begin summing two way EM fluxes and claiming that as a heat transfer.
With radiation, heat does not leave the warmer or colder body. When the hotter body emits EM, it cools and if a nearby cooler body absorbs that radiation, it will absorb it and convert it to thermal energy. Therefore, the cooler body warms. That’s called heat transfer but the term is a misnomer in that no heat is physically transferred.
I have no idea what becomes of radiation emitted from a cooler body. If it does contact a hotter body it is not absorbed. Otherwise the 2nd law would not apply.
Your mistake is calling it thermal radiation. That suggests heat is being radiated and thermal energy does not leave the body.
And you studied physics??
Thermal radiation is EM radiation. ‘Thermal’ in that phrase refers to the matter that is radiating the energy.
I have no idea what becomes of radiation emitted from a cooler body. If it does contact a hotter body it is not absorbed.
Again you mistake the bulk heat transfer for the discrete energy exchange.
I challenge you to come up with even one credible physics source corroborating your notion that a surface cannot absorb radiation from a cooler object.
And this is specific – we’re not talking about bulk heat transfer. I would very much like you to try and corroborate the idea that thermal radiation from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a warmer one.
I have plenty of standard university texts available saying the opposite.
barry, you keep plying that same con. You point out that it is possible for a photon from “cold” to be absorbed by “hot”, but then you want to move to “cold” can warm “hot”. You just can’t leave it alone because you know 2LoT wipes out the GHE.
To bad you, and your ilk, can’t just vote out 2LoT, huh?
You point out that it is possible for a photon from “cold” to be absorbed by “hot”
Yes, the main factors affecting absorp-tion are the optical properties of the absorbing medium. Its temperature plays a small part – absorp-tion is not remotely extinguished if the receiving medium is hotter than the receiving medium.
but then you want to move to “cold” can warm “hot”.
Read more carefully:
The introduction of a cooler body can slow the rate of heat loss from a warmer body receiving constant energy, whereby the warmer body will, of course, get warmer. This in no way violates the 2LoT. It is in fact an everyday occurrence.
Partly it’s language. Heat does not flow from cold to hot. Colder objects do not “warm” hotter objects. But introducing a cooler body to a thermal system as described above can result in a warmer body becoming warmer – through reduction of the rate of heat loss.
2LoT is not violated.
The only thing violated here is your insistence that radiation from cooler bodies generally cannot be absorbed by warmer bodies.
You mistake heat flow for energy exchange, discrete transfer with NET transfer. Energy transfer happens both ways. Bodies at different temperatures absorb radiation from the other. The NET exchange here is always hot to cold. No 2LoT violation.
Parts are true, parts are “spun”, parts are completely wrong.
Which is true, which spun, which wrong, according to you?
Yes, the main factors affecting absorp-tion are the optical properties of the absorbing medium. Its temperature plays a small part absorp-tion is not remotely extinguished if the receiving medium is hotter than the receiving medium.
FALSE
The introduction of a cooler body can slow the rate of heat loss from a warmer body receiving constant energy, whereby the warmer body will, of course, get warmer. This in no way violates the 2LoT. It is in fact an everyday occurrence.
That’s called “insulation”. But, the atmosphere is NOT a blanket. Sorry.
Heat does not flow from cold to hot. Colder objects do not warm hotter objects. But introducing a cooler body to a thermal system as described above can result in a warmer body becoming warmer through reduction of the rate of heat loss.
Not without special considerations and/or design.
b: “Yes, the main factors affecting absorp-tion are the optical properties of the absorbing medium. Its temperature plays a small part absorp-tion is not remotely extinguished if the receiving medium is hotter than the receiving medium.”
g: “FALSE”
Please demonstrate your view with a credible physics text. I hae presented physics text saying the opposite (which you’ve been shown and have ignored).
b: “The introduction of a cooler body can slow the rate of heat loss from a warmer body receiving constant energy, whereby the warmer body will, of course, get warmer. This in no way violates the 2LoT. It is in fact an everyday occurrence.”
g: “Thats called ‘insulation'”.
Eureka! Agreement that the introduction of a cooler body can make a warm one warmer without violating the 2nd Law. By reducing heat loss.
g: “But, the atmosphere is NOT a blanket. Sorry.”
Analogously, it is. It slows the rate at which the surface of the Earth cools. With no atmosphere, radiation would pass unhindered straight to space.
A 300K surface loses heat more quickly if the surrounding temp field is 0K rather than 280K. Do you disagree with that? Newton’s cooling curve?
b: “Heat does not flow from cold to hot. Colder objects do not warm hotter objects. But introducing a cooler body to a thermal system as described above can result in a warmer body becoming warmer through reduction of the rate of heat loss.”
g: “Not without special considerations and/or design.”
Closing your windows, or drawing a curtain over them slows the heat loss from a room with a heater on a Winter’s night. A jumper is hardly a ‘special design’. A blanket is pretty basic. All these slow heat loss from a warm object with a heat source (such as a live body), causing a warm object to become even warmer. These are everyday phenomena, nothing special.
barry: Analogously, it is [a blanket]. It slows the rate at which the surface of the Earth cools. With no atmosphere, radiation would pass unhindered straight to space.
g: No barry, the atmosphere is NOT a blanket. You fail to appreciate the heat transfer capabilities of the atmosphere.
barry: Closing your windows, or drawing a curtain over them slows the heat loss from a room with a heater on a Winters night. A jumper is hardly a special design. A blanket is pretty basic. All these slow heat loss from a warm object with a heat source (such as a live body), causing a warm object to become even warmer. These are everyday phenomena, nothing special.
g: barry, windows, curtains, jumpers, and blankets are all “designs” to “slow heat”. But, you can deny the facts and twist the logic all you want.
It’s fun to watch.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have no idea what becomes of radiation emitted from a cooler body. If it does contact a hotter body it is not absorbed.”
You just wrote you have no idea what happens, and then you wrote what happens.
Another of your fantasies (=lies), with no basis in physics.
barry…”This is the constant mistake I see here confusing bulk heat transfer with discrete energy exchange”.
Your confusion is in your insistence on regarding heat transfer as an EM exchange. Bulk heat transfer, as you put, via radiation, is not possible. Heat can only be transported through space by atoms and such a bulk transfer is called convection.
You need to get it that heat is converted to EM and back again to heat in order to transfer heat but the ‘transfer’ is a misnomer. Nothing is transferred per se, the transfer amounts to decreasing thermal energy in the hotter body and increasing it in the cooler body.
You might refer to that as a bulk ‘energy’ transfer but you have to get it that energy is converted twice during the process. The 2nd law requires that process to be a one-way transfer with no reference to a net balance of energy.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Bulk heat transfer, as you put, via radiation, is not possible.”
Then how does the Sun heat the Earth?
Huh?
Your confusion is in your insistence on regarding heat transfer as an EM exchange.
There is only one way in a vacuum for heat to be transferred. You seem to be arguing that no heat can be transferred in a vacuum,which defies common sense, let alone physics. The Sun warms the Earth, constantly. It does this via radiation. IOW, heat is transferred from the sun to the Earth by way of thermal radiation (which is EM given off by objects that have a temp above 0K).
Radiation itself has no temperature, not until it strikes an object. But the energy content of an object, which is what its ‘heat’ actually is, is lost in a vacuum by emitting radiation, and transferred to an object receiving this radiation. The rest is semantics.
You need to get it that heat is converted to EM and back again to heat in order to transfer heat but the ‘transfer’ is a misnomer. Nothing is transferred per se, the transfer amounts to decreasing thermal energy in the hotter body and increasing it in the cooler body.
This is semantics. Energy is transferred, even in a vacuum. It is converted from thermal energy at source to EM, and back to thermal energy at destination.
The 2nd law requires that process to be a one-way transfer with no reference to a net balance of energy.
I’ve been looking for stuff that corroborates what G has been saying (unsuccessfully). I come across statements constantly that the “net” exchange of energy is from hot to cold.
Eg,
“Since the hot body radiates more heat (due to its higher temperature) than the cold body, the NET flow of heat is from hot to cold and the second law is still satisfied.”
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/black_body_radiation.htm
That (engineering source) specifically corroborates that energy exchange is 2-way, and that the NET transfer satisfies the 2nd Law.
Here are transfer equations, accounting for energy exchange (mutual emission/absorp-tion in 2 directions, even from bodies of different temperature.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
Those are MIT lecture notes on thermodynamics, and they also mention “NET heat exchange”.
I’ve asked G to furnish a credible physics text that categorically states that generally warmer bodies will absorb no radiation from cooler bodies. He does not provide. I go looking for it. I find stuff like the above.
Given every opportunity to corroborate, nothing. When searching myself for corroboration, I get the opposite.
Warmer bodies absorb radiation from cooler bodies. Nothing I’ve read tells me any differently, everything I’ve read corroborates this.
CRUCIALLY, the proponents of this idea cannot drum up one credible physics text to support the notion.
As long as the NET exchange is hot to cold, there is no 2LoT violation, as specifically stated in the first link above, and referred to in the following links.
When will someone produce a similar reference to show differently?
barry desperately claims: “Ive asked G to furnish a credible physics text that categorically states that generally warmer bodies will absorb no radiation from cooler bodies. He does not provide.”
barry, why would I believe I would provide something that isn’t true?
Your descent into depravity appears to be accelerating.
57
You keep changing your position.
First you said a warm body will not absorb radiation from a cooler body – I quoted you above on that.
Then you qualified that it’s possible, by which I take it to mean that it is a rare, or low-occurrence effect.
Which is why I reframed it to:
“furnish a credible physics text that categorically states that generally warmer bodies will absorb no radiation from cooler bodies.”
If this doesn’t reflect your view, then clarify it, and provide a credible physics text supporting your view.
So far, no corroboration and shifting point of view. Are you able to nail it down, or are we going to have to write you off?
No barry, I’m not changing my position. I”m just trying different ways to explain to you. You are trying different ways to not understand.
Your efforts are both entertaining and educational. I’ve never seen people actually work to avoid facts and logic.
I posted this down thread earlier. You can either understand it, or run from it. Your choice.
We can imagine thermodynamic processes which conserve energy but which never occur in nature. For example, if we bring a hot object into contact with a cold object, we observe that the hot object cools down and the cold object heats up until an equilibrium is reached. The transfer of heat goes from the hot object to the cold object. We can imagine a system, however, in which the heat is instead transferred from the cold object to the hot object, and such a system does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. The cold object gets colder and the hot object gets hotter, but energy is conserved. Obviously we don’t encounter such a system in nature and to explain this and similar observations, thermodynamicists proposed a second law of thermodynamics.
59
Last para answered downthread.
I’ve explained how the GPE and other constructs, real and theoretical don’t violate the 2nd Law. You’ve disagreed – by confusing discrete exchange with NET transfer. Challenged on that:
You’ve claimed that warmer objects cannot (or rarely) absorb radiation from cooler objects.
You’ve claimed that black bodies cannot absorb radiation from from cooler black bodies.
I ask you again: please furnish credible physics texts that corroborate these points. I have done so to corroborate the opposite – that warmer objects do indeed absorb radiation from cooler objects. The 2nd Law is not broken because the net flow of heat/energy remains hot to cold.
This is the point on which we’re stuck, and referring back to the 2nd Law without addressing this takes our conversation backwards a few steps.
It’s up to you to move it forward. Deal with this point, then we can move on.
barry: “Youve claimed that black bodies cannot absorb radiation from from cooler black bodies.”
g: barry, a black body is an imaginary concept, just like the GHE. You can imagine whatever you want, but if it violates the establish laws of heat transfer, radiative physics, or thermodynamics, it is pseudoscience.
You don’t understands how black bodies operate. They absorb all radiation. It’s as simple as that.
You have no business having a view on the GPE if you don’t know the definition of a black body. You have no business talking about physics at all.
Adding the emissivity factor changes the absolute numbers, but nothing else.
Is it the same in your world g*e*r*a*n?
Gordon Robertson says:
“The 2nd law makes it clear that cannot happen when the energy comes from a cooler body.”
If Gordon couldn’t lie, he’d have absolutely nothing to say here at all.
En,
Take a white hot molten ball of rock, heavily laced with an assortment of radiogenic elements of varying half lives. Make it around 6400 kms radius. Provide a star about 150,000,000 kms distant – surface temp around 6,000 K.
Now, wait four and a half billion years. It has cooled, regardless of your wishes.
As to insulation, firemen wear thick, heavy insulation to keep cool – blankets keep heat out just as effectively as keeping it in. Wrap a corpse in as many blankets as you like. It responds the same as as any other object without an internal heat source – no magic heating.
Youre in the company of like minded sufferers of the psychotic delusion that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun will cause the thermometer to get hotter. Warmists believe in this magical effect, but cant actually demonstrate it under controlled conditions!
A bit like Uri Gellers bending spoons with the power of his mind – it only seemed to work in the presence of believers.
As to photons, light covers an infinity of frequencies and energies. Maybe your knowledge of the interaction between light and matter needs upgrading. Most Warmists seem fairly clueless about physics.
Cheers.
Wrap a corpse in as many blankets as you like
Hahaha. This again. Of course the body needs to be alive for this to work. You cannot disprove the example by changing it.
barry,
First, firemen tend to be alive – and wear heavy insulation to remain so.
Maybe you could address the facts, rather than wasting time with pointless and irrelevant analogies?
For example, maybe you could indicate the physical basis for believing that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun will result in the thermometer increasing in temperature?
I dont believe you can, and nor can anybody else sharing the GHE delusion.
Your turn – maybe you could try to deny, divert, and confuse, in order to avoid actually addressing facts. Presenting pointless and irrelevant analogies doesnt work as well as it used to, apparently. Pretending that climate is other than the average of weather records doesnt make scientists out of undistinguished mathematicians, does it?
You could always make a donation to some self styled climatologist – lighten the load on taxpayers generally, I would think.
Keep it up! Warmists need all the support they can get – Nature, physics, and the US President dont appear to be interested in Warmist delusions.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“For example, maybe you could indicate the physical basis for believing that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun will result in the thermometer increasing in temperature?”
The Earth’s surface and atmosphere emits infrared radiation, and GHGs like atmospheric CO2 adsorb it.
They then re-emit it in a random direction, some of it going downward. => AGW
—
Don’t act stupid.
A load of blather, none of it addressing my comment.
Firemen wear insulation to keep heat out. Eskimos wear insulation to keep heat in. Same principle, different configuration.
barry…”Firemen wear insulation to keep heat out. Eskimos wear insulation to keep heat in. Same principle, different configuration”.
Fireman need protection against flames, not the heat. Exposure to intense heat would cook them straight through the insulation because the insulation does not stop radiation.
Likewise, the Eskimos wear insulation to trap air molecules against their skin that warm via body heat. The insulation also prevents the cold outer air molecules from removing body heat via direct contact/convection. Radiation goes straight through the insulation and goes to show that radiation is not a good method of cooling the body. If it was, our clothes would be useless as a means of keeping warm.
BTW…the politically correct up here have stopped calling Arctic aboriginals Eskimos. They prefer Inuit. Then again, those of us better informed know the Eskimo is a native of Alaska and the Inuit natives of the northern shores of Canada.
Just letting you know in case you are ever in Northern Canada and call an Inuit an Eskimo.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Fireman need protection against flames, not the heat.”
Hilarious.
Where do flames end and heat begins?
“Radiation goes straight through the insulation”.
Hold your jacket in front of a fireplace.
If there is no difference it’s time to buy a new jacket.
I do not know where Robertson comes up with these crazy ideas.
Yes, food for thought, and a strategy rethink.
Speak of the nitwit and he appears!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/?replytocom=281748#respond
Snape,
Deny, divert and confuse?
Maybe you could link to real scientific experiments showing that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun raises the temperature of the thermometer?
Only joking, of course such a thing is ridiculous. Such nonsense is only accepted by the feeble minded, extremely gullible, or mentally afflicted.
Oh well, maybe youre right – maybe you can make something hotter without providing additional energy. Chanting Warmist Manntras repetively and increasing stridently might have some effect, but I doubt it. Maybe you and your ilk might like to give it a go – let me know if it works.
Cheers.
Mike asks, “Maybe you could link to real scientific experiments showing that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun raises the temperature of the thermometer?”
I would be happy to. Below we see carbon dioxide being placed between the sun and an array of thermometers on the ground:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png
Several agencies have been tracking the results:
“OLS trends for 1979-2017 in C / decade:
JMA: 0.14
Had-CRUT: 0.17
GISS: 0.17
NOAA: 0.17 ”
(Courtesy of Bindidon)
Snape,
Not even close. Im referring to scientific experiments – designed to support or disprove an hypothesis. Not the meaningless conclusions to which dim Warmists leap!
Your linked graph purports to show CO2 concentration at one specific location, over a relative short period. The results to which you allude do not seem to agree with each other, let alone any hypothesis which you cannot even state in any form which would allow proper scientific enquiry. Just more wishful thinking and nonsensical unsubstantiated assertions by the delusional followers of Hansen, Schmidt and Mann (among others).
On ground thermometers seem to generally heat up during the day, and cool at night – regardless of CO2 concentration! As anybody with any physics knowledge is aware, ground thermometers increase their temperature with altitude – less atmosphere to reduce insolation.
Tyndall measured the increase with altitude, as did others more than 100 years ago. You may or may not be aware that maximum temperatures on the Moon are in excess of any achievable on Earth by means of the unconcentrated rays of the Sun. No atmosphere, you see.
Your ragtag collection of pseudo scientists are slowly becoming the objects of derision to even believers in their odd cult. Ever more lunatic predictions of imminent doom – colder, hotter, wetter, drier! If its hot, its climate – if its cold, its weather! Dim and dimmer. Good for a laugh, anyway.
Keep it up!
Cheers.
Mike
I linked to the experiment you requested, but sorry, I’ve decided to stop arguing with nitwits.
BTW, I’m happy to see you back on this thread. Gordon and g* have been getting all the grease, so to speak. They are just as dumb, but not nearly as friendly.
Mike Flynn says:
“You may or may not be aware that maximum temperatures on the Moon are in excess of any achievable on Earth by means of the unconcentrated rays of the Sun.”
And these temperatures are easily explained by standard physics. I proved that here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html
As anybody with any physics knowledge is aware, ground thermometers increase their temperature with altitude less atmosphere to reduce insolation.
As anybody familiar with meteorology knows, the higher you are in the troposphere, the colder you get. Also that weather station thermometers are kept out of the sun.
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe you could link to real scientific experiments showing that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun raises the temperature of the thermometer?”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
“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
To anyone that hasn’t read it, they even show how forcing varies with seasonal CO2 changes.
I know: Roy Spencer suffered a lot from Do-ug Cot-ton. I remember very well his rather crank insisting.
But compared to these three trolls fooling around here all the time, he was a really intelligent person.
I miss him.
Bin, you need to be more understanding of davie, the con-man, and young snake. They’re just trying to seek acceptance. They have no other place to go.
Besides, look at the humor they bring.
There is a lot to be said for the humor. Certainly we’re resolving no issues here, just arguing. So, for the sake of a friendly argument, I’m buying.
Unfortunately, you’ll have to show up here to collect.
Crouse, NC, USA
If by “resolving issues” you mean “educating the uneducated”, I agree, lewis. I see partial acceptance in maybe one or two, but none that are even close to 100% repulsed by pseudoscience.
My educational background was mostly technical. I haven’t had any training in areas such as “human psychology”. So, this is a learning experience for me. In my career, I never worked around people that abhorred science. We always had problems to solve, usually under a tight deadline. So people could not go down the wrong paths, without causing major problems.
Here, I notice a willingness, almost a need, for some to go down the wrong path. And if anyone shows them they are on the wrong path, they “hate the messenger”.
It’s an amazing education.
lewis says:
“There is a lot to be said for the humor. Certainly were resolving no issues here, just arguing”
Lewis, I have yet to see you make a scientific argument on this blog.
Ever.
You’re clearly not capable of doing so.
DA…”Lewis, I have yet to see you make a scientific argument on this blog”.
Lewis has authorized me to make scientific arguments on his behalf since his explanations would be totally over your head. Mine are just significantly over your head. Then again, I don’t really have to try with you.
lewis…Crouse, NC, USA
Looks like you’re in the middle of nowhere. I looked you up to see how close you are to Charlotte, where the Panthers play. Noticed a Goddess who was a cheerleader for the team a couple of years ago and wondered if you’d mosey on over to Charlotte and pay my respects. You could pay your own while you are at it. ☺
It’s hardly “the middle of nowhere.”
It’s not even out past Asheville.
In fact, it’s closer to Charlotte than Asheville.
Prime gerrymander territory.
Just spent the last several hours devouring the theories of Neils Bohr, Planck, and David Bohm on quantum theory. Whereas I am not much the wiser, the fog is starting to lift.
When you look at a typical EM spectral distribution, it rises from a low level on the right, where lower frequency EM is found, and follows a bell curve shape till it tapers off in the high frequency range.
Each frequency in the range was considered by Planck and others to be tiny harmonic oscillators with energy defined as E = hf…. (E = energy, f = frequency, h = Planck’s constant), It’s obvious that as f increases toward infinity that E should increase out of bounds. That is referred to in physics as the ultraviolet catastrophe.
Planck reasoned that not all oscillators were ‘likely’ to have the same energy and he tried fitting different probability curves to the frequency range to find one that made sense. He finally settled on e^E/kT. That’s a probability function that gives the curve we now know as the EM spectral curve.
It’s important to understand that all EM theory related to atoms is about probabilities and not the actual physical reality. It is simply not possible to talk about individual photons being exchanged in a two way flux, therefore there is no such thing as a net energy exchange of photons.
The only reality we can visualize is that photons of EM are absorbed by electrons in atoms causing the electrons to have a higher energy state. That translates to a higher temperature. However, the absorp-tion processes is very precise. The absorbed EM must fit precisely with the frequency of the electron and the energy required to raise it to the next highest energy level.
That is not possible with EM from a cooler source.
ps. I have claimed quantum theory is based on fudged math. That’s essentially what Planck did, he practiced curve fitting till he found a probability curve that described the EM spectrum.
One might wonder how they arrived at E = hf, the energy describing each frequency in EM. It obviously goes to infinity as f goes to infinity. Look at Planck’s equation, it has a built in probability function to force the energy intensity down as f increases.
Therefore E = hf works for lower frequencies but fails drastically over the entire spectrum. That may explain why we are currently so confused about solar energy.
That’s also why no one should take blackbody theory seriously unless one is acquainted with the derivation. If you try to apply it to a Newtonian world with a subjective description, it makes little sense. Yet many use it liberally as if a blackbody is real.
Gordon
I just browsed through your comments. Strongly agree with the “none the wiser” part.
snape…”I just browsed through your comments. Strongly agree with the none the wiser part”.
That’s a major difference between you and me, snape. I come from a vantage point of knowing nothing. You, on the other hand, come from a vantage point of knowing everything, like your alarmist brethern.
Leaves no room for insight or learning.
Gordon, you still know nothing.
I’ve never read a SINGLE thing here about which you have been right.
Not a SINGLE THING.
You are the True King of Boobs.
You are the most perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in the observable universe.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have claimed quantum theory is based on fudged math. Thats essentially what Planck did”
That’s another of your lies — and slanderous too.
Planck did what theorists often do — he guessed at an equation, and then worked out the consequences.
This is very common in theoretical physics, but of course Gordon has no clue about that.
—
Planck assumed that BB radiation is emitted in quantum increments, E=hf, and then worked out what the BB radiation spectrum would be in that case. He took that from Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect, and earlier work based on quantum harmonic oscillators, and on a daring leap. This assumption solved the problems of the infrared catastrophe and infrared divergence. He certainly didn’t “fudge” any math, because there was no such “math” before him.
This is way beyond Gordon’s comprehension.
As Planck later said, advances in sciences come from seeing what everyone else has seen before, but thinking about it in new ways.
For that, Planck gained immortality. Rightly so.
DA…”Thats another of your lies and slanderous too.
Planck did what theorists often do he guessed at an equation, and then worked out the consequences”.
Planck, himself, admitted that he did it out of desperation. I respect him for that, he could not find an answer to the ultraviolet catastrophe conundrum and he used some ingenuity to make inferences using probability.
People today, looking at the EM intensity curve of solar energy do not realize they are not seeing the actual atomic emissions from the Sun, they are seeing a model based on a probability modification. Even today, with each frequency in the spectrum represented as E = hf, the intensity ‘should’ increase without bounds as the frequency increases.
However, Planck was a dyed in the wool realist and very much into Newtonian mechanics. It bothered him deeply that he had to fudge math to get the solution and he rued it the next 25 years, trying to justify it.
As they say, the ends justify the means and he did start the ball rolling to an understanding of atomic structure. Unfortunately, many of those who followed, especially today, have been satisfied to accept such a convoluted method which cannot in anyway be visualized.
It’s totally obvious, according to David Bohm, that with regard to atomic theory, we need to scrap both Newtonian theory and quantum theory and find out what is actually going on.
GR wrote:
Its totally obvious, according to David Bohm, that with regard to atomic theory, we need to scrap both Newtonian theory and quantum theory and find out what is actually going on.
1) That’s not what Bohm says.
2) You aren’t even qualified to clean Bohm’s computer screen.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Planck, himself, admitted that he did it out of desperation.”
Where did he write or say that?
And so what if he did.
Planck was vindicated by his results.
GR wrote:
Even today, with each frequency in the spectrum represented as E = hf, the intensity should increase without bounds as the frequency increases.
That’s not what quantum mechanics says.
Are you even in the least curious why??
11 January 2018, at 17:54 in the afternoon, the Agung explosion reached a height of about 2,500 meters above the summit, or about 5,600 meters above sea level.
https://magma.vsi.esdm.go.id/img/pr/er_2.jpeg
SOI is growing.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/southernoscillationindex/30daysoivalues/
Even more rain in Australia.
https://pl.sat24.com/pl/in/world
That’s not showing rain, and where Australia is the cloud overlay is missing.
If you want the most recent rainfall map for Australia, go here:
Month to date:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=totals&period=cmonth&area=nat
Latest weekly:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=totals&period=week&area=nat
Last day:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=totals&period=daily&area=nat
Average rainfall per year/month – the following is the average for January:
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/rainfall/index.jsp?period=jan&area=oz#maps
Rainfall in Australia is about normal for this time of year.
dan pangburn…”The process of energy spontaneously moving from colder to warmer would result in a decrease in entropy, i.e. a violation of 2LOT”.
Good point.
Also, wrong.
It’s like neither of you can even read.
DA…”Also, wrong. Its like neither of you can even read”.
Come on, David, give us a definition of entropy, Explain the 2nd law based on entropy and give us some insight.
And give g*r some more laughs.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Come on, David, give us a definition of entropy”
It’s trivial to look up.
Why do you refuse to do even that much?
DA,, I looked it up before I stated it. I am surprised you are not aware of 2LOT being expressed this way.
Thermal radiation from an object is not one frequency, but a range of wavelengths following an intensity bell curve.
Thought experiment.
Two objects at different temperatures, close enough that their black body curves overlap.
What is to prevent a photon from the short wavelength end of the cooler object’s radiation being absorbed by the warmer object?
En, it’s possible for a photon from a “cold” to be absorbed by a “hot”. All that is necessary is wavelength compatibility. But, that does not mean the photon can raise the temperature of the “hot”.
As I explained elsewhere, a molecule could have just emitted a photon. Then, a new photon, from a “cold” arrives, with the exact same wavelength. Bingo!
g*e*r*a*n
So once again with a post you demonstrate an extremely low level of actual science knowledge. More direct evidence you are a phony pretender that just makes stuff up.
http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/stated-room-temperature-25-c-majority-molecules-ground-vibra-chapter-16-problem-10qp-solution-9780495012016-exc
At room temperature most molecules are in the ground vibrational state. The majority can absorb incoming IR.
Here is one material that has an emissivity of over 0.99
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24514669
Con-man, your desperation is hilarious. I never mentioned “room temperature”. I never mentioned “emissivity”. You’re so desperate to find me wrong, you have to imagine things wrong.
Now, more pounding on your keyboard, the harder the better.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
Like I stated. You are a phony pretender who doesn’t know any physics. An object that can emit 90% of the IR spectrum can absorb the same amount of IR. The molecules that are able to emit IR can absorb IR. You are a complete dunce pretender and it is sad you have a couple people that think you know what you are talking about. Fortunately it is only a couple, people that that make up their own physics and reject the established version.
I imagine nothing wrong. You are very wrong about most of your posts. A stupid troll.
Physics is not your strong point. Leave it be or read some actual material. You might think you are a god of physics knowledge. People in the know think you are an idiot. Wake up!
Con-man, can you tell us about one of your funniest examples of pseudoscience, from the past? I forget the exact details, maybe you can find your comments and link us. You described how two objects, one at say 200 K and one at 300 K could combine to heat a third object that was at 400K.
You were making the claim that the infrared would “add”. I don’t remember the details, but I do remember it was hilarious.
Can you find it?
Share the humor, please.
EN:I would guess this goes on all the time, considering the high count of particles. But, more radiation would leave the higher temperature article than is accepted by it, so averages would have it going lower in temperature.
Also, the photon would have to hit a particle with a lower temperature. One with too high a temperature could not accept it, so it would keep on until….
Lewis wrote:
“Also, the photon would have to hit a particle with a lower temperature. One with too high a temperature could not accept it, so it would keep on until.”
1) not true
2) Neither photons or particles have a “temperature.”
So, wrong twice.
entropic…”What is to prevent a photon from the short wavelength end of the cooler objects radiation being absorbed by the warmer object?”
If you do extensive reading on atomic theory it can give you a headache trying to visualize the math. Bohr produced a visual model but there’s no way to prove that is actually going on. In fact, it seems highly unlikely that electrons are tiny particles orbiting a positive nucleus. The math has little to do with the model, it is a convoluted attempt at imposing Newtonian wave motion theory on an atomic particle, with probability as the basis rather than reality.
Theoretically, if two spectra overlap, and the phases of the frequencies align, the intensities should add. It’s called superposition in electronics theory.
However, to get two such blackbody radiators side by side you’d need to arrange the peaks of the spectra so they represented certain temperatures. Where would you ever find that in reality? Where would you get two Suns close to each other, radiating ion the planet?
The solar spectrum versus the Earth’s LWR spectrum is an example. The spectra sit side by side, barely overlapping, with the intensities markedly different. Yet some alarmists insist you can add both spectra to get more solar energy. If they don’t overlap, you cannot add them.
I don’t even know what they are getting at. It’s like you’d have two separate heat sources, one a fraction of the other in intensity and at entirely different temperatures, with the other creating the LWR heat source in the first place by warming the surface. Right there, I’m inclined to move on, seeing the issues in the problem and getting it that there is no solution.
Getting back to your experiment, are you visualizing your hot tin plate against the cookie sheet? To do so, you’d need to arrange two spectral curves with the mean temperature of each surface side by side. Even at that, what difference would the lower extremities of the curves make, even if they did add?
Each one of those frequencies in each spectra is described as E = hf, where E = energy, or intensity, and f = frequency. h = Planck’s constant. The central frequency on the Bell curve represents the E = hf at which the hotter body might be radiating. The E = hf at the peak of the other curve is hopefully the frequency at which the cooler body is radiating.
They are miles apart with regard to emitting electrons. In the case of the solar/Earth spectral distributions they are millions of degrees apart. Frequency is derived from the temperature and I am guessing that’s because the electron emitting the EM is far more high excited at higher temperatures, at a different energy level, and it is likely screaming around its orbit at a much higher angular velocity.
How would you know if photons further down the curve were absorbed? No one has ever proved that. Theorizing the possibility, IMHO, is an insufficient reason to presume EM from cooler GHG molecules in the atmosphere can warm the surface. First you need to prove it with real data, and how would you do that?
For one, you’d have to account for all convective processes then you’d have to precisely measure any increase in temperature of the hotter body. As far as I know, that has never been done. If you did find an increase in temperature they’d have to throw out everything that is known about the 2nd law and entropy. Go for it if you have the patience.
That’s what frequency means with the regard to an electron, as far as I know, the number of times it orbits the nucleus in a second. The orbit also represents harmonic motion and oscillators representing harmonic motion usually have a resonant frequency. They tend to vibrate at that frequency, the higher the temperature the more they vibrate.
In macro oscillators in electronics, you change the electron velocity by using crystals with a natural vibration of components like inductors in parallel with capacitors (tank). By adjusting the tank component values you can get oscillation into the megahertz. In microwave, a cavity is used, where electrons oscillate inside the cavity.
One of the greatest problems in high frequency electronics is controlling the EM generated by electrons whizzing about in circuits.
The microwave cavity resonator is actually the basis of blackbody radiation. One type, the magnetron, is a vacuum tube of sorts with a high electric potential attracting a beam of electrons through a tuned cavity. Electrons bounce around inside the cavity in an orderly fashion based on how the cavity is tuned. Electrons will oscillate and produce a certain frequency of EM in the microwave frequency range.
That’s the basis of radar and microwave technology.
In atoms, with increasing temperature, the electron gains enough energy to escape the nucleus and in the Sun you have a boiling cauldron of electrons and the proton nucleii of hydrogen, which make up the solar wind. That’s why you get such broad spectrum energy from stars, they are all at extremely high temperatures.
Even the light from heated metals is due to highly energized electrons.
If an electron is in a highly, relatively energized state it requires the equivalent type of energy, or more to energize it further. That energy is simply not available from a cooler atom.
Gordon Robertson says:
“If you do extensive reading on atomic theory it can give you a headache trying to visualize the math.”
No it doesn’t — the math is the simplest part. The math is the language of the universe. The math follows easily once you are clear about your model and assumptions.
This says a lot about you, Gordon, having trouble with simple algebra….
Testing
For those interested this may act to clarify some loose terms being used. May help to avoid some arguments. (there may be some truncated words).
Falsifcation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects : : : p79 : Gerlich et al
“Some ‘sceptics’ state that the greenhouse effect cannot work since (according to the second law of thermodynamics) no radiative energy can be transferred from a colder body (the atmosphere) to a warmer one (the surface). However, the second law is not violated by the greenhouse effect, of course, since, during the radiative exchange, in both directions the net energy flows from the warmth to the cold.”
Rahmstorf’s reference to the second law of thermodynamics is plainly wrong. (i.e. above quote)
The second law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of net energy flow”. The relevant quantity is the net heat flow”, which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately redefining the thermodynamic system on the fly.
A similar confusion is currently seen in the German version of Wikipedia [180]:
“Some have problems with the energy that is radiated by the greenhouse gases towards the surface of the Earth (150W=m2 – as shown above) because this energy flows from a colder body (approx. -40C) to a warmer one (Earth’s ground approx.+15C) apparently violating the second law of thermodynamics.
This is a wrong interpretation, since it ignores the radiation of the Sun (even 6000 K). With respect to the total balance the second law is obeyed indeed.”
Obviously, the authors are confusing energy with heat. Furthermore, the system in question here is the atmospheric system of the Earth including the Earth’s ground. Since this system is assumed to be in radiative balance with its environment, and any other forms of energy and mass exchange with its environment are strictly prohibited, it defines a system in the sense of thermodynamics for which the second law holds strictly.
The difference among heat, energy and work is crucial for the understanding of thermodynamics. The second law is a statement about this difference.
Gerlich+ is junk, intended to fool people exactly like you.
Clearly it worked.
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/
DA…”Gerlich+ is junk, intended to fool people exactly like you”.
Of course, DA, a guy who teaches math for thermodynamics would not know what he was talking about. I’m sure his university stands by while he teaches the students nonsense about thermodynamics. His co-author Tscheuschner is also in the field of thermodynamics.
You have absolute laymen in thermodynamics, like Rahmstorf and Eli Rabbett (Josh Halpern) rebutting G&T using unfounded physical concepts such as a net balance of energies. In a debate with Lindzen, Rahmstorf even tried to introduce relativity theory.
Your reference to SOD is humourous. They cannot even explain the 2nd law. Load of hackers.
Gordon, why are you so afraid of math??
It is the language of the universe. And, yes, you can’t understand thermodynamics without understanding the math.
In fact, you can’t understand any of physics at at all.
davie just bought a new mirror.
It reflects so well. ..
DAppell
Daahh troll is back! da-da-da-dum! DA-DA-DA-dumb!
I answered this identical troll DA-DA-DA-dumb reference earlier.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281435
SOD could not get past 50 pages of the paper and decided he knew. He did not refute any physics arguments. Yet this is the best you can do!
Halpern et al got scalped in a rebuttal attempt which was published.
Do something useful; get the best team team together to rebut Gerlich. I guess that means Gore, Mann, Hansen and Schmidt. /sarc.
I note DA-DA-DA-Dumb did not refer to Halpern et al which is a published paper; wonder why he stuck to some hidden, half baked blog. (Halpern is Eli Wabbit of Green Plate in the sky fame).
Now youre just cutting and pasting the same old junk.
Lame and laughable.
It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately redefining the thermodynamic system on the fly.
Skeptics continually try to apply the 2nd law to these discrete energy exchanges. As you say, the 2nd Law only applies to NET exchange.
barry…”As you say, the 2nd Law only applies to NET exchange”.
Ingenuous Barry, the way you tried to slip that pseudo-science in. G&T made it clear you could only consider net HEAT amounts. Of course, you can’t tell the difference between net EM fluxes and net heat amounts.
Even at that, a net EM flux is meaningless if the flux one way is not absorbed. Oddly enough, that scenario does satisfy the 2nd law.
G&T is junk.
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/
Crap. Junk. Wrong. Only dumb deniers like you put any credence into them, and then only because you do not understand the science.
Shame.
DAppell
Daahh troll is back! da-da-da-dum! DA-DA-DA-dumb!
I answered this identical troll DA-DA-DA-dumb reference earlier.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281435
SOD could not get past 50 pages of the paper and decided he knew. He did not refute any physics arguments. Yet this is the best you can do!
Halpern et al got scalped in a rebuttal attempt which was published.
Do something useful; get the best team team together to rebut Gerlich. I guess that means Gore, Mann, Hansen and Schmidt. /sarc.
I note DA-DA-DA-Dumb did not refer to Halpern et al which is a published paper; wonder why he stuck to some hidden, half baked blog. (Halpern is Eli Wabbit of Green Plate in the sky fame).
Gordon, there is nothing wrong with considering both discrete energy exchanges and NET. Both are valid. The errors come from confusing them.
Even at that, a net EM flux is meaningless if the flux one way is not absorbed.
This notion of yours is pure assertion, erroneously applying the 2nd Law, which is about net heat flow, to discrete energy exchanges, which the 2nd Law is blind to.
Oddly enough, that scenario does satisfy the 2nd law.
The 2nd Law is also satisfied if the exchange is 2-way, and the NET exchange remains from hot to cold.
I do not undertstand why some skeptics cannot get these simple distinctions, and why they invoke made-up physics (like warm objects being unable to absorb radiation from cooler objects) to try to erase these distinctions.
You and G have been asked numerous times to provide a credible physics text corroborating the notion that warmer objects cannot generally absorb EM from cooler objects.
Have you stopped to ask yourself why you are unable to furnish such references? What was your answer?
barry desperately claims: “You and G have been asked numerous times to provide a credible physics text corroborating the notion that warmer objects cannot generally absorb EM from cooler objects.”
barry, why keep doing the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, expecting different results?
The 2LoT is the “credible physics”. You just don’t get it.
56
You’ve never provided corroboration for that.
56 and counting. I’ll ask again.
Please, provide a credible physics text corroborating the notion that warmer objects cannot generally absorb EM from cooler objects.
If you post it (a few independent sources would be even better), and it legitimately corroborates specifically this, then I will re-post it for you when someone else asks the question.
barry, here’s a very simplistic explanation. See if it helps.
We can imagine thermodynamic processes which conserve energy but which never occur in nature. For example, if we bring a hot object into contact with a cold object, we observe that the hot object cools down and the cold object heats up until an equilibrium is reached. The transfer of heat goes from the hot object to the cold object. We can imagine a system, however, in which the heat is instead transferred from the cold object to the hot object, and such a system does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. The cold object gets colder and the hot object gets hotter, but energy is conserved. Obviously we don’t encounter such a system in nature and to explain this and similar observations, thermodynamicists proposed a second law of thermodynamics.
57
If I stick batts in my roof for insulation, it slows the rate of heat loss from the room beneath. The effect is that when I turn the heater on as usual, the room warms more quickly, and warms to a greater temperature at the same setting on the heater with the insulation than without.
Is the insulation as warm as the heater? No.
Is the insulation as warm as the room temperature? No.
Is the 2LoT violated? No.
So here we have the introduction of a cooler object to a thermodynamic system that causes the warmer part of the system to get even warmer.
This gets shortened in colloquial terms to “a cool object makes a warm one warmer.”
It doesn’t ‘heat’ the warmer object. It makes it get warmer. By slowing its rate of heat loss.
So what’s the problem?
Barry…
The bottom line is there has been no replicable scientific experiment conducted showing C02 the cause of global warming. Your presentation of “what if” scenarios as scientific observation is quite alarming. Lol
barry asks: “So whats the problem?”
The problem, barry, is that your roof insulation is NOT an example of “cold” warming “hot”. The insulation is not moving heat to your house. The insulation does NOT bring new heat energy into the system. You are confusing insulation with the atmosphere. You don’t understand how either works. And you apparently don’t want to learn, likely because it will destroy your ideology.
It’s fun to watch.
The problem, barry, is that your roof insulation is NOT an example of “cold” warming “hot”.
The problem is that I said exactly that and you can’t read.
You have nothing of value to add because you can’t understand what you’re commenting on.
Tony M
If the 2nd law applies only to heat, what of bond energy, kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, energy carried by photons?
Can all these other forms of energy flow up energy gradients.
Can kinetic energy flow from an object with low kinetic energy to an object with more kinetic energy?
Can objects spontaneously rise up against gravity?
Kelvin and Clausius first formulated the 2nd law as a description of heat flow.
Once it was recognised that heat was only one of a number of interconvertable forms of energy the 2nd law was generalised to apply to all forms of energy. Energy flows from concentrated sources to dispersed sinks.
The modern form is that the entropy of a system increases as differences in order and/or energy in a non-cyclic system tend to even out over time.
You, and others, seem to have adopted a mid-Victorian view of physics and rejected anything more recent.
Em, tonyM is pointing out the flaw in reference. He is correct in doing so. Your effort (Can objects spontaneously rise up against gravity?) is just another attempt to confuse.
But, some of us find humor in your failed efforts.
En
When you address the questions put to you earlier which you ran from I may find some time to address your concerns.
But if you feel up to the challenge why don’t you get together with Appel lnd get a team together and rebut Gerlich et al. I don’t like your chances.
I did extract relevant sections to the discussions at hand,
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/
DAppell
Daahh troll is back! da-da-da-dum! DA-DA-DA-dumb!
I answered this identical troll DA-DA-DA-dumb reference earlier.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281435
SOD could not get past 50 pages of the paper and decided he knew. He did not refute any physics arguments. Yet this is the best you can do!
Halpern et al got scalped in a rebuttal attempt which was published. (Halpern is Eli Wabbit of Green Plate in the sky fame).
Do something useful; get the best team team together to rebut Gerlich. I guess that means Gore, Mann, Hansen and Schmidt. /sarc.
I note DA-DA-DA-Dumb did not refer to Halpern et al which is a published paper; wonder why he stuck to some hidden, half baked blog.
More insults. Nothing you claimed here makes any scientific sense whatsoever. You just threw around some word salad and, as usual, a bunch of juvenile insults
Youll.have to do much better
entropic…”If the 2nd law applies only to heat, what of bond energy, kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, energy carried by photons?”
The kinetic energy of atoms is the heat. The only energy related to photons is the energy in the electric and magnetic fields that make up EM. It’s called electromagnetic energy for a reason, to distinguish it from other forms of energy.
EM has no mass, it’s essentially invisible. We see colour only because our eyes respond to different frequencies of EM by producing colour. We see object only because our eyes detect the EM reflected off them. The object absorb certain EM frequencies and reflect the rest. The colour we see in the object is the response of our eyes to the reflected EM spectral frequencies.
Heat requires mass. No mass = no heat. The 2nd law restricts the direction of kinetic energy exchange between atoms. Once EM is emitted it has none of the properties of mass or heat. it’s a different form of energy. Essentially, the 2nd law is about mass, not the massless phenomenon called EM.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The kinetic energy of atoms is the heat.”
radiation isn’t heat transfer?
convection isn’t heat transfer?
diffusion isn’t?
Says who?
Your notions comes from the mid-19th century. Who said that was the last word on energy? Who said Clausius got the last word?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Heat requires mass.”
Them how does the heat of the Sun get to the Earth?
Huh??
DA…”Them how does the heat of the Sun get to the Earth?
Huh??”
You’re about as thick as two short planks. Sad that you write about science.
Gordon: how does the heat of the Sun get to the Earth?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Once EM is emitted it has none of the properties of mass or heat.”
Who said heat has no mass?
EM radiation carries energy. But has no mass.
Are you really claiming that EM does not carry energy from the Sun to the Earth?????
That’s obviously wrong.
entropic…” Once it was recognised that heat was only one of a number of interconvertable forms of energy the 2nd law was generalised to apply to all forms of energy. Energy flows from concentrated sources to dispersed sinks.
The modern form is that the entropy of a system increases as differences in order and/or energy in a non-cyclic system tend to even out over time”.
***********
No one knew exactly what heat was till Clausius associated it with atoms. He was responding to Carnot, who had 25 years earlier claimed that a heat engine had no losses. Clausius studied heat engines in depth and saw a flaw in the reasoning of Carnot. He demonstrated using PVT diagrams representing heat cycles that heat cannot be transferred in the opposite direction in a cycle.
Nothing new has been added to that since. The science has been settled in that regard. There is no known way to refute Clausius, just as there’s no way to refute Newton II at the non-atomic level.
After he’d established the 1st and 2nd laws, he established the notion of entropy. He named it entropy. Later, Boltzmann, then Planck, tried to establish an atomic basis for the 2nd law by relating probabilities to fictitious cells of atoms and their entropies.
That’s where much of the modern confusion comes from. Some people have read way too much into what Planck and Boltzmann were talking about.
The 2nd law has never been applied to other forms of energy. Both Boltzmann and Planck were studying heat and it’s relationship to EM. All EM is generated by atoms.
When heat is applied to one end of an iron rod, the kinetic energy from the applied flame is transmitted down the rod from valence electron to valence electron. If you compare that heat flow to your potential energy examples then you have to regard the hot end of the rod as the upper end of the potential hill and the cold end the bottom end. Then heat will not flow against the potential hill.
It’s the same with radiation. You cannot apply the 2nd law to gravity because it is defined in terms of heat. Get one of the books on the Net from Clausius and read how he develops the 2nd law, it’s all about heat transfer.
Gordon Robertson says:
“No one knew exactly what heat was till Clausius associated it with atoms.”
What science came after Carnot?
What says he had the last word on heat?
Because that’s where you stopped reading?
Every person here must be in violation of the 2nd law. You are a complex, highly ordered and energy rich structure which grew from smaller and simpler beginnings.
How is this possible?
You may not want to go down that road, Em. You’ve just debunked evolution.
One of the creationist arguments against evolution is that itviolates the 2nd law.
Like sky dragon slaying, a triumph of belief over evidence.
Such creationist would be ignoring the power of God.
If don’t want to invoke God; replace word God with “life force”.
And one could say the “life force” has more effect on Earth’s climate than sole “life force” of humans.
Which should enough to deter the Pope from being a believer
in “global warming”.
{Or the Pope doesn’t even have to believe in God]
gbaikie says:
“And one could say the life force has more effect on Earths climate than sole life force of humans.”
Clearly. That hardly means humans don’t influence climate.
The Pope is right. (On this.)
How’d the job search go this week, davie?
Any possibilities looming?
I don’t need a “job” as you define it — I’ve been getting by just fine for 20 years.
You’re jealous.
There’s more to life than welfare.
You resort to inspiid personal attacks because you can’t argue the science.
davie, you have no science, only pseudoscience. Such as, “the Sun can heat the Earth to 800,000K”.
(Now you can submit your phony heat calculations that violate laws of physics.)
Yes, try some endless juvenile repetition.
You obviously don’t understand 2LOT if you have to ask that question. Maybe you should choose a different pseudonym.
Tony M
I was aiming for irony. Clearly I missed.
Behind the attempt at irony is the point that if you believe the 2nd law applies only to heat, you must accept the logical implications and believe many more impossible things.
Its all so simple, how can there still be a debate?
All objects radiate thermal energy in every direction, meaning a cooler object necessarily emits thermal energy to a warmer object in its view.
Therefore heat should not be used as a generic term for thermal energy, but more specifically as the NET EXCHANGE of thermal energy.
Proper definition – no conflict with the 2LOT
Snape 2:10pm, thermal energy is short for therm-odynamic intern-al energy. Heat actually is a generic term substituted for thermodynamic internal energy, many times incorrectly.
And net energy is specifically the net exchange of thermodynamic internal energy by independent conductive, convective and radiative processes in action when two objects are at different temperatures.
Ball4
“Heat actually is a generic term substituted for thermodynamic internal energy, many times incorrectly.”
Ok, so what do you think is the correct use of the word heat?
My definition for heat is the same as your definition of “net energy”.
I only used the word “thermal” to differentiate from other forms of energy not directly related to temperature. Is there a more appropriate term?
Ball4
“thermal energy is short for therm-odynamic intern-al energy.”
Is all thermodynamic energy internal?
Here is a typical definition of heat (from Hyperphysics):
“Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object.”
This creates a problem. Suppose one object is 50 degrees and the other is 51 degrees, and let’s say the warmer emits 400 watts/m^2 to the cooler.
All 400 watts meet the above definition of heat, but would produce very little temperature change.
If the cooler object were for example only 5 degrees, the same 400 watts would result in a much greater temperature change.
That’s why heat needs to be defined as the NET energy in transit between two objects of different temperature.
Snape: Except heat (energy) flowing in each direction has physical effects at both ends.
So it’s not sufficient to just consider NET energy flux. Not at all.
Snape says:
“:All objects radiate thermal energy in every direction, meaning a cooler object necessarily emits thermal energy to a warmer object in its view.”
Does that energy have any physical effect when it arrives at the warmer object?
David asks, “Does that energy have any physical effect when it arrives at the warmer object?”
Of course. Why do you ask?
“So its not sufficient to just consider NET energy flux.”
Quite the opposite. It’s not sufficient to simply define heat as energy.
Why not?
Snape says:
David asks, Does that energy have any physical effect when it arrives at the warmer object?
“Of course. Why do you ask?”
If so then it is clearly not sufficient to look only at the net energy flow.
“Ok, so what do you think is the correct use of the word heat?”
No one of which I am aware has ever improved on Clausius 1st memoir, p.18: Assume generally that a motion of the particles (in a body) does exist, and that heat is a measure of their kinetic energy.
“Is there a more appropriate term?”
Thermodynamic internal energy. Differentiates appropriately from all other forms of internal energy in an object.
“Is all thermodynamic energy internal?”
Yes.
“This creates a problem.”
Yes of course. As all thermodynamic internal energy STAYS internal. Can’t “flow” or “transit” from the confines of the object despite Merriam-Webster neither of whom did any testing like the thermo. grandmasters did.
However in this blog context an object’s thermodynamic internal energy can be increased/decreased 1) by virtue of a temperature difference with another object (Qdot) and 2) by doing work (Wdot) to/from the object.
Ball4
I have no problem with any of that, other than we see the words heat transfer, heat exchange, heat flow, etc. all over the place, including in the writings of Clausius.
That is not at all consistent with the definition you mentioned.
What is the temperature of a photon gas?
(Like the cosmic microwave background?)
“What is the temperature of a photon gas?”
Undefined. The CMB has a defined brightness temperature; the CMB does not have a defined thermometer temperature.
Ball4: wrong. The temperature of the cosmic microwave background is 2.73 K.
The temperature of a photon gas is very well defined. Look it up.
“Ball4: wrong. The temperature of the cosmic microwave background is 2.73 K.”
The brightness temperature of the cosmic microwave background is ~2.73 K David, a PhD ought to get that right. As observed by MW radiometer on COBE not thermometer. Followed by WMAP and Planck radiometers. Look it up David. A spectrophotometer on board COBE also measured the CMB spectrum & IR detector mapped the dust emission.
CMB has no defined thermometer temperature David. Look it up.
It occured to me that I’m probably the only biologist here.
One modern idea in biology is that a living organism creates an island of low entropy by increasing the entropy of its environment. The overall trend is still to increase the overall entropy.
No 2nd law violation is required. This is fortunate, or we would not be here.
Em, in pseudoscience, you will find a lot of ways to supposedly get around 2LoT.
Just don’t try it in the real world.
G*
This is why I think heat needs to be defined specifically as net exchange of energy:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/?replytocom=281913#respond
Using this definition, which I believe is most correct, the 2LOT is never violated, and there is never a reason to make up nutty rules about photons.
My poor de-fanged snake, any “definition” you conjure up means nothing to the real-world of science.
Enjoy making up anything you want. It’s called “pseudoscience”.
And, it’s hilarious.
(Is this going to be a great year in climate comedy, or what?)
g*
If there was one definition of heat, universally accepted, then I would be practicing pseudoscience to make up my own.
That’s not the case, is it? Go online, or sample various textbooks, and you will find multiple definitions of heat. I’ve chosen (not invented) the one that always makes sense, wherever it is applied.
Entropic man says:
“One modern idea in biology is that a living organism creates an island of low entropy by increasing the entropy of its environment. The overall trend is still to increase the overall entropy.”
That’s my understanding too.
You “soft science” types keep re-defining science to fit your beliefs.
When your funding runs out, there will still be engineers designing safe systems for you to utilize.
You’re welcome.
S=k*ln(W)
S=k*ln(W)
http://image.wikifoundry.com/image/1/zvZ7PNLhh8IDeyf-_CAXlw20500/GW282H413
entropic…”One modern idea in biology is that a living organism creates an island of low entropy by increasing the entropy of its environment. The overall trend is still to increase the overall entropy”
Biologists are weird, they believe in evolution. A low entropy in classical terms translates to a low level of disorder. As entropy increases, disorder increases. They are essentially claiming that a living organism creates disorder in its environment.
How about if the organism is a human and he build a building or a city? He is creating order out of disorder.
Your mind, and the minds of alarmists in this blog are in a high state of entropy (disorder). At the same time, you have an ability to introduce order through your natural capability of awareness. For whatever reason, you guys insist on blocking it out.
Gordon Robertson says:
“They are essentially claiming that a living organism creates disorder in its environment.”
Prove this wrong. Or shut up
PS: All smart people see and understand the evidence for evolution.
DA…”S=k*ln(W)
Boltzmann should have named his statistical abomination something else. Clausius had already defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes of heat at temperature T in a process. He even named it entropy and explained why.
He wrote the differential as dS = dq/T.
I think Boltzmann was an ass. He tried to prove the 2nd law using that garbage and failed. All he really accomplished was associating EM to temperature. Planck just added to the confusion wrt heat. His value was in finding the quantum relationship between atomic electron energy levels.
DA…”Prove this wrong. Or shut up
PS: All smart people see and understand the evidence for evolution”.
You even steal my lines.
You mean all butt kissers see and understand it. Anyone with half a brain can see that 5 basic elements in primeval muds could never form life as we know it today. They tried back in the ’50s and all they got was an amino acid goo. The environment required to produce the goo would never support life.
Any intelligent being would never accept an obfuscation like natural selection. What an idiotic idea. Natural selection implies intelligence, the antithesis of what evolution is about…sheer chance.
GR: The 2LOT statements of Clausius and Boltzmann are equivalent. (And of Carnot, and of Planck, etc.)
How could you think you know anything about physics yet not know this?
You are the empty well who keeps on giving.
But Boltzmann’s formulation of the 2LOT is more fundamental and more useful — because it pertains to more situations than does the statement of Clausius. (Like to black holes.)
But this is way above anything you understand…
Gordon Robertson says:
“I think Boltzmann was an ass.”
No one cares. Your opinion about Boltzmann is so uninformed and plain dumb that it means nothing. You might as well be opining on the Three Stooges.
In fact, you do not get to have an opinion about Boltzmann.
Dunning-Kruger, in spades.
entropic…”You are a complex, highly ordered and energy rich structure which grew from smaller and simpler beginnings”.
You are not describing entropy. Wait till you die and you will experience it. Once you decompose, trying to put you back together and getting life into you would be akin to getting heat transferred from a cold mass to a warm mass with no compensation. Even compensation would not help you.
Entropic is indeed describing entropy.
No one thinks the entropy of a system is constant in time, Gordon.
Yes, it changes over time.
But, yet, it changes over time.
Are you familiar with the equation
S = k*ln(W)
which Boltzmann had inscribed on his tombstone.
What does it mean?
DA…”S = k*ln(W)
which Boltzmann had inscribed on his tombstone.”
You know why he is in that grave, don’t you? He hanged himself out of desperation because he could not make that formula stick. He was trying to prove the 2nd law and he failed.
Liar.
That equation is the foundation of modern information theory.
You are such a friggin’ idiot. A shameless, no good liar.
And I still think you don’t know what that equation means…….
Snape, ball4
Have we been arguing over words?
If g*e*r*a*n and the others have been using “heat” as a generic term where others might use “energy” a lot of our disagreement disappears.
Though they still have this strange idea that slowing the rate of heat flow through the climate system violates the 2nd law.
Entropic man
Yes! In my opinion this entire ridiculous confusion over the 2LOT is a result of the differing definitions of the words heat and energy.
+1.
“Heat” versus “energy” is a distinction without a difference.
David
That’s the problem. If the words heat and energy are interchangeable, you could say, “ice is heating the turkey”, or “I’m putting ice cream in the freezer to get heated”.
When heat is defined as a net, everything falls into place.
Snape says:
“Thats the problem. If the words heat and energy are interchangeable, you could say, ice is heating the turkey, or Im putting ice cream in the freezer to get heated.
Ice is radiating energy, yet?
If that energy hits the turkey, what effect does that have on the turkey?
“When heat is defined as a net, everything falls into place.”
You just admitted above that heat flowing BOTH ways has physical effects. Seems here you’re now saying the opposite.
David
“If that energy hits the turkey, what effect does that have on the turkey?”
Are you asking whether or not the energy will produce a change in temperature? If so, we need more information, right?
“You just admitted above that heat flowing BOTH ways has physical effects. Seems here youre now saying the opposite.”
I’ve never said any such thing.
Snape, again, I’m asking
If that energy hits the turkey, what effect does that have on the turkey?
Again, no way of knowing. It might get hotter, it might get colder, perhaps no change at all.
Snape says:
“Again, no way of knowing. It might get hotter, it might get colder, perhaps no change at all.”
How exactly does the change depending on the incoming energy E and the turkey’s temperature T?
Equations…….
David
You were asking what temperature change would be produced from an incoming flux of energy. I said more information would be needed to find the answer. For example, the turkey’s initial temperature.
Do you disagree with this?
The turkey’s temperature is T.
So if a turkey receives 100 w/m^2 from a block of ice that has been placed next to it, what will be the temperature change? Turkey’s temperature is T.
Good luck.
Snape, you’re the one making pronouncements.
So you tell us.
You can assume the turkey’s mass is M.
—
I don’t think you have the slightest clue how to argue for the position you’re taking.
Ready to admit that?
Snape:
Take the incoming photon to have frequency f.
The turkey has mass M and specific heat C.
Assume it’s very nearly a blackbody.
David
You’ve lost the thread of the conversation. Let’s go back. You asked,
“Ice is radiating energy. If that energy hits the turkey, what effect does that have on the turkey?”
The effect you’re talking about is a temperature change, correct?” How could we possibly know if the turkey would get warmer or cooler without knowing any actual values?
It’s a nonsensical question. Equations need values to be useful.
David says, “Snape, youre the one making pronouncements.”
My pronouncement is that of the many different definitions of heat I’ve seen, the “net exchange” version makes the most sense. Maybe you could explain why you disagree?
EM 3:47pm: “Have we been arguing over words?”
Incessantly.
Invoking the heat term NEVER adds clarity to any explanation. Heat term is best left in the 1800s where it was invented and realized by test to be without corporeal existence. Might have been Joule or Kelvin who proved heat does not exist. Thus, anyone including Merriam-Webster can define heat any way imaginable, no test can prove them right or wrong.
Ball4
I totally agree. The problem is that the word heat pops up in places all over thermodynamics, whether we like it or not. The 2LOT is just one example.
Snape says:
“My pronouncement is that of the many different definitions of heat Ive seen, the net exchange version makes the most sense. Maybe you could explain why you disagree?”
Because you’ve already agreed that energy flowing in each direction has physical effects.
David
In an isolated system, when two objects exchange energy, the temperature “effect” upon each is determined by the difference between the two flows. No difference (net is zero) no change in temperature.
Energy flowing in each direction (between objects with different temperature) is exactly what creates a difference (heat).
So youre claiming that if object A radiates in all directions, and some of that radiation inpacts objectB, that radiation has no effect on B.
Are you really sure thats where you want to make your stand??
David
Of course I’m not saying that! Here’s a familiar example, when heat is defined as a net exchange of energy:
The green plate receives 266 watts from the blue. The blue gets 133 in return. The green plate, then, has a NET GAIN (heat) of 133 watts. It is being heated.
The blue plate is LOSING 133 watts from the exchange, it is not being heated.
However, prior to the green plate being introduced, the blue had been losing 200 watts to space. With the addition of the green plate, it gets 67 watts more than before. It’s RATE OF HEAT LOSS HAS DECREASED and as a result. it’s temperature goes up.
Correction:
“With the addition of the green plate, the blue plate LOSES 67 watts less than before.”
“The problem is that the word heat pops up in places all over thermodynamics, whether we like it or not.”
The problem is that the word heat incorrectly pops up in places all over thermodynamics, whether we like it or not. There is no need to ever invoke the word heat so any such problem can be avoided simply by not using the term. Some authors of course are more capable & use the term correctly consistently.
“The 2LOT is just one example.”
Correctly 2LOT is not an example since when properly expressed or written the term heat is not invoked.
Ball4
You make a good argument. I’ll have to rethink my view.
Heat is work and work is heat.😐
Entropic Man
What’s wrong with defining heat as a net exchange?
Didn’t you agree that energy flowing in both directions has a physical effect?
If so, what is that effect?
David
Yes, I definitely agreed to that. The effect on temperature depends on how much energy is flowing in each direction. Which is why net exchange is the best definition for heat.
snape…”Whats wrong with defining heat as a net exchange?”
If you cannot accept that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms in motion you will never understand your question.
If heat is atoms in motion, how can there be a net exchange? If you blow two sets of atoms at each other and they mingle convectively, there maybe an exchange. If the gases are of different temperatures you might argue there are interatomic exchanges but that’s not a heat transfer per se.
In a solid, there is no doubt that a net energy exchange does not occur (nice double negative). In a hot air furnace, hot air as atoms are blown along a duct to heat a room. No net heat exchange.
In radiation, the heat is converted to EM before being radiated. Why should there be a net HEAT exchange, or even a net EM exchange?
snape…”The effect on temperature depends on how much energy is flowing in each direction. Which is why net exchange is the best definition for heat”.
You have a room with a radiant heat source in one end. It emits EM but it also warms the air by direct conduction and the air mixes throughout the room by convection. You cannot feel the radiation a few feet away but you can feel the warming effect of the air via convection across the room.
Where is energy flowing in each direction? You are hung up on radiation theory and not thinking broadly enough.
EM does not flow both ways as in an exchange, it is radiated isotropically from each radiator. Only a fraction of each radiator’s flux fields reaches the other target. Only the radiation from the warmer radiator is absorbed by the cooler radiator.
That’s the 2nd law.
Gordon
Your comments ramble on like a crazy person. Assertions, examples questions are all jumbled together.
Let’s be organized and start from the beginning. Here is the first question you asked, “If heat is atoms in motion, how can there be a net exchange?”
The sun heats the earth, but not by sending atoms flying through space. Therefore, I wouldn’t define heat as “atoms in motion”.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You have a room with a radiant heat source in one end. It emits EM but it also warms the air by direct conduction and the air mixes throughout the room by convection. You cannot feel the radiation a few feet away….”
Why not?
Radiation travel at the speed of light.
Both conduction and convection travel at much slower speeds.
So why don’t you feel the heat radiation first?
Have we been arguing over words?
Almost entirely. I said this months ago and nothing has changed.
It’s about numbers with g*e*r*a*n.
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
Yes, anger’s hilarious! numbers which show 1.0 albedo in 6c3 for BB blue plate side illuminated by the LW from the green plate.
The climate comedy is being more than well supplied by anger and followers already this year. Keep up the comedy anger and for sure continue to perform no experiments; leave the mundane unfunny proper science experimentation to competent commenters.
Cabbage head mixes his inability to communicate with his pseudoscience.
It’s fun to watch.
At times, based on made-up physics.
Em, why does you feel you must misrepresent me?
You stated: “Though they still have this strange idea that slowing the rate of heat flow through the climate system violates the 2nd law.”
Is that ALL you have, mis-representation, “spin”, and obfuscation?
Entropic man says: “Have we been arguing over words?”
No, g*e*r*a*n calculates different temperatures in the plate example (in fact he has no calculation at all, just numbers).
Now see, why would Svante say such a thing?
Obviously he has no background in physics, but now he can’t work simple algebra?
And, it’s my fault!!!
Hilarious.
Anyway,
It’s not about words in the plate example,
it’s about numbers.
Here are the “numbers”:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
Which formula gives you different emissivity / absorbtivity on one side but not the other, in violation of Kirschoff’s law.
There is NO violation of Kirchhoff, except in your desperate attempt to discredit the correct solution.
It’s fun to watch.
A 1.0 albedo on the BB blue plate side illuminated by LW hilariously! violates Kirchhoff law anger; only the incompetent would not notice & draw 6c3 arrows as anger does. That’s funny climate comedy this year. More please.
Cabbage head continues to mix his inadequate communication skills with his inadequate science.
And now, he mimics others, demonstrating his lack of originality.
Great comedy!
Kirchhoff’s law, for each frequency:
emissivity = abs*orp*tivity
g*e*r*a*n*s law:
emissivity = 1
abs*orp*tivity = 0
sometimes
Svante,
The various Warmist sub cults cant even agree on numbers apparently – even when they supposedly measure them.
Someone wrote here –
“Several agencies have been tracking the results:
OLS trends for 1979-2017 in C / decade:
JMA: 0.14
Had-CRUT: 0.17
GISS: 0.17
NOAA: 0.17 ”
This is science? Only joking – of course it’s not! The calculation of an average from a series of recorded numbers is obviously too complicated for the climatological brain. At least it keeps them away from anything requiring actual thought, logic, and attention to detail!
The dim leading the dumb – or should that be the other way round?
Cheers.
Why should the groups agree on the numbers when they put different assumptions into their data models?
entropic…”If g*e*r*a*n and the others have been using heat as a generic term where others might use energy a lot of our disagreement disappears”.
Bally is completely screwed on this. He has confused heat with ‘heat transfer’. Heat transfer is energy in motion, heat is the energy in conduction and convection.
You did that experiment the other day. Did you not feel the heat? What else would it be? Since people noticed the phenomenon of heat, when they were boring canon muzzles, they tried to explain it. Clausius was first to explain it was the kinetic energy of atoms in motion.
Bally can be a queer duck at times.
GR says:
“Heat transfer is energy in motion, heat is the energy in conduction and convection.”
Conduction isn’t energy in motion?
Convection isn’t?
What are both of these if not “heat in motion?”
GR, I’m the guy who did the experiment, not em…
Snape,
You wrote –
“Suppose one object is 50 degrees and the other is 51 degrees, and lets say the warmer emits 400 watts/m^2 to the cooler.
Lest anybody leap to the conclusion that lets say equates to anything other than wishful thinking, maybe you could indicate how an an object at 51 degrees can emit 400 watts/m^2?
Lets say youre fantasizing? Maybe if you specified the object, its emissivity, its material and so on (as a scientist might), you might have some credibility. Ice can emit in excess of 300 W/m2, but no matter how much of it you have, you cannot warm even a teaspoon of water!
As to thermal energy –
“Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. – Wikipedia.
Many people seem confused by the fact that ice, continuously emitting photons at a relatively furious rate towards a person laying naked on the ice, does not raise the bodys temperature one jot. They claim that photons emitted by ice must be absorbed by the body, and cause a rise in temperature! Assertion is not necessarily fact.
The infinite numbers” of photons passing unimpeded through your body at any given time raise your temperature about the same amount as they would a corpse or a concrete block! TV, radio, mobile phone, power lines, all the way up to high energy cosmic rays, – most pass right through you as though you werent there!
CO2 raises the temperature of nothing at all. No GHE.
Deny, divert and confuse all you like – emit CO2 and heat at a furious rate! The heat may affect a thermometer, but the CO2 wont.
Keep twisting – or try a high speed lateral arabesque if normal evasive techniques don’t work as well as they used to. Have you tried name calling, or feeble attempts at gratuitous insults? I might be able to help in that regard. Let me know if you would like some assistance.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“They claim that photons emitted by ice must be absorbed by the body, and cause a rise in temperature!”
So where do those photons go instead?
Maybe they go looking for a job?
Why?
why not?
I’m self-sufficient and happy.
Does that bother you?
Does “self-sufficient” involve any “other peoples money”? Does “happy” mean hate-free?
DA…”So where do those photons go instead?”
Why do they have to go anywhere, we don’t even know what they are.
Mike
“Ice can emit in excess of 300 W/m2, but no matter how much of it you have, you cannot warm even a teaspoon of water!”
Read my comments above. Energy is exchanged. Water heats the ice. Ice does not heat the water.
It’s very, very simple.
Consequently, the atmosphere cannot heat the planet.
See snake, even you can learn.
I’ve never once said the atmosphere heats the planet. I learned that a long time ago.
So why is earths surface warmer than its brightness temperature?
“It’s the Sun, stupid.”
Snape says:
“Ice does not heat the water.”
The ice radiates energy.
Some of the radiation is in the direction of the water.
What happens when that radiation encounters the water?
David,
Did you really not learn about the interaction between light and matter as an undergraduate?
Unless you can convince me otherwise, your supposed question appears to be another lame Appell-esque attempt at a gotcha.
In case you or anyone else is interested in the interaction between light and matter, Richard Feynman wrote a small book on the matter. Your attempt at a gotcha is a typical Warmist piece of misdirection – seemingly relevant, but meaningless.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Unless you can convince me otherwise, your supposed question appears to be another lame Appell-esque attempt at a gotcha.”
Yet another wimp-out.
I’ve lost count. But maybe you’re keeping track????
A lot of it gets absorbed.
What is a lot?
What does physics say?
“They claim that photons emitted by ice must be absorbed by the body, and cause a rise in temperature!”
Temperature is a measure of internal energy, not how many photons get absorbed.
S,
A cubic kilometre of ice contains a large amount of internal energy. It emits a large amount continuously. It stubbornly remains below 273K.
Are you sure that temperature reflects internal energy? An incandescent light filament may contain far less energy than a chunk of ice, but might burn you more than the energy contained in the block of ice!
Maybe you have been using climatological pseudo physics?
Cheers
Mike Flynn says:
“A cubic kilometre of ice contains a large amount of internal energy. It emits a large amount continuously. It stubbornly remains below 273K. Are you sure that temperature reflects internal energy?”
What is the definition of temperature?
David,
According to Snape –
“Temperature is a measure of internal energy, not how many photons get absorbed.
I know youre just being silly, in a Warmist gotcha fashion, but what is your definition of temperature? Or does posing irrelevant and stupid gotchas only flow from witless Warmists to those of superior knowledge?
Curious, but I don’t actually expect an answer.
Cheers.
Don’t engineers have to take first year physics?
They did in my day.
If not, then of course you wouldn’t understand basic thermodynamics.
What a shame.
snape…”Temperature is a measure of internal energy…”
Temperature is also a measure of heat. Therefore….
What is “heat?”
For an alleged physicist, you ask a lot of stupid questions.
David asks, “The ice radiates energy.
Some of the radiation is in the direction of the water.
What happens when that radiation encounters the water?”
At least part of it gets absorbed. Why do you ask?
How much of it gets absorbed, exactly?
David
If you’re curious, make up temperatures for the ice and water. Use your physics expertise to answer the question.
If you disagree with something I say, be upfront about it. Don’t dick around like an ass.
Snape, I didn’t think you could answer the questions, using physics.
You were making things up.
Snape,
Not even a very good attempt at deny, divert and confuse! Are you very, very, simple yourself, perhaps?
Maybe you might like to expand your hypothesis that a colder object causes a warmer object to rise in temperature by absorbing energy from the colder object. As you agree, it doesnt seem to happen with H2O, which is supposedly a potent greenhouse gas!
Maybe you can use cold CO2 to raise the temperature of a warmer object? Nope, that doesnt seem to work either! Dry ice wont heat anything hotter than itself. No magic there.
The only place where adding or subtracting CO2 respectively raises or lowers temperatures is in the delusions of climatologists – reality is somewhat different.
Still no GHE – not even a disprovable hypothesis, is there? Keep at it!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe you might like to expand your hypothesis that a colder object causes a warmer object to rise in temperature by absorbing energy from the colder object.”
Object A, of unknown temperature, emits radiation in all directions.
Some of it is in the direction of object B.
What happens when that radiation encounters object B?
David,
For a man who claims to have a PhD in physics, you appear to be remarkably dense. You could try reading Feynmans little book relating to the interaction between light and matter.
If you have particular questions relating to not being able to understand Feynmans explanations, I will do my best to help.
Maybe youre just being silly. Do you really not understand how radio waves, for example, can travel through buildings and people – even after traversing tens of thousands of kilometres? Or how microwaves can travel through packaging or much crockery, but can be absorbed by the contents, resulting in heating?
Im not sure how much notice someone would take of a person who doesnt seem to understand what any ordinary person can observe quite easily.
Have you tried to get a grant from the French Government yet? I believe they are funding climatological cultists to relocate to La Belle France. Just a thought- I’m here to help.
Cheers.
MF, you’re still eluding.
Object A, of unknown temperature, emits radiation in all directions.
Some of it is in the direction of object B.
What happens when that radiation encounters object B?
David,
Im not eluding as far as I know. Just refusing.
You compare me to a monkey, and then demand that I provide knowledge which you lack!
Obviously, you consider a monkey to be far more knowledgeable than yourself. Sad, but possibly true. Only you would know.
Keep on with the gotchas if you must, although its possible that applying the same amount of effort to seeking factual knowledge might result in greater personal contentment for you.
I choose not to answer your silly gotchas. Why should I? Do you have some mysterious power of which I am unaware? Complaining that I wont bend to your will is unlikely to make the GHE magically become real.
Keep trying if you wish.
Cheers.
You’re afraid to answer questions about your claims. You’re afraid to defend them.
We all know what that means about you.
DA…”What happens when that radiation encounters object B?”
You need to specify the temperature of each body. If A is hotter, then B will absorb the energy. If B is warmer, it will not.
2nd law.
DA…”Keep on with the gotchas …”
David repeats them endlessly, behavior you’d expect from a pre-adolescent child.
Today, he asked for the umpteenth time, what is heat.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You need to specify the temperature of each body.”
T(A)=Ta
T(B)=Tb
“If A is hotter, then B will absorb the energy. If B is warmer, it will not.”
2nd law.”
Still wrong.
When was the last time you actually looked up the statements of the 2LOT?
Mike Flynn says:
“Still no GHE not even a disprovable hypothesis, is there? Keep at it!”
Like a monkey, you repeat this blindly each time, as if you think repetition makes it so.
At the same time you refuse to address the arguments made.
That’s also what a monkey would do.
Surely your intellect is higher than a monkey’s.
Hey davie, when did JMA change to JMO?
Monkeys don’t ever admit they’re wrong.
Surely your intellect is higher than a monkey’s?
Yes, it is JMA, not JMO.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/list/mon_wld.html
I’m glad to learn this today. Thanks.
So, were you wrong?
(Monkeys don’t ever admit they’re wrong.)
Yes, clearly I was wrong — it’s “JMA,” not “JMO.”
Happy to be corrected on this fact.
David,
If you say so, it must be true – isnt that the climatological methodology?
I understand, and sympathise.
Cheers.
Getting the name slightly wrong doesn’t affect their methodology one bit.
Sure even an “engineer” understands that, right?
Mike
When two objects are isolated, the result is the warmer will get colder and the colder will get warmer.
There is no such law in the real world, where objects are not isolated from their surroundings. The sun does not by itself cause the earth to warm or cool. Neither does the atmosphere.
You keep saying contradictory things.
The sun does not by itself cause the earth to warm or cool.
Huh?
David
Where’s the contradiction? You think changes in earth’s temperature are solely the result of changes in solar input? Does the GHE mean the sun is hotter? If course not!
snake is the perfect purveyor of pseudoscience. He has no math or science background.
But, he reads wiki!
Hilarious.
S,
Why would an isolated cold object spontaneously get hotter? A truly isolated object will continuously radiate energy until it reaches absolute zero, as I understand.
As to the real world, sunlight appears to warm the surface during the day, and lack thereof at night seems to result in cooling. The Earth, however, taken as a whole, has demonstrably cooled over the last four and a half billion years. The surface is no longer molten, much to the dismay of the delusional GHE proponents.
Im not sure what your point is. Maybe you could explain the GHE, in light of your assertion that neither the Sun nor the atmosphere causes the earth to warm or cool.
All a bit climatological, it would seem.
Cheers.
Mike says,
“Why would an isolated cold object spontaneously get hotter?”
Geez! Could you at least pay attention?
“When TWO objects are isolated, the result is the warmer will get colder and the colder will get warmer.”
You keep avoiding the questions above about your claims.
Do you really think that’s how science is done?
Mike Flynn says:
“Maybe you could explain the GHE….”
Don’t try.
Flynn is not genuine.
David,
You wrote –
“You keep avoiding the questions above about your claims.
Do you really think thats how science is done?
More gotchas, I see. I just refuse to dance to your tune. If you choose to be annoyed, thats your choice.
Others can satisfy themselves as to the veracity of my comments. Assertions count for nothing except in the tortuous fantasies of Warmists. If you believe that I have erred in any substantive factual matter, please let me know.
Or you could just keep complaining that I don’t give a fig for your opinion, unless backed by verifiable fact. Still no testable GHE hypothesis, which is a bit sad.
Cheers.
I can tell you received an engineer’s education, and not a scientist’s.
Scientists aren’t afraid of questions. In fact, they’re trained to accept and answer them.
Engineer.
David,
You wrote (presumably in the grip of a mental aberration) –
“I can tell you received an engineers education, and not a scientists.
Scientists arent afraid of questions. In fact, theyre trained to accept and answer them.
Engineer.
If you say so, David, if you say so.
I usually refrain from feeling superior to the afflicted, but I will endeavour to make an exception in your case.
Cheers.
Keep running, Flynn.
It’s what you’re best at.
DA…”I can tell you received an engineers education, and not a scientists”.
So why is engineering called applied science? And why is the workload for engineers twice what it is for science students? I guess they figure we can absorb twice as much a science student.
We study the same math, physics, etc., although engineering math and science is honours level. If you can’t handle the honours level and double workload you can always drop out of engineering and take science.
Ha. My first semester I started in engineering. The textbook was comical, the equations were written as if for babies, and all the other students talked about was how much money they would make upon graduating. It was all kind of sad.
After the first semester I switched to physics. There are the textbook and equations well written in rigorous terms, not prettified. As an undergraduate I have a double major, in math a.m. in physics. Im sure I worked harder then you, and I certainly got better grades than you. Thats completely obvious based on your very poor understanding of basic science.
Sorry Gordon. I am not one who finds engineers impressive. And yare the worst possible example of their education.
davie: ” My first semester I started in engineering.”
Translation: “davie couldn’t make it through engineering.”
DA…”Ha. My first semester I started in engineering. The textbook was comical, the equations were written as if for babies…”
You must have been studying agricultural engineering. Or maybe geological engineering. At any rate, you couldn’t cut it and fled to an easier course in the science department.
g*r…”But, he reads wiki!”
Most people don’t seem to realize how wiki works. Any one of us here could post a wiki article today that is sheer nonsense. Of course, people can amend the article but we could reject the amendment.
A lot like the IPCC.
It was freshman engineering — no specialties yet. I was going to go EE.
But I was very disappointed. Thankfully I switched to physics & math.
Snape, you’re still getting the 2LOT wrong.
When was the last time you read it?
David Appell says:
January 20, 2018 at 7:02 PM
MF, youre still eluding.
Object A, of unknown temperature, emits radiation in all directions.
Some of it is in the direction of object B.
What happens when that radiation encounters object B?
David,
Maybe you chose not to read what I wrote, so Ill post it again –
“David,
Im not eluding as far as I know. Just refusing.
You compare me to a monkey, and then demand that I provide knowledge which you lack!
Obviously, you consider a monkey to be far more knowledgeable than yourself. Sad, but possibly true. Only you would know.
Keep on with the gotchas if you must, although its possible that applying the same amount of effort to seeking factual knowledge might result in greater personal contentment for you.
I choose not to answer your silly gotchas. Why should I? Do you have some mysterious power of which I am unaware? Complaining that I wont bend to your will is unlikely to make the GHE magically become real.
Keep trying if you wish.
Cheers.”
Wimp.
Engineer.
Who designs and builds wind turbines and solar panel installations?
Why, the engineers of course!
Engineers take the given laws of physics to build wind turbines. They’re not doing fundamental physics, and IMO usually do not have a deeper understanding of physics.
davie, any job interviews this week?
David,
Stuck for words, are you? Reduced to one-word epithets?
Foolish Warmist! Maybe having a tantrum might ease your angst? Alternatively, a cup of tea and a good lie down can work wonders, I’m told.
Still no GHE though. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. No wonder you are melting down to one-word responses – I quite understand.
Cheers.
Engineers, afraid of questions.
Run.
DA…”What happens when that radiation encounters object B?”
Depends on it’s frequency and intensity. If both are correct for the temperature of the body, it will be absorbed. If not, it just keeps doing what it does.
How does it depend?
Show the dependence, mathematically, according to known physical laws.
DA…”Show the dependence, mathematically, according to known physical laws”.
I have shown it several times: E = hf. When an electron drops between energy level equal to E, in eV, a photon of EM is released with energy E and f equivalent to the temperature at which the electron finds itself.
In order for a similar photon (are two photons alike, I can’t tell one from the other?) to be absorbed by an electron at the same temperature it requires an energy AND frequency equivalent to that emitted. Not possible for EM from a cooler temperature body to emit that kind of EM.
Ergo, Gavin Schmidt, Raymond Pierrehumbert, Stefan Rahmstorf, and all other alarmist types are wrong. Neils Bohr said so. Bohr started the current version of quantum theory but I guess he’s not up on climate science a la realclimate and NASA GISS.
Einstein energy and frequency are the same. Related by any proportionality constant.
Are you really claiming that cooler bodies do not radiate?
Really??? What experiment confirms this?
Einstein are you aware of the incorrectness of the Bohr model?
That seems when you stopped reading, and its all that you know.
The Bohr model shows electrons orbiting around the nucleus like planets around the sun. This is wrong, and not what electrons actually do.
The model has electrons accelerating, Accelerating charges radiate EM. Please point to where this radiation appears, say, from the hydrogen atom.
Answer: it is not there. There is no such radiation from atom. If there was, one Can estimate the lifetime of the ground state of the hydrogen atom. It comes to about 0.1 ns.
This is clearly not the case. The Bohr model is wrong. Everyone in the world knows this except you. Embarrassing.
“Appelly” rhymes with “jelly”.
Very appropriate.
DA…”This is clearly not the case. The Bohr model is wrong. Everyone in the world knows this except you. Embarrassing”.
The Bohr model was never intended to show a real, physical world related to electrons and protons. It was merely a model to account for Planck’s quantum energy levels. Electrodynamics required the electron to lose energy and spiral into the nucleus. To allow for that and still maintain an orbit, Bohr hypothesized that electrons are restricted to orbitals with certain energy levels.
Guess what, it worked!!! For hydrogen, at least.
Scientists along the line amended the Bohr model. For example, one changed the simple circular orbital to orbits of varying orbital shapes and the s,p,d,f orbitals were introduced to explain the Bohr model for different elements.
Guess what, it worked!!!
You are seriously out of touch. Or maybe you were never in touch.
The Bohr model is still taught in schools and universities because it helps students visualize the ‘possibility’ that electrons orbit a nucleus. It doesn’t matter, all theories in organic chemistry rely on the s,p,d,f orbital theory based on the original Bohr model. I learned it that way decades ago and I’m happy to see it is still taught.
How else can you explain that atoms emit EM as they cool and warm when they absorb EM of the right frequency and intensity? Frequency is related to temperature. When you heat an iron rod with a torch, it first glows red. As it warms, it begins to glow orange, then yellow, then blue, indications of ever-increasing EM frequency emission as temperature rises. As iron cools, it even leaves visible tempering colours on the metal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempering_(metallurgy)
The Bohr model and accompanying theory explains it all perfectly. The model may not be right but it explains it.
After decades in electronics, I seriously doubt that the electron/nucleus theory is as simple as claimed. However, scientists have bombarded thin sheets of gold with particles and noticed there are definite centres of mass in the gold. That’s how they determined the size of the nucleus.
Pauling, from your part of the world, went on to do stellar work on the shapes of molecules based on xray crystallography. Pauling coined the term electronegativity to estimate the relative affinity of atoms to attract electrons. Electron theory has been well established since 1890s and scientists today ‘know’ they emit EM and absorb it into the atom.
Personally, I have been dealing with electron theory for decades. I feel aghast that your knowledge of them is so primitive. Your entire body, right to the cell level is an aggregation of electrons and protons. You’d better get used to, without them you are dead. Even then, your remains are made of them.
Gordon Robertson says:
“In order for a similar photon (are two photons alike, I cant tell one from the other?) to be absorbed by an electron at the same temperature it requires an energy AND frequency equivalent to that emitted.”
For a photon energy and frequency are the same thing!!
E = f, up to a proportionality constant that isn’t fundamental.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“After decades in electronics, I seriously doubt that the electron/nucleus theory is as simple as claimed.”
Did you stop learning at the Bohr model?
Seriously….
Did you never go on to learn quantum mechanics, Schrodinger’s equation, wave functions, probability distributions, the Uncertainty Principle, none of that?
Electrons don’t really move around the nucleus. Tell me you know that much at least.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Frequency is related to temperature.”
In what way?
Specify f(T).
If both are correct for the temperature of the body, it will be absorbed
Specify what “correct” means in this circumstance, according to known physical laws.
David,
Demands, demands!
Have you considered doing your own research, rather than demanding answers from people you claim have no knowledge?
Your decision, of course. I understand that demanding answers to questions about physics from an undistinguished mathematician like Gavin Schmidt would be quite pointless.
Anyone at all is likely to know as much, if not more, about physics, than a self proclaimed climatologist! Keep asking. Are you sure you could determine a factual answer from the fantasy dished out by Warmists? I assume not, but you might surprise me one day.
Cheers.
Flynn fears questions. He knows he can’t answer them.
I liked “appelly” better. Rhymes with “jelly” and “belly”.
DA…”Specify what correct means in this circumstance, according to known physical laws”.
Just answered that but I’ll give it again. The intensity and frequency of the potentially absorbed EM must match the energy level and temperature level of the absorbing electron.
Heard of spectral lines??? Even CO2 has an absorp-tion spectra. It favours one frequency over another.
What, pray tell, is the temperature level of an electron?
David,
Maybe he could respond in like fashion What, pray tell is an electron? Show your workings!”
Foolish Warmists attempt to deny, divert, and confuse by demanding answers to irrelevant and pointless gotchas. Are you a foolish Warmist, by any chance?
Carry on. Maybe you can get a real job one day.
Cheers.
DA…”What, pray tell, is the temperature level of an electron?”
I am using the term very loosely with regard to temperature. It’s obviously not possible to attach a temperature to one electron, or even many. By temperature, I am referring to the macro temperature of an entire mass but that has to be broken down into its constituent electrons and protons. There are neutrons but the protons and electrons carry charge and that charge determines the atomic structure as well as molecular shapes.
Clausius and many others have defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. Temperature is an artificial, relative measure of heat. We humans invented temperature. Therefore temperature is a relative measure of kinetic energy.
When a mass of atoms are heated, the electrons around the atoms respond by rising to higher energy levels which are equivalent to an increase in kinetic energy. If enough heat is applied, the electrons will jump out of their orbitals and the mass will begin to disintegrate, as in melting.
In a gas, the kinetic energy is also equated to momentum. I have no idea why gas atoms start zipping around harder when heated but they do.
If I had to equate an electron to temperature I would say the temperature represents the kinetic energy of the electron. Kinetic energy is energy in motion and in a solid, the electrons are the only particle that can move. In a gas, of course, the entire atom can move and when two atoms collide they can transfer energy, which is heat. The electrons are responsible for transferring the energy.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“In a gas, the kinetic energy is also equated to momentum.”
Wrong.
This statement is pure stupidity.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Kinetic energy is energy in motion and in a solid, the electrons are the only particle that can move.”
Wrong.
Ever heat of atomic or molecular motion in a crystal lattice?
Do you know what a phonon is?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Clausius and many others have defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms.”
Where did Clausius say this was the only kind of heat?
Snape wrote –
When TWO objects are isolated, the result is the warmer will get colder and the colder will get warmer.
Typical Warmist misdirection. Nothing to do with the supposed magic heating ability of CO2. One definition of isolate is” identify (something) and examine or deal with it separately. Different wording would merely restate the blindingly obvious – although maybe not quite so obvious to the average dim climatologist.
Under certain conditions, what you wrote is correct, to a point. Provided the objects are close enough to achieve a state of thermal equilibrium, initially the colder will be heated by the warmer. No mystery there.
After that, of course, without an external energy source, both will cool to absolute zero.
However, still no “colder object raising the temperature of a hotter one”. None. CO2 heats nothing. Removing the CO2 from an enclosed volume of air does not cause the air to drop in temperature.
Maybe if you could come up with a testable GHE hypothesis, you might be able to figure out a way of keeping to the point, although it seems unlikely. Thats a problem of trying to convince people that climatology is a science of any sort. Luckily, even politicians seem to be less easily convinced. Even the US Dept of Defence has abandoned reliance on the nonsense sprouted by climatologists.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Nothing to do with the supposed magic heating ability of CO2”
CO2 doesn’t have a “heating ability.”
You know this, but lie about it anyway.
Why is it so easy to find the lies in the positions climate change deniers take?
Notice how Flynn ran away from all the questions above.
He can’t answer them.
David,
So you say, so you say.
Maybe nobody cares what you think? Or what I think?
Climate is the average of weather – no more, no less. If you believe that the weather (and hence the climate) has not continuously changed since atmosphere first existed, your delusion is even more pronounced than might otherwise appear.
You cannot even state a disprovable GHE hypothesis, can you? I suppose its possible that self styled climatologists such as Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann might be keeping such a thing a closely held secret, but Im inclined to the view that it doesnt exist. Along with unicorns and fairies.
Just keep demanding that people respond to your infantile gotchas – it might achieve something, but precisely what will forever remain a mystery.
Alternatively, ups could try to annoy or offend me, which is a bit pointless given that Ive mentioned before that I generally decline to take offence, or to express annoyance. I cant even be bothered to make an exception for you, but feel free to waste as much of your time as you wish. I dont mind.
Cheers.
Youre afraid to answer questions. Youve shown this again and again. Youre a big waste of time.
davie, as Mike would say, “still no GHE”.
PS I like the “Appelly”.
There is a lot of that – nobody cares – running about here.
It is rather entertaining.
Demands – demands!
David,
If you buy me dinner at my choice of restaurants, I’ll have your questions answered.
Lewis: you clearly are not capable of answering the questions I would give you.
Mike
“After that, of course, without an external energy source, both will cool to absolute zero.”
When the two objects are viewed as an existing in an isolated system, as we see in the 2LOT, they don’t lose energy to their surroundings.
Have you spent any time at all reading or studying the law that you base so many of your opinions on?
Snape,
What are you talking about? Maybe you could quote me directly, rather than relying on your possibly defective memory?
As to your rather odd notion that objects above absolute zero continuously radiating energy somehow magically get back all the energy they radiate away, you have me totally at a loss.
You may view objects above absolute zero as not losing energy to their surroundings, but this would be a fantasy notion. Losing energy, while simultaneously not losing energy through the magic of climatology! Pardon my laughter. Maybe you don’t know what you wrote!
Have you considered quitting while you are behind?
Foolish Warmist – if you find youve dug yourself into a hole, why, just keep digging!
Good luck with that.
Cheers.
Snape: MF has several times admitted there is a greenhouse effect:
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
David,
If you say so, David. If you say so.
In the meantime, hows your research into the missing testable GHE hypothesis going? Any closer?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Demonstrating the effect of GHGs is easy.
Shine 15 micrometre radiation into a long tube filled with nitrogen and the IR comes out the other end.
Shine 15 micrometre radiation into a long tube filled with CO2 and the IR comes out both ends
Measure the radiation flow in the atmosphere.Half the 15 micrometre radiation from the surface reaches space. The rest comes back down.
E,
Shine your radiation into a tube filled with sand and it heats up, as does any gas which absorbs radiation. Basic physics.
In your example, only half of the radiation emitted from the surface is re-absorbed. The surface has suffered a net loss of energy, and cooled. As you say, half of the radiation emitted from the surface (resulting in cooling) is lost to space. Its actually a lot more – very close to 100% at night. Temperatures in Antarctica drop to -90 C at times for this very reason.
As you point out, GHGs somewhat slow the rate at which insolation heats the surface, and also the rate at which the surface cools in the absence of insolation.
You can’t even come up with a testable GHE hypothesis. Trying to test something you cant even define seems to be the province of foolish Warmists, or self styled climatologists!
Still no GHE. Keep trying – maybe you need to close your eyes more tightly, and concentrate harder while chanting the acred Manntras.
Cheers.
A hypothesis is tested by checking whether reality behaves as the hypothesis predicts.
I’ve just discussed two testable, and tested, predictions of what you call GHE theory, which is actually a subset of radiative physics.
The first was that GHGs absorb and reradiate in random directions at specific frequencies, while non-GHGs do not. This was tested by the tube experiment.
The second was that there should be a decrease in brightness temperature at 15 micrometres at TOA, with a corresponding amount of downwelling radiation. This is tested, indeed monitored, by ground and satellite sensors.
Do you have some special definition of testable, unknown to mere scientists like myself?
Em, all your “tests” verify is that gasses absorb infrared. That is ALL. And, that’s a big yawn, because it has been known for years, and years, and years.
Yawn.
But the IPCC/CO2/AGW/GHE nonsense claims that the absorbing atmospheric gasses can then warm the surface, that is, raise the temperature.
Best of luck “proving” that. And, in your “proof”, you will have to discard 2LoT. But, you already knew that.
(This is going to be a GREAT year in climate comedy!)
E,
No GHE proponent has managed to even state the GHE hypothesis in testable form. You might care to try, but I it seems to have defeated the finest climatological minds.
As a scientist, you would no doubt laugh at anyone who hypothesised that increasing the amount of any gas between a heat source and a thermometer would cause the thermometer to get hotter.
Maybe you can find a GHE hypothesis that doesnt involve any insane assertions such as “increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in thermometers on the ground getting hotter”.
As to your assertion that gases other than GHGs do not absorb and reradiate radiation in random directions, as a scientist you would be aware that it is possible to measure air temperature (or any gas temperature) from any direction. This shows two things – first, that the gas in question is radiating IR (otherwise it would not affect your instrument), and second, that the gas radiates IR in all directions.
All well known, and not particularly mysterious, except to foolish Warmists!
Maybe you can state the GHE in some useful, testable fashion. As an example, here is a testable hypothesis relating to the Seebeck effect –
“The Seebeck effect is a phenomenon in which a temperature difference between two dissimilar electrical conductors or semiconductors produces a voltage difference between the two substances.
You should be able to quickly and concisely finish the following –
The GHE is a phenomenon in which . . .
Must be testable, resulting in repeatable values – not of much use to man nor beast otherwise, is it?
Off you gotten, mere scientist, and quickly do that which has never been done. I wish you luck.
Cheers.
entropic…”The first was that GHGs absorb and reradiate in random directions at specific frequencies, while non-GHGs do not. This was tested by the tube experiment”.
I respect the experiments performed by Tyndall but he did not prove a GHE. You’re comment above is far too restrictive, all non-ghgs atoms absorb and radiate and at several frequencies across the EM spectrum. The satellite temperature data on this site come from oxygen EM emissions in the 60 GHz range. Nitrogen in the upper atmosphere absorbs ultraviolet, as does oxygen, converting to ozone in the process.
As far as I know, Tyndall did no specific tests on air that should contain roughly the 0.04% in our atmosphere, so what concentrations of CO2 was he using? How much radiation did the CO2 absorb? You claim the CO2 radiated both ways, which Tyndall did not check.
My point has been that CO2 lacks the mass to warm anything more than a few hundredths of a degree C. If you can prove otherwise, I’d like to see the proof. The warming effect of CO2 built into climate models is entirely fictitious. The notion that 1 molecule of CO2 can warm the 2500 molecules of N2/O2 surrounding it is sci-fi.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The satellite temperature data on this site come from oxygen EM emissions in the 60 GHz range. Nitrogen in the upper atmosphere absorbs ultraviolet, as does oxygen, converting to ozone in the process.”
You’re missing the ENTIRE point.
N2 and O2 molecules do not absorb in the infrared to any considerable degree, and infrared is what the Earth emits upward.
Only 3 or more atom molecules can absorb IR, via their molecular vibrational and rotational energy transitions.
This is precisely why GHGs are so important to climate and N2 and O2 are not.
Gordon Robertson says:
“As far as I know, Tyndall did no specific tests on air that should contain roughly the 0.04% in our atmosphere, so what concentrations of CO2 was he using? How much radiation did the CO2 absorb? You claim the CO2 radiated both ways, which Tyndall did not check.”
Why haven’t you read Tyndall to find out?
In what way does the concentration of a gas affect its ab*sorp*tion properties? What does physics say?
Gordon Robertson says:
“My point has been that CO2 lacks the mass to warm anything more than a few hundredths of a degree C.”
What reasoning or calculation gives this result?
I’ve asked you many many times, but you never answer. Then you just keep repeating this same lie.
Mike Flynn says:
“No GHE proponent has managed to even state the GHE hypothesis in testable form”
See Flynn lie.
I’ve given this several times:
GHG = a planet’s global mean surface temperature (minus) its brightness temperature.
Now watch Flynn lie even more.
After a temporary increase, the Nińo 3.4 index drops again.
La Nińa continues because the index has not increased above -0.5 degrees C.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
If this keeps up, by March we will have a full blown la Nina. Likelihood currently is very strong for that to happen.
barry, the La Nina is already affecting rainfall patterns.
Maybe she just doesn’t know she is not yet “official” to barry.
Bad girl!
This is a good spot to test HTML.
La Niña
(See if that works.)
It worked!
g*r…”This is a good spot to test HTML.
La Nia
(See if that works.)”
☺
This version of WordPress does not accept keyboard tildes. It is necessary to use HTML.
HTML code is “ntilde”.
So complete command is &*ntilde*; (Leave out the two “*”.)
So for Niña, use
Ni*&*ntilde*;*a (Leave out the four “*”.)
G*r…”So for Nia, use Ni*&*ntilde*;*a (Leave out the four *.)
Thanks for tip. Part of my attempted humour was posting the smiley in HTML code along with the La Nia without the code.
Interesting to see how it’s done.
Well done g*e*r*a*n!
Rainfall in Australia is not much different than normal just yet. ENSO event affect on rainfall is not always consistent in Australia, particularly for weak events, and I’d guess that is the same in most if not all places.
overall sea surface temperatures now +.178c overall down they continue
Source?
G*e*r*a*n
All right then, small baby steps.
The tube experiment does not just show that CO2 absorbs. It shows that CO2 reradiates photons in all directions.
Happy with that?
I’m happy if you’re actually learning some physics.
But, it’s hilarious when you claim to be a scientist, yet attempt to peddle pseudoscience.
E,
Tyndall heated a variety of gases, not only CO2. You can do it yourself with a hair drie, and heat air containing nitrogen and oxygen, or just breathe out, if you can’t be bothered using external equipment.
Any gas can be heated. Any gas cools, by radiating photons in all directions. Maybe you believe that cooling rays exist, and make objects colder. Many scientists believed in “N rays”, so “cooling rays might not be such a stretch!
Maybe your small baby steps are are of the foolish Warmist variety? As the babys knowledge increases, maybe its steps will head in the direction of fact.
I live in hope.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Any gas can be heated.”
What wavelengths heat N2 and O2?
David,
I know youre attempting a gotcha, but you might learn something from facts. Maybe.
N2 and O2 can be heated by any wavelength. I know climatological delusionists refuse to believe it, but happens to be true.
The air we breathe varies in temperature from place to place around the globe, because it is heated by any and all wavelengths – to differing degrees of course.. Liquid nitrogen is heated by any wavelengths longer than those which it is emitting.
On the other hand, oxygen in a steel blast furnace is heated to high temperatures.
Go on. Dont disagree with any fact I present. Just demand answers to hey another gotcha. Ill probably refuse to answer the next one, but you never know!
Cheers.
David Appell wrote –
“Ha. My first semester I started in engineering. The textbook was comical, the equations were written as if for babies, and all the other students talked about was how much money they would make upon graduating. It was all kind of sad.
It was obviously climatological engineering. David apparently couldnt cope, so went on to study journalism for 16 hours.
It appears that David cannot get a real job, so tries to eke out a living as a freelance journalist. This has served him well, at least until his employers come to their senses, I expect.
Still no GHE. Still not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Sad.
Maybe the universe is unfolding as it should?
Cheers.
Got the bile out of your system yet?
For some reason I doubt that you ever do.
This may seem like a novice level question (to some) but has anyone done an experiment where CO2 is injected into a large natural catchment basin on a clear sunny day at various levels and measurements taken? Or in a large stadium? Or a lab with identical spectrum lighting as the sun? Pump some co2 in and see if temps suddenly spike upward as though its some crazy insane gas that rebounds IR heat.
Darwin: You’re asking for a practical demonstration of the supposed temperature effect of CO2.
Like you, and I daresay many others, I want to see this. I want to see an experiment set up under laboratory conditions, where varying amounts of CO2 at the same concentrations as in the atmosphere are assessed in the presence of varying amounts of water vapour, and with other atmospheric gases present at the appropriate concentrations as well.
Proper, practical science.
Nowhere, as far as I’m aware, has this been done or attempted. I want someone to come out with reproducible experimental figures under specified controlled conditions to prove the effect conclusively. The IPCC claimed in their 2007 tome that this wasn’t possible, and that ‘we have no spare Earth to experiment with’ – hence we have the reliance on computer models. Absolute nonsense – how difficult could it be to set up a proper experiment to do this?
Carbon500 says:
“Darwin: Youre asking for a practical demonstration of the supposed temperature effect of CO2.
Like you, and I daresay many others, I want to see this”
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Press release:
“First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxides Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earths Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
Darwin, this experiment has been performed countless times. Tyndall in the mid 1800s was the first.
Aside from the practical experiments, spectroscopy has empirically tested the optical properties of atmospheric gases including CO2, verifying that it absorbs infrared radiation in parts of the spectrum emitted by the Earth’s surface, and strongest near terrestrial peak emissivity.
Carbon500,
In order to do an experiment matching the Earth’s atmosphere a vacuum chamber many kilometers high would need to be constructed to simulate the optical depth of the atmosphere. A concentration of 400ppm CO2 with a depth of 1 metre would be far less effective at impeding upwelling IR than the same concentration 10 km deep.
One could maybe work out an equivalent optical depth by increasing the concentration in a shallower chamber, but do you reckon skeptics would find that an agreeable compromise?
So the answer, to both Darwin and Carbon500, is “no”!
Experiments have only indicated that CO2 absorbs infrared, which has been known for over a century. Most objects absorb infrared. I use the “scary” example of a bowl of fruit. It absorbs infrared, but do people try to heat their homes with it in winter? Do people live in fear the blow of fruit will burn down their home?
CO2 absorbing infrared means NOTHING. The “missing gap” is then proving cold atmospheric gasses can “back-radiate” infrared to the Earth, causing the surface to warm unnaturally (anthropogenic). The answer to that is NO.
Earth’s ERL is said to be about 5.5 miles (9km). The temperature at that level is about MINUS 90F (-68C). The Wein’s displacement law yields a temperature very close, for the peak wavelength of CO2. So, it’s like trying to heat a surface at 57F (15C) with an atmosphere (“heat source”) that is much colder. (I like to describe it as “trying to bake a turkey, using ice cubes.”)
Consequently, Warmists have been on a campaign to get around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT), as you may have noticed here.
g*e*r*a*n: it’s nice to see some real world observations. There’s plenty of talk about physics on this page, but little in the way of measured data. As you note, Barry for example misses the point that I’m asking for temperature figures, not infra-red measurements – and Gammacrux, no matter how good or otherwise your knowledge of physics, I want to see real experiments, not climate calculations from a computer. Prove in a laboratory that the trillions spend on ‘climate change’ haven’t been wasted, and that the core concept holds true.
By way of analogy, a molecular biologist may develop a theoretically wonderful new synthetic vaccine using a novel protein, and carry out all sorts of modelling studies using a computer to demonstrate the conformation of the molecule, the location of charged residues and so forth – but this means nothing unless ‘in vivo’ studies are carried out in animals and humans as development progresses. The real world dictates whether the vaccine will be any good.
With that in mind, back to CO2.
Apparently the volume percentage of CO2 is essentially uniform to heights of at least 70km (42 miles) – a value of 0.029 0.002% at 72,000 feet was reported by the Explorer II ascent (Nature 141 270 -274) in 1938, yet the environmental lapse rate is about 6.5C for every kilometer increase in altitude, and values are highly variable during the course of a day and seasonally. In some areas, temperatures can increase with height (temperature inversions). The temperature outside an airliner, visible from the ground at around 11km (roughly 35,000 feet), is -50C or colder, as g*e*r*a*n points out.
In the 1984 US F1 Grand Prix in Dallas, the air temperature was measured at 40C when the race started, while tyre supplier Goodyear recorded the highest track temperatures it had experienced in racing when its readings nudged the 66C mark.
Given these considerable and natural temperature variations, the trivial fractions of a degree attributed to mankind’s CO2 emissions are surely irrevelant – and as I’ve pointed out, the supposed runaway heating effect of trace concentrations of CO2 under controlled bench conditions has not been demonstrated.
An omission – my apologies: I meant 0.029 +/- 0.002% when referring to CO2 concentrations measured by the Explorer II ascent.
“..while tyre supplier Goodyear recorded the highest track temperatures it had experienced in racing when its readings nudged the 66C mark.”
Interesting. I had not heard about that.
“Barry for example misses the point that I’m asking for temperature figures, not infra-red measurements”
barry did not miss that point as Prof. Tyndall used thermometers for temperature figures due increased CO2, wv, lab air et. al. gases. Carbon500 can easily find and study the tests in detail written up in 1861 on the internet.
Here’s some Tyndall:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/108724?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
via
http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html
Yes, I got a copy of the Tyndall paper years ago. In the description and illustration of his apparatus, there’s a thermopile at one end of the tube containing gas(es) under study, and a heat source at the other end.
I’m not an electrical engineer, nor is my background in instrumentation. That said, it’s my understanding that thermopiles convert infrared radiation to electricity, which is why in Tyndall’s apparatus the thermopile is connected to a galvanometer.
In other words, Tyndall’s apparatus is measuring infrared, and not heat. There’s no thermometer to be seen attached to the cylinder containing the gases. Presumably any effect would be well below that of the sensitivity a thermometer of those days anyway.
Where, then, is the experimental evidence that infrared radiation absorbed by a gas is quantitatively transformed into heat, causing a rise in temperature? – which takes me back to my original post asking for a laboratory demonstration of this, using varying amounts of CO2 in the presence of known concentrations of water vapour.
“Where, then, is the experimental evidence that infrared radiation absorbed by a gas is quantitatively transformed into heat, causing a rise in temperature?”
In Prof. Tyndalls 1861 published paper which Carbon500 writes has a copy of (years ago). Apparently Carbon500 didnt actually ever read the paper.
Search the paper for thermometer to find Prof. Tyndall’s thermometer data given from a laboratory demonstration of infrared radiation absorbed by a gas quantitatively transformed into heat, causing a rise in thermometer temperature using varying amounts of CO2 in the presence of known concentrations of water vapour.
Ball4: you claim that I didn’t read Tyndall’s paper, and you say: “Search the paper for thermometer to find Prof. Tyndalls thermometer data given from a laboratory demonstration of infrared radiation absorbed by a gas quantitatively transformed into heat, causing a rise in thermometer temperature using varying amounts of CO2 in the presence of known concentrations of water vapour.”
Please enlighten me in your own words, because nowhere in the paper does Tyndall give temperature measurements – the degrees he give refer to galvanometer deflections.
Where has he varied CO2 concentrations to ppm?
Nowhere, the technology wasn’t available.
And where is he varying H20 concentrations over a range in conjunction with varied CO2 concentrations?
You seem to have misunderstood the type of experiment I’m asking for.
1)Download Prof. Tyndall’s 1861 paper DA linked for Carbon500.
2)Search on “thermometer” like I recommended.
3)Find: “I subsequently had the tube perforated and thermometers screwed into it air-tight. On filling the tube the thermometric columns rose, on exhausting it they sank, the range between the maximum and minimum amounting in the case of (lab) air to 5 (degreesF).”
Not knowing and/or understanding this means Carbon500 didn’t read the paper as claimed “…nowhere in the paper does Tyndall give temperature measurements…You seem to have misunderstood the type of experiment Im asking for.’
Ball4: the insertion of thermometers in the apparatus is described in connection with anomalous results when dry air is pumped into the apparatus and when it’s evacuated. This leads on from Professor Tyndall’s comments towards the end of the paper regarding the effect of dry air pumped into the tube in the presence of alcohol or ether.
This takes up two paragraphs towards the end of the paper. The picture of the apparatus used as shown in the bulk of the work described does not, as I’ve pointed out, have thermometers fitted in the brass tube (see p37).
“the insertion of thermometers in the apparatus is described”
I observe Carbon500 has now made the effort to read at least more of the 1861 paper and found that the question is answered in the paper: “Where, then, is the experimental evidence that infrared radiation absorbed by a gas is quantitatively transformed into heat, causing a rise in temperature?”
As Barry pointed out the appropriate length scale is essential in exhibiting earth’s GHE.
It cannot be demonstrated in a Lab or Lab chamber because the latter can never become optically thick with atmospheric CO2 partial pressures. Nor is there a radiative heat sink like outer space in a Lab, that readily drains heat out of your chamber in the same way as happens on top of the atmosphere (though this might be simulated).
Clearly only a large thing such a planetary atmosphere with the size of Mars or Earth can exhibit the GHE.
Nothing’s wrong with this. Its the rule in other sciences such as astrophysics where the size of a star is essential. It is not possible to experiment with and ignite a small star, with the size of a Lab, and so test our understanding of stars. Only very big things can exhibit enough gravity to ignite and sustain a nuclear furnace.
Does this mean that we don’t know fairly well how stars work ?
Of course not.
And whether or not some idiots and ignoramuses might ever claim the contrary because it would fit their laughable agenda, is a non-event.
gammacrux
Since you are a poster that actually has advanced physics education and definitely know the topic discussed, how do you stomach the horrible made up physics presented by a couple posters? These same people refuse to read actual physics but prefer the make believe physics of their cult leaders (Joe Postma and Claes Johnson).
The worst is they cannot comprehend simple and easy to understand concepts. No matter how many ways and times the GHE is explained they get it wrong and use their made up version.
They do not comprehend that if you have a powered object (energy constantly added), this object does not have a set equilibrium temperature. The surroundings change the object’s temperature. They have the most ludicrous physics I have ever read and they are completely convinced it is correct and the entire world of established physics is wrong.
Help, I am in living in an Idiot’s dream world. Science becomes whatever the few declare it to be. I get tired of debating with them. They have not learned or increased their understanding in years of debate. Sad!
Norm, maybe you didn’t see my request upthread. I was asking for a link to your comment from a couple of years ago. The comment was about what you are mentioning here. You were trying to use a powered object, and infrared from another object, to heat a third object.
I don’t remember the exact details, but it was hilarious!
Can you find it, and link to it, after you finish the dishes?
Thanks.
Norman
Well, I mostly ignore them and sometimes just mock them, for fun.
No debating possible or deserved, don’t let them upset you, Norman.
As far as I’m concerned, I just like to comment when I find something of interest to me such as a pertinent question has shown up, as in present instance.
The question by Darwin and Carbon is of interest because there are indeed some teachers (naive CAGW zealots?) who attempted to demonstrate the CO2 GHE in their classroom and seemed astonished to fail.
https://www.pedagogie.ac-aix-marseille.fr/jcms/c_77376/fr/effet-de-serre-et-exao
(in French)
Norman says:
“Since you are a poster that actually has advanced physics education and definitely know the topic discussed, how do you stomach the horrible made up physics presented by a couple posters?”
Like gamma, I mostly just ignore them. Once in awhile they’re fun to mock. But Gordon is truly ignorant — the very fact that he thinks he isn’t just proves it all the more — and correcting him every time is kinda fun.
You won’t convince any of them, Norman. They are either pure trolls or purely ignorant.
David Appell
Yes but it does reflect a deeper issue. The lack or desire to learn and correct errors. The ability to realize your limitations and be open to new learning.
Here is what is bugging me at the deeper level.
You have people like g*e*r*a*n, J Halp-less, Gordon Robertson, Mike Flynn and a couple others (thankfully not too many) and it just depresses a person who wants to hope for something better for their children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXqI-zK4jzg
Norman: I get that. But their goal is precisely TO BUG YOU.
That is their ONLY goal. Really.
Don’t give them the satisfaction. They aren’t here to discuss science, or to learn.
David Appell
Yes indeed. That is why I refer to g*e*r*a*n as “stupid troll”.
I think in order to be a troll you must be a very stupid person with some emotional stagnation. I can see stirring the pot once in a while for some fun, I do not understand this years of sustained effort. The desire to spend ones time trying intentionally to annoy other people for pleasure. A very strange mental state.
At times I do not mind the troll challenging my ideas. It is when they mindlessly repeat their old tired routines. Once you get familiar with their stupid ideas and you realize they will not be able to come up with new ideas to generate further challenge, then they just get very boring. Mike Flynn is the bottom of stupid humans, I think next is g*e*r*a*n and I know you interact often with Gordon Robertson. At times he seems as if he is not a troll just confused. He becomes a troll after you point out his errors 1000 times and then he pretends like no one ever pointe out even one of his distorted flawed thoughts.
Mike Flynn: A redundant Subroutine that does not seem to change in several years. I could copy and paste any of his posts over the years and you would see little change.
g*e*r*a*n: An emotionally demented human who seems skilled at lies , deception and manipulation. That is about all he seems to have going for him.
Your favorite troll, Gordon Robertson: Seems to be a very old and senile person suffering from dementia. Has recollections of his childhood education but seems totally stuck in this ancient reality unable to learn and absorb new information. It would explain his view of thermodynamics. He claims a hot object can’t absorb any energy from a colder object, similar to his mind. He cannot possibly absorb new ideas and thoughts.
Mike Flynn is the easiest to ignore. He is the most boring poster I have ever encountered on any blog. Wonder if he ever had an origional thought.
DA…”Dont give them the satisfaction. They arent here to discuss science, or to learn”.
And you are???
The reason this AGW plague has spread is due to myopic, totally misinformed clowns like you. You represent the epitome in political-correctness and misguided religion.
norman…”I can see stirring the pot once in a while for some fun, I do not understand this years of sustained effort”.
Left unstirred, you load of alarmists will have every man, woman, and child dreading their future because of the scientifically unfounded propaganda you spread.
Go on, spew your propaganda, as long as Roy allows me the privilege I will counter it with science that any reader of this forum can verify. All you alarmists can do is fling ad homs.
g*r has his MO and it seems to work. Every so often he expounds on a theory that has a scientific basis. He has asked you continuously to prove your GHE theory and I have not seen an iota of proof from any of you.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Left unstirred, you load of alarmists will have every man, woman, and child dreading their future because of the scientifically unfounded propaganda you spread.”
Do.n’t be af.raid, Gor.don — th.at’s not the ri.ght res.ponse.
The rig.ht res.ponse is con.cern
Norm, any luck on finding the comments where you were disproving 2LoT?
It was probably about 2 years ago. After you finish washing dishes, see if you can find it and provide a link.
I don’t remember all the details. I just remember it was hilarious pseudoscience.
gamma: Some very good points. +1
DA…”gamma: Some very good points”.
From your perspective, not from the perspective of anyone who understands physics.
A vapid comment.
gamma…”It cannot be demonstrated in a Lab or Lab chamber because the latter can never become optically thick with atmospheric CO2 partial pressures. Nor is there a radiative heat sink like outer space in a Lab, that readily drains heat out of your chamber in the same way as happens on top of the atmosphere (though this might be simulated)”.
You have really outdone yourself on this one with regard to propaganda. What an absolute load of bs. You are trying to tell me they cannot set up an experiment in a lab with normal atmospheric air, subject it to an IR source, and see if it warms like our atmosphere has warmed?
What’s an optically thick partial pressure? The partial pressure contributed by CO2 to the total atmospheric pressure is in the neighbourhood of 0.04%. You still have not explained how that could warm an ant’s butt.
I know why you and the likes of norman avoid me. I am kicking your butts with real physics and neither of you can refute it using an intelligent, scientific argument.
Both of you prefer the pre-adolescent whine, “I’m not talking to you”.
Gordon Robertson says:
“You are trying to tell me they cannot set up an experiment in a lab with normal atmospheric air, subject it to an IR source, and see if it warms like our atmosphere has warmed?”
Fermi question: estimate, to the nearest order of magnitude, the rate of warming in a 1 cubic meter box containing air. Assume it has no bottom and rests directly on the surface.
DA…”Fermi question: estimate, to the nearest order of magnitude, the rate of warming in a 1 cubic meter box containing air. Assume it has no bottom and rests directly on the surface”.
You mean, like a real greenhouse? The kind we build to do what the atmosphere cannot do on its own.
Your question is fraught with issues. Convection/no convection? What latitude? What time of day? Clouds or no clouds?
All you have to do is walk into a real greenhouse and see that it warms. Or get into a car on a summer’s day when the windows have been closed. Are you claiming it is the 0.04% CO2 and 1% WV in the greenhouse/car creating that warming?
If so, in the desert, where the WV is likely a fraction of 1%, would the car or greenhouse warm under the same conditions?
I obviously meant the atmosphere.
Let’s see your number.
darwin…”This may seem like a novice level question (to some) but has anyone done an experiment where CO2 is injected into a large natural catchment basin on a clear sunny day at various levels and measurements taken?”
It’s likely been done and no relationship was found that could support the inane AGW theory. So they hid the results rather than admit they were wrong.
Tyndall did a well thought out experiment circa 1850 that did establish the fact that certain gases like CO2 can absorb infrared energy. AFAIK, no one has ever tried to replicate that with the level of CO2 in our atmosphere. And no one has proved back-radiation from such rare gases have any surface warming effect whatsoever.
GR wrote:
And no one has proved back-radiation from such rare gases have any surface warming effect whatsoever.
False.
“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
DA…”Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010…”
Yet another article based on climate models and other forms of guessing. Tell me exactly how they isolate the 0.04% of atmospheric CO2 to determine what is causing the warming when Trenberth of NCAR threw up his arms and lamented they cannot find the warming.
I would say an educated guess but those people writing the article are just plain stupid.
Gordon, did you read the paper? They explain their methodology very well.
GR wrote:
“AFAIK, no one has ever tried to replicate that with the level of CO2 in our atmosphere.”
What level of CO2 did Tyndall use in his measurememts?
Gordon, where is your response?
This is it for AGW the beginning of the end this year as I have said.
You can take average temps down if you want. All I ask is leave some heat for the ENSO SSTs. Say like, +2.5C?
Thanks.
“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’ve said this before, but the GHE is not the DLR passed from the atmosphere to the surface. This is not the underlying physics of the GHE, but is instead the driven after effect of the physics of the GHE.
Until this is differentiated, I expect massive confusion to ensue indefinitely. Roy himself, IMO, has not done a sufficient job explaining this, and it’s why so many people are confused.
That’s why I try to be careful to always specify “IPCC/CO2/AGW/GHE”. When I mention “GHE”, that’s what I am referring to.
In a nutshell, the IPCC/CO2/AGW/GHE is:
1) Atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR from Earth.
2) Atmospheric CO2 “back-radiates” IR to Earth.
3) The “back-radiation” heats the surface.
4) Because mankind is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, the Earth is not able to handle the increased warming.
1) and 2) are verifiable.
3) and 4) are FALSE.
3) is standard physics. When energy is absorbed by an object faster than it is lost, temperature increases.
4) Earth will handle any increased warming short of falling into the Sun, a distinct possibility in a billion years when the Sun becomes a red giant.
The immediate question is whether human civilization can survive the changes coming over the next few centuries.
“Standard physics” is NOT “cold” warming “hot”!
Sorry Em.
But, you just proved my point, that 4) is FALSE: “Earth will handle any increased warming..”
Good job.
G*e*r*a*n
The surface of the Earth is warming by 0.13C(UAH) to 0.18C/decade(GISS), depending on which dataset you prefer.
There is an imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation from the Earth. Energy is coming in at a rate of 0.7W/M2.
This data says nothing about the mechanism involved. I think it is CO2 induced AGW. You disagree.
Something is warming the planet. What do you think is doing it, and what do you plan to do about it?
Earth will handle any warming.”
You do realise how much warming we are talking about.
Over the coming billion years Earth will lose its water and solar insolation will increase by several orders of magnitude.
We are expecting surface temperatures over 400C. The Earth can survive it, but I do not think g*e*a*n could.
Something is warming the planet. What do you think is doing it?
Natural variation, most likely linked to ocean oscillations.
and what do you plan to do about it?
Learn, live, enjoy, and add more CO2 to the atmosphere.
“Over the coming billion years Earth will lose its water and solar insolation will increase by several orders of magnitude.
Better call your Congressman TODAY!
Hilarious.
(2018 is going to be a great year in climate comedy.)
Entropic man says:
“Over the coming billion years Earth will lose its water and solar insolation will increase by several orders of magnitude”
Well, not “several orders of magnitude,” but yes, enough to eventually cause a runaway greenhouse effect (= Earth losing all its water).
The Sun’s intensity has been increasing by about 1% every 110 Mys. I think solar theory says this continues until the Sun approaches the end of its life in 4-5 Byrs. This increase will eventually cause runaway warming (in 1-2 Byrs) because the Earth is very close to the inside radius of the Sun’s runaway greenhouse zone — too far out only by (at present) about 5 Mkm, IIRC.
entropic…”There is an imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation from the Earth. Energy is coming in at a rate of 0.7W/M2″.
A THEORY put forward by Trenberth, who confided to his cronies in private (Climategate emails) that the warming has stopped and it’s a travesty that no one knows why.
A guy who can’t keep tract of the mythical anthropogenic warming yet offers a budget featuring nearly as much DLW as what is emitted by the surface. I wonder if Trenberth took any courses in thermodynamics. In engineering it’s required as part of a physical chemistry course.
entropic…”Over the coming billion years Earth will lose its water and solar insolation will increase by several orders of magnitude”.
Yes…as the Sun enlarges toward the Red Giant phase of its career things will get might warm around here. The warming won’t be caused by CO2 in the atmosphere, however.
Gordon, liar: Trenberth never said that warming had stopped. And you cant find a quote where he said that. You are lying again.
Always lying.
Trenberth said it was a shame we couldnt find the missing heat. By that he meant we lack sufficient observational infrastructure to completely determined where The increasing heat is going. Especially in the deep ocean below 2000 m, and because we have no global system for measuring aerosols.
Stop your lying.
DA…”Trenberth said it was a shame we couldnt find the missing heat. By that he meant we lack sufficient observational infrastructure to completely determined where The increasing heat is going”.
Same thing. Then he fabricated the theory that the oceans must be absorbing the ‘missing’ heat therefore it is hidden from us. And you, gullible as you are, swallowed it because he is Trenberth of NCAR.
Why don’t you ask Roy what he thinks of Trenberth, after the latter actively campaigned to block his paper from peer review?
Its certainly not the same thing. Saying so just proves you dont understand what Trenberth actually meant.
I dont care what a Roy thinks of Trenberth Thats just gossip used by people like you because you cant address the science. Nor do I care what Trenberth thinks of Roy.
In this article Trenberthexplains exactly what he meant by missing eight:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Dont read it or you might learn something.
g*r…”Natural variation, most likely linked to ocean oscillations”.
Little doubt about that. Since the major EN in 1998, and subsequent major ENs in 2010 and 2016, accompanied by La Ninas, the atmospheric temperature has bounced like a yo-yo.
Remember yo-yo’s. No silly, I don’t mean alarmists.
Trenberth whined the natural variations are blocking out his mythical warming, during a period when the IPCC claimed there was no warming for 15 years.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Trenberth whined the natural variations are blocking out his mythical warming, during a period when the IPCC claimed there was no warming for 15 years.”
Another lie.
Trenberth said we lack sufficient observational systems to measure where all the heat is going — we lack sufficient coverage.
“It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_E._Trenberth#Short_term_climate_variability
entropic…”3) is standard physics. When energy is absorbed by an object faster than it is lost, temperature increases”.
The 2nd law is basic physics. Heat cannot be transferred by its own means from a colder object to a warmer object. That applies in particular to a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere when it was warmed by the surface already. Is there something about perpetual motion you understand that the rest of us don’t?
Your inference is that solar energy can be recycled to increase the temperature it created in the first place. Don’t you even begin to get that?
Here again Gordon flat out lies about the second law.
If Gordon couldnt lie here, hed have nothing to say
DA…”Here again Gordon flat out lies about the second law”.
And here again DA cannot rebut my claim so he resorts to an ad hominem attack. At least when I ad hom you it is accompanied by a sound scientific explanation of my views.
You still havent quoted Clausiuss statement of the second law.
Why not? What are you afraid of?
RW
Perhaps you could discuss this. G*e*r*a*n is never going to listen to me.
EM, two responses come to mind:
1) I’ll “listen” to science, but will reject pseudoscience.
2) Would you like some cheese with your whine?
Take your pick, either or both.
g*e*r*a*n
Your point was not correct. Here I will help.
1) I’ll listen to my own pseudoscience, but will reject established physics.
Now that is more accurate. Glad to help.
You have your made up version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, just made up, no established science backing it up:
YOU: Energy from a colder object absorbed by a hotter one violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You belief does not exist in established physics. It exists only on the cult site like Climate of Sophistry where the idiot on that blog makes up whatever physics his faithful followers will accept. He never has to verify his phony claims. He just asserts them and attacks with fury any who point out he is making up his own laws of physics, unsupported by anything valid.
Con-man, I see you’ve finished the dishes. Have you found the link to your past “proof” that “cold” can warm “hot”? I know a lot of folks would like to see that again.
barry was also confused about 2LoT, so I provided him with this. Maybe it will help you also.
We can imagine thermodynamic processes which conserve energy but which never occur in nature. For example, if we bring a hot object into contact with a cold object, we observe that the hot object cools down and the cold object heats up until an equilibrium is reached. The transfer of heat goes from the hot object to the cold object. We can imagine a system, however, in which the heat is instead transferred from the cold object to the hot object, and such a system does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. The cold object gets colder and the hot object gets hotter, but energy is conserved. Obviously we dont encounter such a system in nature and to explain this and similar observations, thermodynamicists proposed a second law of thermodynamics.
g*e*r*a*n
Your latest post finally shows why your are so stupid and unable to understand real physics.
HERE YOU CLAIM: “We can imagine thermodynamic processes which conserve energy but which never occur in nature. For example, if we bring a hot object into contact with a cold object, we observe that the hot object cools down and the cold object heats up until an equilibrium is reached. The transfer of heat goes from the hot object to the cold object. We can imagine a system, however, in which the heat is instead transferred from the cold object to the hot object, and such a system does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. The cold object gets colder and the hot object gets hotter, but energy is conserved. Obviously we dont encounter such a system in nature and to explain this and similar observations, thermodynamicists proposed a second law of thermodynamics.”
You have no concept or ability to understand a process when an object is heated. So you certainly seem to understand physics of a non powered object, one in which no additional energy is added. You are so totally stupid when it comes to understanding a powered object.
Note for you. A non-powered object (no energy added) is NOT the same as a powered object (energy being added). The outcome of the physics changes.
Here this will help. I think you missed out on your childhood education and are driving blind. Thankfully this one adds words to help you sing along.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sgk-ZYxKxM
norman…”You have no concept or ability to understand a process when an object is heated”.
So, enlighten us, Norman. I have explained it to you at the atomic level and all you return is ad homs. I await your insight.
You havent explained anything just wouldnt dogmatism And lies. Energy can be transferred in several different ways by conduction, convection, radiation, and diffusion.
Youre not just lying, but lying in stupid ways.
Con-man, any luck on getting that link, yet?
Gordon Robertson
I have given you multiple links on multiple occasions showing that you don’t know squat about physics. I will not continue to provide good information to someone who has no learning ability.
g*e*r*a*n
It is useless task to try to inform you about real physics. You have a make believe version of physics and real science is not something you are able to process. Showing you an example of heat exchange from some past thread will not help you understand the physics better. You are not able to understand science and you are a stupid troll. So why do you pretend to be interested? Idiot!
Con-man, you don’t have to be ashamed of your hilarious pseudoscience. It has great comedy potential.
Maybe I will have time during the Super Bowl to go back and search. It’ll probably take a couple of hours, and I always like to have something to do during all the commercials.
Hey con-man, a “powered object” does not alter 2LoT.
But, your pseudoscience is always funny.
And, your comment reminded me of another of your hilarious claims–“Energy does NOT leave the system, but energy leaves the system.”
I’ll look for the link to that one also.
This is going to be a great year in climate comedy.
norman…”I have given you multiple links on multiple occasions showing that you dont know squat about physics. I will not continue to provide good information to someone who has no learning ability”.
I have replied to each one of your links, sometimes with facts from the articles at the links that contradicted your understanding of what was said in the articles. For example, in one engineering text they revealed in the first few pages that their theories on radiation applied only to matter at very high temperatures.
When I tried to share information with you that I have learned over a few decades in electronics, much of it based on the physics I learned in an engineering program at university, you came back claiming I had no idea what I was talking about.
You have a serious problem, Norman, that is related to many armchair physicists who read a few books and think that makes them authorities. You need to learn that the words you think you understand can have entirely different meanings once the full gamut of the theory is understood.
When I talk about atomic theory I am fully aware of my limitations. I only understand it at a preliminary level yet that puts me well ahead of alarmists on this blog who call me a liar. What I don’t get is why those people don’t read on it in an attempt to rebut me scientifically. Then we can have an intelligent discussion with us both hopefully learning something.
There are people here struggling with ridiculous concepts such as heat being an obfuscation and not real. I say to each one of them, stick your hand on a hot electric stove ring and tell me whether it is real or not. Universities are full of idiots with Ph.Ds who live in the same world of illusions.
Never mind what some yahoo at a university tells you, every human has an acute awareness of what heat is in reality. They know to stay away from it when it can endanger them. Yet you have some idiot physicists re-defining it on the fly as energy in motion. Heat ‘is’ energy for cripes sakes, we use the term heat as a reference to thermal energy. It’s as real as electromagnetic energy, gravitational energy, mechanical energy or any other kind of energy.
You don’t get that, Norman, and you need to give yourself a good, kick in the butt for not seeing it.
Many believe time is an independent dimension from the physical space in which we live and asking them to point it out to you only gets them waving their arms and shouting. Recently, on TV, I watched some clown with a Ph.D preaching that gravity is not a force but a warp in space-time.
Space is real enough, empty space may be teaming with sub-atomic particles that cannot be detected. However, the space we have defined, based on our invention the coordinate system, with our invention the metre, and space-time with our invention the second, are illusions that exist only in the human mind. There are Ph.Ds out there who don’t begin to get that because their awareness is non-existent. They have been spoon fed crap, they have digested it, and they vomit it forth to unsuspecting types who trust them because they have a Ph.D.
I went through such a learning curve in electronics. In the early days, I thought I had a good grasp of transistor theory only to learn when I studied them formally in the university engineering course that I had it all wrong. I was able to repair circuits using transistors but I did not have the slightest idea how they worked.
That’s where you are stuck and the irony is that you lack the awareness that you’re stuck at all. I gave you bona fide basic information on atomic structure and how it is electrons that absorb and emit EM yet you rejected that out of hand. When I posted an article that backed my theory, you ignored it.
I don’t think you’re a stupid person, at least, not in general, yet you allow your arrogance to interfere with your ability to learn. Not only that, you accuse others of having the same problem.
I think you need to get a bigger armchair.
Gordon Robertson says:
“When I tried to share information with you that I have learned over a few decades in electronics, much of it based on the physics I learned in an engineering program at university, you came back claiming I had no idea what I was talking about.”
Because you don’t. Anyone who knows physics (and justn’t just pretend) to, can see right through you.
You stopped learning about thermodynamics at Clausius — whom you can’t even quote directly.
You stopped learning quantum mechanics at the Bohr model — which is hilarious.
Dunning-Kruger, times 10^N where N is large.
RW…”Ive said this before, but the GHE is not the DLR passed from the atmosphere to the surface”.
The DLR/warming propaganda is one of two theories the other being infinitely more stupid. It claims HEAT is trapped by GHGs in the atmosphere.
The heat trapping nonsense has to go down in the annals of science as one of the most stupid theories ever. It is seconded only by the theory that GHGs slow down radiation from the surface.
Heat is a property of atoms in motion, the only way to trap it is with a solid, sealed barrier like the glass in a real greenhouse. The rate of IR radiation from the surface is dependent only on the temperature of the layer of air directly above the surface.
There is no way on this planet that gas like CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere and/or WV at 1% on average can warm the other atmospheric gases significantly.(Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s law of partial pressures).
Heat is more than just atoms in motion. Much more. Gordon lies about this every time.
DA…”Heat is more than just atoms in motion. Much more. Gordon lies about this every time”.
I guess Clausius was lying then, and many other scientists who have claimed the same. If it is more than atomic motion, and you know what it is, why are you holding back?
What did Clausius say about radiation?
Why do you refuse to read anyone else. You think he lets you deny global warming, but you are, of course, wrong .
Here is Clausiuss statement of the Second Law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Clausius_statement
How does that exclude radiation?
Im not holding anything back. Heat is energy transfer. Many things can accomplish the transfer conduction, convection, and radiation, and diffusion.
Im getting really sick of your blatant lies about this.
Gordon keeps saying what CO2 cant do, but has never proved it. Or even tried to prove it. Hes all talk, no action.
RW
If “DLR” means atmospheric back radiation, sorry, it is very precisely the “underlying physics of the GHE”.
No GHGs => no back radiation => no GHE.
The situation is somewhat similar to ordinary thermal conduction in a gas or in a metal. Why do you think is there a finite non-zero thermal resistivity in such a medium ? The physical reason is that the particles carrying the heat, namely molecules ( in gas) or electrons and phonons (in metal) cannot travel straight through the sample from hot to cold regions. Their motion is hindered, actually scattered, in particular backscattered, by collisions with other molecules (in gas) or defects (in metal). This takes place after a mean free path that is short ( typically 100 nm in gas) with respect to sample usual macroscopic dimensions. This implies of course a non-zero thermal resistance and therefore a non-zero temperature gradient if heat has to flow trough the sample.
Similarly IR photons carry heat from earth’s surface to outer space. If they were not absorbed and re-radiated backwards by atmosphere the “thermal resistance” of the latter would be zero, there would be no lapse rate needed to transport the heat and thus no GHE. No deep convection either.
Anyway, I can’t see massive confusion in this respect. I see just on the one hand people who grasp it and acknowledge it and on the other hand plain idiots who want to ignore it because they find it inconvenient and believe it threatens their way of life. To this end these morons prefer to make fools of themselves and deny the very basics of physics. They are so scared that they would experience nervous breakdown right now if they had to acknowledge that something might threaten their way of life and nevertheless be true.
Hilarious!
gummy, maybe it is the language barrier, but your comment appeared to be a rambling, disconnected, confused attempt to explain the pseudoscience.
Here’s a concise version of the nonsense:
In a nutshell, the IPCC/CO2/AGW/GHE is:
1) Atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR from Earth.
2) Atmospheric CO2 “back-radiates” IR to Earth.
3) The “back-radiation” heats the surface.
4) Because mankind is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, the Earth is not able to handle the increased warming.
1) and 2) are verifiable.
3) and 4) are FALSE.
“If DLR means atmospheric back radiation, sorry, it is very precisely the underlying physics of the GHE.”
That’s the point — it’s doesn’t. It’s just the total amount of IR the atmosphere as a whole passes to the surface. Back radiation implies it’s all surface emitted IR absorbed by the atmosphere that’s re-radiated back to the surface, but this isn’t the case. Hence the massive confusion.
Back-radiation is that part of the thermal radiation of the atmosphere that is absorbed by the surface. Nothing more, nothing less.
No GHGs => no absorp-tion of thermal radiation from surface by atmosphere => no back radiation of thermal radiation from atmosphere towards the surface => no GHE.
Nobody claims that back radiation just absorbed and re-radiated IR initially emitted by the surface. Everything that brings energy into the atmosphere ( latent heat, convection, IR radiation from surface and even SW sun light ) contributes and sustains thermal radiation of atmosphere in general and thus back radiation in particular.
The point you’re missing is the real atmosphere has 2 other flux inputs sources to it other than the IR flux from the surface absorbed by the atmosphere. There is post albedo solar power absorbed by the atmosphere and the latent heat of H20 from the surface, which condenses to form clouds — all of which contribute to the downward IR push in the atmosphere and the total of DLR at the surface.
Thus the total amount of DLR at the surface cannot be directly connected to the surface IR flux absorbed by the atmosphere that’s re-radiated back to the surface. Hence the massive confusion, because the mechanism of the GHE is NOT the total amount of the DLR passed from the atmosphere to surface, but is instead the applied physics within the physics of atmospheric radiative transfer, which forces the lower atmosphere (and ultimately the surface) to be emitting IR up a higher rate than the rate the whole combined surface/atmosphere is passing into space in order to achieve radiative balance with the Sun at the TOA, i.e. about 240 W/m^2.
RW
Did you at least make that little effort and read what I just wrote above ?
Quote:
So I did not “miss” your point and I even stated it very clearly before,
And the total amount of DLR at the surface is determined by the temperatures in the atmosphere as implied by Planck’s law. Nothing else.
Yet, if there are no GHGs in atmosphere, there is neither absorp-tion of upwelling IR (ULR) from surface nor emission of downwelling IR (DLR) or back radiation from atmosphere and with GHGs, the more GHGs, the more ULR and DLR.
It is only in this sense that DLR and ULR are “related”. Nothing more in real atmosphere.
Possibly in layman minds the term of back radiation indeed conveys the false picture you pointed out and thus bears some ambiguity.
Confusion arises because:
1) Not all of the DLR at the surface is actually added to the surface. Much of it is cancelled by non-radiant flux leaving the surface, but not flowing back into the surface (as non-radiant flux). That is, much of the surface DLR is net zero across the surface/atmosphere boundary.
2) All of the flux inputs to the atmosphere will contribute to the total of DLR at the surface, but 2 of them are not ‘back radiation’. Post albedo solar power absorbed by the atmosphere and emitted downwards to the surface is not ‘back radiation’, but is instead ‘forward radiation’ yet to reach the surface. And the latent heat of H20 from the surface that condenses to form clouds, which radiate downwards towards and to the surface is not ‘back radiation’ either. All non-radiant flux from the surface (in the steady-state) must be in excess of IR flux directly radiated from the surface as a consequence of the surface temperature, and Conservation of Energy sets the limit that you can’t have more upward IR flux absorbed by the atmosphere than the amount of flux directly radiated from the surface itself.
The mechanism of the GHE is not the total of DLR passed from the atmosphere to the surface, as that is rather the driven after effect of the physics of the GHE, which are the applied physics within the physics of atmospheric radiative transfer. That is, the surface can’t radiate freely to outer space and much surface IR is absorbed by GHGs and clouds in the atmopshere, some of which is re-radiated back downward towards (and not necessarily back to) the surface. That is, above all else the system must be trying to achieve balance with the Sun through the TOA. The way it does this in large part is by continuously emitting IR up at all levels, but in order to make this upward IR push, it has to push back the other way, i.e back towards the surface, because absorbed up IR is re-radiated both up and down. This is what drives the formation of the lapse rate, and what is forcing the lower atmosphere and ultimately the surface to be emitting IR up at higher rates than the whole combined surface/atmosphere together is passing into space in order to achieve balance.
Our host here, IMO, has not done a sufficient job explaining this, which is why massive confusion still persists.
“Did you at least make that little effort and read what I just wrote above ?
Quote:
Everything that brings energy into the atmosphere ( latent heat, convection, IR radiation from surface and even SW sun light ) contributes to and sustains thermal radiation of atmosphere in general and thus back radiation in particular.”
Yes, but the point you’re missing is that it’s not all ‘back radiation’. Again, ‘back radiation’ implies or means it’s all surface emitted IR absorbed by the atmosphere that’s re-radiated back to the surface. This is not correct, and hence the massive confusion not only at this site but all over the blogosphere around the world.
RW says:
“Yes, but the point youre missing is that its not all back radiation. Again, back radiation implies or means its all surface emitted IR absorbed by the atmosphere thats re-radiated back to the surface. This is not correct, and hence the massive confusion not only at this site but all over the blogosphere around the world.”
No, it’s not “all” backradiation that warms the surface, but most of it is; the numbers are here:
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png
David,
No, it’s not. That just gives a total of surface DLR of 333 W/m^2. This is not all ‘back radiation’.
RW
Nope.
Once again, only you (or other laymen) wrongly “believe” it implies what you claim.
Period.
Here’s another of my demonstrations of the Green Plate model reality:
https://app.box.com/s/ljxuos03dko48iab1292cgmksqbpax4n
(PDF warning – 1.46 mb)
e. swanson…”Heres another of my demonstrations of the Green Plate model reality:”
All you’ve proved that is different from your first experiment is that the fan is inadequate for the job. There is still hot air building up under the cookie sheet.
I predict the more hot air you blast out from under the cookie sheet, and the longer you allow it to normalize, the smaller the difference will be in temperature between the tin sheet and the cookie sheet.
Why do you claim the 2nd law applies only to conduction and convection and that a mysterious property of radiation bypasses the 2nd law?
You should read Clausius in depth and see how he determined the basis for the 2nd law, then you might get it why it applies equally to radiation as to conduction and convection.
There is nothing in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation or the Planck equation that addresses a net energy flow, it’s all one way radiative transfer, from hotter to colder.
You are still confusing EM with heat and getting caught up in that nonsense about a net energy flow.
EM is heat.
How does heat get from the sun to the earth?
And here Gordon lies yet again about the second law.
He wont even go look up what exactly Clausius wrote about it.
GR, No, I’m not “confusing EM with heat and getting caught up in that nonsense about net energy flow”. I’ve just demonstrated that in the real world, adding an intervening plate to the EM radiation field can cause the radiating body to to exhibit a rise in temperature. Your criticism is without merit, as you have provided no rational explanation for the observed temperature increase on the hot plate. The air being blown thru the gap between the two plates can not move energy from the colder to the hotter one, as the colder air above can not heat the hotter plate below, as Clausius would agree. The only other pathway available is back IR energy flowing from colder to hotter.
Most of Clausius’ work involved closed cyclic systems and his writings are based on mathematical models, especially reversible processes, such as a heat engine. He briefly touches on the IR energy flows between two bodies, first assuming they are both black bodies, rightly point out that in this process, neither body can cause the temperature of the other to rise above it’s own temperature. He doesn’t get into the problem of differences in spectral emissions between gases, which is at the heart of the CO2/Green House Effect.
swannie, you remind me of the “light bulb and mirror” fiasco.
That was hilarious also.
And, here’s the correct solution:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
Except 6c3 changes the original proposition to a proposition of anger’s own choosing where the BB blue plate is shown with an albedo of 1.0 on the side facing the green plate and 0.0 albedo on the side facing the sun. Pure climate pseudoscience.
Hilarious! to read. Please continue doing no experiments, anger, which makes debunking your comments fun & easy.
Cabbage head continues to demonstrate his inability to understand the problem, or the correct solution.
It may be he’s trying to read only by the light from his cabbages. He believes cabbages emit visible light, so much that they could light a room, in the dark.
(Yup, he’s on the list of “Perpetrators of Pseudoscience”.)
That’s some more funny pseudoscience anger, ty for the chuckle, writing and thinking that the visible light from a room temperature unpowered cabbage can actually light an optically dark room. Perhaps you should try some instrumented experiments in that regard and fill us in on what you do learn about how natural science really works.
Yes, I got a chuckle out of it when you claimed it was true. It appears you are now trying to back away from your comments.
I don’t blame you.
No anger, those words about the visible cabbage light lighting up a dark room to be visible in your eyes are yours alone not mine. The internet never forgets. It was your dark closet once before; again it is anger changing the proposition just like anger changes the proposition for the blue plate albedo. Hilarious anger climate pseudoscience!
Fun to watch anger comment unenlightened & unburdened by experimental results. /chuckle
Cabbage Head wants to make a distinction between a dark closet and a dark room!
Hilarious.
And still, none of the GHE adherents can actually propose a testable GHE hypothesis. According to them, science cannot be applied to climatology! Its just too big, too complicated, and needs arcane knowledge.
CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere appear to only heat the surface in the present of a heat source, and exhibit cooling properties at night.
The GHE supposedly causes floods, droughts, hot spells, cold snaps, and simultaneously reduces and increases crop yields.
Im joking of course. There is no GHE – nor are there any unicorns or fairies.
Luckily, more countries are realising that wasting money promoting the the delusional fantasies of undistinguished mathematicians (and other fantasists) diverts funds from useful pursuits – things which might actually benefit humanity as a whole. The billions wasted on the GHE fantasy have produced no measurable benefit to man nor beast.
A complete waste of time, effort and money!
Such is life.
Cheers.
Tested hypotheses:
CO2 absorbs and emits infrared: tested, demonstrated.
Introducing or increasing CO2 in a volume of atmosphere warmed by a constant heat source will increase its temperature: tested, demonstrated.
Darkening spectral lines of CO2 in the atmosphere over the long term looking down from above the atmosphere: measured, demonstrated.
Hypothesis: Long term cooling of the lower stratosphere while troposphere warms: measured, demonstrated.
Winters should warm faster than summers in the long term: measured, demonstrated.
Height of troposphere should increase over the long term: measured, demonstrated.
Surface should warm over the long term: measured, demonstrated.
Basic hypothesis confirmed, and these other hypothesised predictions (made before the results were known) also confirmed.
All these fit with GH warming over the long term. Most do not fit with long term warming from a different source, eg solar.
barry, MF isn’t interested in evidence. He won’t look at it. Like GR, he writes the same old things again and again, with zero interest in the evidence or the science, thinking he’s clever.
Somehow he finds this a worthwhile use of his time.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
– Mark Twain
Hopefully your belief is correct. Warmer is good, colder is bad.
However, you leave out Milankovitch and fail to explain why the last ice age diminished.
In the meantime, I burn as much wood as I can and commute 150 miles per day in a low MPG vehicle. I’m doing my part.
Lewis: Is warmer good for the 3B people who live in the tropics?
Is it good for plants?
Is it good for ice?
Is it good for sea level?
Yes, it is excellent for plants. They don’t grow well in the cold, especially don’t do well in ice. More plants means more to feed the beef cattle, pigs, chicken and sheep that I so love to consume. It also means more firewood! Yeah!!!
Warm is bad for ice! (You didn’t know that did you David)
Why should I care about sea level? People shouldn’t build too near the coast. If the ice keeps melting they’ll get inundated. Not a good decision. Further, the ice has been melting for 20,000 years. Sea levels have come up 250′ during that period of time. What’s new?
lewis says:
“Yes, it is excellent for plants.”
How well do plants grow in heat?
Any plants on Venus, where CO2 = 96%?
Why not.
lewis says:
“Why should I care about sea level?”
You don’t have to care about anyone else in the world, Lewis. You can completely ignore everyone else and not give a damn how anyone else will do. You can be completely selfish and not care at all about the world you leave.
But you WILL pay higher taxes to cope with sea level rise.
“Further, the ice has been melting for 20,000 years. Sea levels have come up 250′ during that period of time. Whats new?”
In the 5,000 years before the industrial era, sea level rose one meter, an average 0.2 mm/yr.
Not its rising at 3-4 mm/yr. That’s what’s new.
And accelerating. That’s what’s new.
By 2100 it will be 2-3 feet higher. Who is going to make all the homeowners on NC Cape whole? You will, Lewis, with lots of other NC and federal taxes. (Already you’re bailing them out just to rebuild some of the barrier islands that hurricanes keep washing away. Wait ’til you have to pay for the houses, too.)
lewis says:
“In the meantime, I burn as much wood as I can and commute 150 miles per day in a low MPG vehicle. Im doing my part.”
About what the rest of us expect from a North Carolinian.
David, is that really your mindset? You try to be derogatory about a state’s residents? No, my bad – that’s the best you can do.
Let me compare you to my son, who has a bachelor’s in physics. Graduated with a 4.0 overall and some fancy phi beta award. Then he went to Stanford and got an advanced degree in EE. Now he has a real job. You should follow his example.
davie, Oregon has a law that prohibits people from pumping gas into their own vehicles!
Talk about hicks!
Lewis, you’re the one who said they drive a low MPG car just to stick it to the world.
How smart is that, cutting off your nose to spite your face?
barry…”CO2 absorbs and emits infrared: tested, demonstrated”.
That’s the only one of the tested/demonstrated claims you have made that have actually been tested and demonstrated.
“All these fit with GH warming over the long term”.
Not so. They fit with the GH warming HYPOTHESIS, most of it created by plugging pseudo-scientific nonsense into a climate model.
What do you find wrong with the Feldman et al paper I keep citing? Or Philipona et al 2004?
Or just basic logic followed up by calculations.
Or how about Manabe 1967, which first predicted lower stratospheric cooling decades before it was observed.
Not so. They fit with the GH warming HYPOTHESIS, most of it created by plugging pseudo-scientific nonsense into a climate model.
Psuedoscientific models correctly predicted a number of specific effects of warming from GHGs decades before they were observed.
You have little idea about what is ‘plugged into’ models, Robertson. You think there are algorithms to make the model warm. That is not so.
barry: “Surface should warm over the long term: measured, demonstrated.”
NOPE. It is NOT demonstrated. It is not even possible.
And you left out the fact that the atmosphere handles any excessive heat flawlessly.
Of course it’s possible. Thermometer measurements are only one set of measurements giving us that result. There are many others corroborating – global glaciers, global sea ice, global sea level, and many global indicators consistent with a warming world.
And you left out the fact that the atmosphere handles any excessive heat flawlessly.
What does that even mean – “flawlessly”? This is a meaningless sentence.
barry,
You wrote (amongst other nonsense) –
“Introducing or increasing CO2 in a volume of atmosphere warmed by a constant heat source will increase its temperature: tested, demonstrated.
No doubt you are referring to the experiments of Tyndall, which in your fantasy support what you say. In fact, they do not. Anyone who cares to actually read and understand Tyndalls work will reach the same conclusion.
Assertions are not fact.
The fact fact is that neither you nor anybody else can actually state what the GHE is supposed to do, in scientific terms. It certainly has nothing to do with greenhouses, nor anything else related to reality or science. Just delusional thinking foisted on a gullible multitude!
Maybe you could start by stating what this wonderful GHE hypothesis actually says? Good luck! Nobody has managed so far.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“The fact fact is that neither you nor anybody else can actually state what the GHE is supposed to do, in scientific terms.”
Here’s such a statement:
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
— Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 am
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
CO2 being opaque to light would mean it stops it from further transmission? But then the molecules get saturated with energy and can hold no more without losing some of what they have, which will be radiated in any direction? How does this warm the earth? If we’re talking about energy radiated from the surface, it only slows it down from leaving. The question becomes ONLY: by how much does it slow it down?
Saturation is a myth.
Because the atmosphere, too, radiates, not just the surface.
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
Thanks Mike…
I agree 100%.
mike…”It certainly has nothing to do with greenhouses…”
Don’t know if you missed my quote from Joe Postma. He claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
Postma is another liar. He denies basic physics.
appelly is soooo jealous.
No doubt you are referring to the experiments of Tyndall
Tyndall was merely the first. The experiment has been done thousands of times since. You can even see practical demonstrations on you tube.
In the last couple of years it’s been found that an American woman probably beat Tyndall by a few years:
Circumstances affecting the Heat of the Sun’s Rays, Eunice Foote, The American Journal of Science and Arts, November 1856, pp. XXXI.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6xhFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA382#v=onepage&q&f=false
– For more information, see Eunice Foote’s Pioneering Research On CO2 And Climate Warming, Raymond P. Sorenson, Search and Discovery Article #70092 (2011).
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf.html
I happened upon that monograph 6 years ago. Spencer Weart said he might give Ms Foote’s discovery a footnote to his CO2 history page, but no dice I believe, because her work wasn’t published – and probably couldn’t have been in the US at that time, owing to her gender.
David,
This is the best you can do?
Where is the GHE hypothesis mentioned? Unfortunately for foolish Warmists, insulators possess a property apparently unknown to climatologists. They can be used to slow down the rate of cooling or heating – space shuttles were heavily insulated to prevent excessive heating. Refrigerators are insulated to keep the contents cool.
In spite of the insulating value of the atmosphere, the surface has cooled – no longer molten.
You still cannot propose a testable GHE hypothesis, can you?
Climatology has less scientific basis than astrology, which at least requires knowledge of planetary positions and movements.
I am pleased you have such a high regard for me – I will assist you with English comprehension if you wish. As a start, I suggest you might benefit from actually reading what I wrote. Let me know if you want to continue.
Cheers.
Are gotcha questions all you got?
David,
I was aiming for rhetorical, as I believe I know the answers, but correct me if Im wrong.
Why would I waste my time seeking knowledge from you? (Thats another rhetorical question – of course the answer is that I wouldnt!)
Im not really surprised that you choose to waste your time responding to me – I assume you lack any self control, but of course you may have some bizarre mental impairment.
I wish you well, if such is the case.
Cheers.
Ah, “rhetorical” gotcha questions.
Of course {grin}.
David,
If you say so, David, if you say so.
Cheers.
Try to keep up — that was what you said, not me.
David,
Typically it is you with the gotcha questions, or any of a dozen other inanities.
But, as also typical of the leftist advocates of a command economy, projection is their stock in trade.
Obama was the best at this. You could be assured that whatever he accused others of, he was doing himself.
Lewis, you can’t answer even the simplest scientific questions here.
Leave them to the people who can.
David,
You wrote –
Ah, rhetorical gotcha questions.
Of course {grin}.
Not me at all. Are you having a crisis of identity, or are you just confused? I obviously have no way of reading your mind, such as it is. You are free not to respond if you think it a waste of your valuable time, of course.
Cheers.
I just like Hoisting you on your own petard.
David,
You little rascal! Dream on! Maybe your fantasy world will become reality one day – when you can provide a testable GHE hypothesis, perhaps.
If I didnt know better – and maybe I don’t – I might assume youre just trying to deny, divert, and confuse, because you cant provide any factual counter to the fact that the GHE is purely imaginary!
So wheres the testable GHE hypothesis? Safely tucked up with Trenberths missing heat, or Michael Manns non-existent Nobel Prize, no doubt.
Still no GHE. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years or so.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn,
Demands, demands!
Have you considered doing your own research, rather than demanding answers from people you claim have no knowledge?
==========
Mike Flynn says:
January 21, 2018 at 12:26 AM
David,
“Demands, demands!
“Have you considered doing your own research, rather than demanding answers from people you claim have no knowledge?”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282118
David Appell wrote –
“Postma is another liar. He denies basic physics.
In Davidworld, David reigns supreme. Donald Trump is not the US President, the Earth has increased its temperature over the last four and a half billion years, CO2 makes thermometers hotter, and David Appell is a famous physicist and respected journalist.
In Davidworld, anyone who disagrees with David is a denier, liar, or both.
Davidworld is not real, of course.
Poor David. He deserves compassion, not condemnation. Maybe he was mistreated as a child – or maybe he is just naturally delusional.
The Warmist support base of the gullible and easily led seems to be shrinking. I assume David will persist in his delusion long after most have accepted fact. Maybe Im wrong. Time will tell.
Cheers.
Hallucinogens are a wonderful thing.
Mike Flynn admits there is a greenhouse effect:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
In Davidworld, this is a testable GHE hypothesis –
GHG = a planets global mean surface temperature (minus) its brightness temperature. – David Appell.
I dont live in Davidworld, so I cant make heads or tales of his supposed testable GHE hypothesis.
Standard Warmist/climatological sciencey sounding nonsense.
Obviously, in Davidworld, Im probably a liar, denier, and heretic. Should I be terrified of the awesomeness of David Appell? So far, my care factor remains firmly at zero.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I understand David Appell’s definition of the GHE and I am not even a physicist.
That you can’t understand it greatly diminishes your credibility.
For those here who do understand physics.
Those keen to reject the GHE on the grounds that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics create a worse problem.
Remove GHGs from the equation and the other forcings capable of warming or cooling the climate are solar insolation, albedo, land use, orbital changes and volcanoes. All are small and together they would produce a slow cooling, a net loss of energy from the Earth.
Yet Roy Spencer’s data show that Earth is warming by 0.13C/ decade.
You cannot warm a planet without adding heat. This would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, that heat cannot be created or destroyed.
En,
You are too clever for me. I do not care whether you find me credible or not. You might notice that David Appell did not actually mention the GHE (he referred to a GHG,) nor did he state a GHE hypothesis in terms which would be understood by any normal scientist.
You mention that without a GHE, (whatever that is supposed to be), the result would be a slow cooling of the Earth. This indeed is what has been observed for four and a half billion years or so. Real scientists known as geophysicists vary in their estimates (the Earth is not particularly homogeneous, temperature wise, and even the crust has widely varying thermal properties), but the current rate of cooling is around one to three millionths of a Kelvin per annum.
Leaping to the bizarre conclusion that CO2 can make thermometers hotter is quite simply ludicrous. Neither you nor anybody else can achieve such a miraculous event. You cannot even state a testable GHE hypothesis. All you can declare is that the GHE must exist because people such as an undistinguished mathematician claiming to be a climatologist, a person who falsely claimed to be a Nobel Laureate, and a ragtag bunch of self proclaimed experts managed to hoodwink a large number of otherwise sane and rational people.
Dr Spencer has not shown that the Earth, or even the Earths surface has warmed by any specific amount. For starters, the vast majority of the Earths surface is not exposed. Climatologists claim that measuring air temperatures more or less close to the surface is a reasonable proxy for the Earths heat content, apparently. Not true, unfortunately.
You are correct in one respect. You cannot warm anything – even a thermometer – without adding heat. CO2 adds no heat. Even the most deluded Warmist will not propose this mad idea. Now you need to be able to state a GHE hypothesis which involves raising the temperature of a thermometer by the cunning use of CO2, without adding heat.
No GHE. Not even a testable hypothesis. Just a bunch of suckers believing in unicorns, fairies, and the delusions of people such as James Hansen!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
“Dr Spencer has not shown that the Earth, or even the Earths surface has warmed by any specific amount.”
Dr. Spencer’s data shows an increase in temperature of 0.013C/decade since 1979.
You are calling the good doctor a liar on his own website.
Em is a perfect example of a Warmist. He has no real science, only his beliefs. He believes in the IPCC/AGW/CO2/GHE pseudoscience, so everything he sees becomes “proof”.
If you looks outside and sees a redbird. That “proves” his beliefs. If the next day, he sees a bluebird, that “proves” his beliefs. If he sees no birds, that “proves” his beliefs.
He looks at the UAH satellite record, and to him, it “proves” his beliefs.
It’s fun to watch.
En,
Nice try – the assertion that someone is a liar seems to have replaced the attempted association with anti – Semitism, by using the word denier.
No rational person would deny that weather, and hence climate, changes continuously. Foolish Warmists are the only group demented enough to claim that it is possible to prevent the climate from changing. What tosh!
As to trying to manoeuvre Dr Spencer into banning me (a well worn, but generally ineffective foolish Warmist tactic)? Dr Spencer hopefully realises that I am being fairly precise with my words, and possibly agrees.
Foolish Warmists cannot even precisely define the surface. Give it a try, and youll find that even the keenest foolish Warmists differ widely on the definition – and one thing distinctly missing from their collection of sea surface, just below surface, a fair bit below the surface, air temperature just above the land, more or less reliably dependable, taken in a variety of odd locations by varying instruments in different enclosures in varying states of repair, – is any measurement of the Earths actual surface temperature.
Claiming that remote satellite sensing accurately measures the temperature of the total Earth surface is a claim too far. Claiming accuracy to 0.001 C is a stretch, not to mention impossible. About as factual as climatologists claiming to measure global sea levels to 0.01 mm, about one eight the thickness of a human hair! Delusional.
Setting all that aside, CO2 heats nothing. No testable GHE hypothesis. No science, just ever more strident declarations from the ever dwindling band of foolish Warmists.
On the other hand, real Warmists have wondered why thermometers in various locations seem to be hotter than in the past. It may have escaped your notice that valid physical reasons have been found, papers have been written, and so on. No magical GHE involved. Just normal physics. No need to return to the Stone Age, or introduce foolish Warmist World Government, with burning at the stake for non – believers!
Over to you – whats your next attempt to deny, divert, and confuse?
Cheers.
Entropic: even better — it’s 0.13 C/decade since 1979.
Mike Flynn says:
January 23, 2018 at 7:06 AM
Leaping to the bizarre conclusion that CO2 can make thermometers hotter is quite simply ludicrous.
Mr Flynn, you are the one and only person mentioning that ridiculous idea.
Nobody is bloody enough to pretend such a nonsense. And you perfectly know that.
Deny, divert, confuse.
That is exactly what you do all the time.
Bindidon,
If you are trying to say that introducing more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer has no heating effect on the thermometer, I agree absolutely!
CO2 heats nothing. No warming at all. No GHE.
No global warming – that would involve heat, wouldnt it?
And, as you point out so eloquently, the idea that CO2 can make thermometers hotter, is ridiculous. So why all the panic? Are we not all going to be boiled, roasted, fried or toasted as a senior IMF executive put it?
I agree. More CO2 – good. Less CO2 bad.
Maybe you could produce a testable GHE hypothesis, explaining a phenomenon which is inexplicable so far. The format for the Seebeck Effect might give you a starting point.
Or you could just avoid the matter, by casting aspersions! Your choice.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“Maybe you could produce a testable GHE hypothesis…”
Why do you want a hypothesis, since you’ve already claimed “No GHE?”
Did you decide that without testing an hypothesis? Seems so….
Correcting my (obvious) typo:
GHE = a planets global mean surface temperature (minus) its brightness temperature.
Mike Flynn says:
Leaping to the bizarre conclusion that CO2 can make thermometers hotter is quite simply ludicrous.
Only in some places. In other places they make them cooler.
Em, you “logic” is so illogical.
You state “You cannot warm a planet without adding heat.” But, your own beloved pseudoscience does just that!
Getting both the facts and the logic wrong takes you deep into pseudoscience.
G*e*r*a*n
Your pseudoscience describes a planet which is warming with no extra heat input. 1st law violation.
I don’t describe any such thing, Em. Your imagination takes you down many erroneous paths.
Mike Flynn says:
“I dont live in Davidworld, so I cant make heads or tales of his supposed testable GHE hypothesis.”
Don’t look up “brightness temperature,” or you might learn something.
Stay ignorant. It makes it much easier to be a denier if you do.
Mike Flynn says:
“I dont live in Davidworld, so I cant make heads or tales of his supposed testable GHE hypothesis.”
Don’t look up “brightness temperature,” or you might learn something.
Stay ignorant. It makes it much easier to be a denier if you do.
Mike Flynn says:
“Should I be terrified of the awesomeness of David Appell?”
No. But I’m glad I’ve put the question into your head.
Operational SST Anomaly Charts for 2018.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomnight.1.22.2018.gif
I am in the wait and see mode.
The test is on.
Overall oceanic temperatures are now +.178c which is encouraging if one wants cooling.
Time will tell this year is key in my opinion.
“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
For anyone interested, there are guides to expressing hypotheses in useful form available on the Wide World of the Web.
One such might be How to Write a Hypothesis.
I assume foolish Warmists understand English, even if they dont understand Science and the scientific method.
Cheers.
David,
You exhorted me not to look up brightness temperature, in case I might learn something.
So I didnt. I assume that the following is still current –
Brightness temperature is the temperature a black body in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings would have to be to duplicate the observed intensity of a grey body object at a frequency .
Of course, anyone except a foolish Warmist can see that it has precisely nothing to do with a testable GHE hypothesis.
I assume you have another climatological definition of brightness temperature which involves the GHE, CO2, and all the rest of the foolish Warmist claptrap. Correct me if Im wrong.
Cheers.
Don’t plagiarize. If you’re to quote Wikipedia, make that clear with quote marks and a citation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightness_temperature
MF wrote:
“Correct me if Im wrong.”
You’re wrong.
David,
And why would that be? I am referring to the real world, not Davidworld, of course.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
And why would that be?
Demands, demands!
Have you considered doing your own research, rather than demanding answers from people you claim have no knowledge?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282118
The Gore effect continues:
Scientists Get Buried In Snow At Davos While Lecturing On Global Warming
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/23/davos-scientists-snow-switzerland-world-economic-forum/
Might more water vapor in the air (as a result of global warming) lead to more snow, if the temperature hasn’t yet risen above the freezing point of water?
David,
Only if you believe that more CO2 between the Sun and the Earths surface results in heating of the surface! Yes, yes, I know its ridiculous, but a foolish Warmist might believe its true!
If so, it is possible that CO2 might cause floods, droughts, snow, lack of snow, hurricanes (or no hurricanes for more than a decade), too many plants, not enough palnts, over population, mass extinction, climate change, weather, halitosis or piles.
In the fevered minds of foolish Warmists, CO2 is bad, bad, bad. Demented, one and all.
Do you really believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the surface raises surface temperatures? Im unaware of any testable hypothesis to that effect, and Im sure you cant produce one. Maybe you could deny divert and confuse by sounding sciency while asserting something completely irrelevant.
How hard can it be? Still no GHE. Sad.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Do you really believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the surface raises surface temperatures?”
More gotcha questions from a denying fool.
David Appell wrote –
“Dont plagiarize. If youre to quote Wikipedia, make that clear with quote marks and a citation
I refuse. Foolish Warmist – why should I take any notice of your foolish demands and exhortations?
I notice youre not disputing anything I said – just more deny, divert and confuse!
How are you proceeding with the missing testable GHE hypothesis? Maybe you could just call me a liar or denier! I would be sooooo upset. Or maybe not.
Cheers.
You plagarized. Demonstrates your morals.
David,
I dont believe I have ever plagarised in my life. Maybe in your sloppy journalistic fashion you meant plagiarised. Just another silly typo from a foolish Warmist, perhaps?
More unsubstantiated assertions trying yet again to deny, divert, and confuse. Still no GHE.
Maybe you might care to follow the scientific method. Morals don’t count for much where the aim is to establish facts.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
I dont believe I have ever plagarised in my life
You just did, above, from Wikipedia — as I noted and as was obvious.
Do you have no scruples at all?
How are you proceeding with the missing testable GHE hypothesis?
You’ve said many times there is “no GHE.” On what hypothesis testing was that conclusion based?
David,
Maybe youre really stretching now. Deny, divert and confuse taken to absurd lengths!
Youre apparently proposing an effect (the GHE) to explain something that needs no new explanation. You cant actually define this effect, demonstrate it, or measure it. Some science.
I dont believe in the existence of unicorns, either. Maybe you do. You just cant define one, produce it, measure it, or demonstrate it. Just as with the mythical GHE.
Producing a written, testable, GHE hypothesis might allow sensible scientific enquiry to start. So far, only unsupported and delusional assertions are in evidence.
If the science is indeed settled, maybe you could present some.
Cheers.
Youve said many times there is “no GHE.”
On what hypothesis testing was that conclusion based? Where is the proof of the null hypothesis?
David,
I am not going to be silly enough to suggest that you acquaint yourself with the scientific method.
Anyone interested can look at the various interpretations of the null hypothesis, and make their own decisions as to your mental acuity.
Wheres the proof that youre not completely delusional? Still trying to deny, divert and confuse because you cant actually find a testable GHE hypothesis, no matter how much you try, or how many tantrums you throw! Nature doesnt seem to care. Sad.
Cheers.
MF, you claim there is no GHE.
On what testing of what hypothesis is this conclusion based?
What evidence?
David,
Are you just being silly – like any other foolish Warmist?
Unless and until you can prove you are not sharing the same delusion as Hansen, Schmidt and Mann, I will treat your inanity with the disdain it so richly deserves.
Of course, you can’t prove you are not delusional, can you?
Maybe you could post the same irrelevant and pointless demand a few more times, or maybe the irrelevant graphic you posted over fifty times.
You might even try to prove a negative – if you can do it, Ill gladly give it a go. Or you could try and describe the GHE in scientific terms – only joking. Its hard to describe the GHE or unicorns in scientific terms. Feel free to try. Just assert either or both exist – fellow delusionalists will heartily agree.
In the meantime,
Cheers.
You don’t have any such evidence, do you MF?
{grin}
{very big grin}
{big grin in your direction}
MF: What is your proof of the null hypothesis?
Doesn’t seem you have any………..
DA…”Energy can be transferred in several different ways by conduction, convection, radiation, and diffusion”.
Would you care to demonstrate some energies other than heat and electricity that can be transferred by conduction, convection, radiation, and diffusion?
The ONLY energies I know that can be transmitted by radiation are electromagnet and nuclear. It has not yet been determined how gravity works. Electrical energy and heat are the only energies that can be transferred by conduction. Heat is the only energy that can be convected naturally. Electrical current through a solution requires a driving potential.
And what about diffusion? What does it have to do with anything?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Would you care to demonstrate some energies other than heat and electricity that can be transferred by conduction, convection, radiation, and diffusion?”
Gravitational energy is transferred by waves (=radiation).
So are the transfer energies in the strong and weak force.
But your problem is you deny EM energy can be transferred (“heat”) by radiation. That’s absurd and very stupid.
In fact, gravitational radiation is exactly what advanced LIGO has been measuring over the last couple of years.
David Appell,,aka DA…
“Here is Clausiuss statement of the Second Law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Clausius_statement
How does that exclude radiation?”
***********
Yet another wiki obfuscation by a dimwit writing an article for which he/she is not qualified. That’s the bane of Wikipedia, anyone, and I mean anyone, can submit an article.
In this article, the dimwit makes the astounding assertion that the 2nd law ‘obviously’ means a net balance of energy. Nowhere in any of the material written by Clausius does he refer to any energy other than heat. He defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms.
Let’s look at energy. I keep claiming the generic use of the word energy has no meaning in itself. It’s a vague reference to ‘something’.
In his 1876 treatise on heat, Clausius defined what he meant by energy, namely potential energy, which he called an ergal. Kinetic energy was vis viva to him as it was to many in his time.
He described a work function that described a mass being raised by a force against a gravitational field. He described potential energy as the negative of that work function, which makes good sense.
If you raise a 10 kilogram weight by 1 metre against a gravitational field you have done 10 kilogrammetres of work, as they put it in that day. The potential energy then becomes -10 kilogrametres, indicating that it has the potential to do 10 kilogrametres of work.
Note that energy has not been claimed as a precise phenomenon, it has been defined mathematically as the negative of another function. I am not in any way claiming energy does not exist, we humans simply have no idea what it is. For that reason, we have defined energy locally depending on the application.
If you release that weight into freefall, as it falls it accelerates. At the same time it loses potential energy and gains kinetic energy. As it strikes the ground, PE become zero and KE is a max.
Kinetic energy is ANY body in motion. In the case above, KE represents work. In the atomic world, kinetic energy represents thermal energy, or heat.
It’s important not to confuse kinetic energy ONLY with the internal energy of a mass, which is essentially the energy of atomic motion. We have a name for that atomic motion, it’s called heat and it distinguishes the KE of heat from the other form of energy required to raise a body against a gravitational field.
Yes, a body does have an amount of heat (Clausius), depending on the state of the atomic motion within. You can add heat by applying energy externally which affects the motion of the internal atomic structure. Furthermore, heat gets used up when converted to work to maintain the motion of atoms internally. Even in atomic structure there is a balance between work and heat.
Claiming a net energy balance makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like energy is a quantity of something whereas it is a measure of a quantity. Potential energy in the case of lifting a weight against gravity is defined as the negative of the work done. Potential energy in a battery is defined as the work done to raise electrons to a certain potential that produces electromotive force.
You have to specify the energy you are talking about simply because they are very different in different contexts. That’s why I keep harping that EM is not heat. Neither potential nor kinetic energy wrt to EM is the same as either with regard to heat. Both refer to entirely different contexts.
You cannot sum energy related to EM and claim it as heat for the simple reason that EM and heat are entirely different energies. And because the 2nd law applies to heat only, you cannot apply it to the flow of EM fluxes.
Certainly, EM can be converted to heat by electrons in a mass, but in space as EM it is not heat. In radiation, the 2nd law stands, hot to cold only with the reverse transfer not possible.
Gordon, In fact, Clausius’s statement of the 2LOT doesn’t refer to any particular kind of heat, just to “heat”:
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Clausius_statement
So, again, why do you think he only means conduction in air?
DA…”So, again, why do you think he only means conduction in air?”
I see you failed to comprehend anything else I wrote about energy. Rather than being so obstinate, how about participating intelligently and see if we can help each other find answers to this science?
Clausius did not mention conduction through air. I have already explained to binny that in the day of Clausius and up to the days of at least Planck near the turn of the 20th century, heat was regarded as a substance that could flow through air. They described it as heat rays.
They knew about the basic properties of electromagnetic radiation early in the 19th century connected to magnetic fields produced by electrical current through a conductor. Faraday developed the theory of EM and built fundamental electric motors.
BTW…Faraday had no formal training in science.
Maxwell later developed a very important mathematical theory about EM but no one had related it to heat transfer. It was not till the 1890s that electrons were discovered and scientists began to piece together how the electron transported heat through solid conductors, just as it conducts electric charge, and how the electron absorbs and emits EM.
It was Bohr circa 1913 who actually got the ball rolling by proposing an atomic nucleus with electrons orbiting it while emitting/absorbing EM. Later, Schrodinger treated electrons as waves, applying the Newtonian wave equation to their orbits using probability theory. That was the birth of quantum mechanics.
In the day of Clausius, he could not possibly have known that heat does not flow through air. It must first be converted to electromagnetic energy.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“In the day of Clausius, he could not possibly have known that heat does not flow through air.”
So you’re saying that Clausius’s understanding was incomplete?
Yes?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Thats why I keep harping that EM is not heat.”
Why isn’t it?
If it’s not, how does the heat of the Sun get to the Earth?
DA…”Gordon Robertson wrote:
Thats why I keep harping that EM is not heat.
Why isnt it?”
We’ve been through this several times. EM is an electric field with a perpendicular magnetic field that propagates through space at certain frequencies. Heat has no electric field, no magnetic, field and no frequency.
EM can go through a vacuum easily, heat cannot.
EM can be propagated from an antenna, heat cannot.
Heat cannot exist without mass, EM in free space can.
I don’t know whether you are being intentionally obtuse or whether you can’t really see this. Heat at the Sun is converted to EM by electrons and radiated to space. At the Earth’s surface it is converted back to heat. There is energy conveyed by the EM but it is electromagnetic energy and that energy is not thermal energy.
Ergo, 2nd law does not apply to EM but it does to the heat at either end. For that reason, the energy in the EM from a cooler source is insufficient to affect the electrons in a hotter mass.
Gordon Robertson says:
“EM can go through a vacuum easily, heat cannot.”
Then how does the heat of the Sun get to the Earth????????
Gordon Robertson says:
“Neither potential nor kinetic energy wrt to EM is the same as either with regard to heat.”
I never said anything about potential energy.
But why don’t you consider the kinetic energy of photons heat?
Their kinetic energy can do work just as well as can the kinetic energy of atoms or molecules (for example, solar sails).
DA..”But why dont you consider the kinetic energy of photons heat?”
Because there are no atoms in EM. Heat is specifically defined as the KE of atoms in motion. I don’t know what you’d call the KE of EM other than EM radiation.
EM has no mass therefore cannot be described by the equation KE = 1/2mv^2. However, photons were DEFINED as having momentum and no mass. Therefore KE related to EM is based on momentum rather than mass.
An EM photon generated by an electron has energy E = hf, Since it’s propagated it has to be in motion therefore E ‘should’ be its kinetic energy.
There is an interesting take on it here:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2010/09/q-how-can-photons-have-energy-and-momentum-but-no-mass/
Alternately, Einstein proposed E^2 = p^2.c^2 + m^2.c^4. With a photon having m = 0, that reduces to E = pc, where p = momentum.
Apparently E = hf = mc^2. Einstein’s E = mc^2 has mass and the hf form is for photons with no mass and quantized energy.
As far as solar sails are concerned, my understanding is they are not driven by solar energy per se. Near the Sun, there is a solar wind but it’s made of electrons and protons blown off the solar surface. That is, they constitute a mass.
I have seen arguments that solar energy as RM can offer a low force. I don’t know anything about that.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat is specifically defined as the KE of atoms in motion.”
No it isn’t.
Where did you get this idea?????????????????
What is the temperature of a photon gas?
What is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background?
Why?
GR, Surely you’ve seen a “toy” radiometers as a youngster. What makes the paddles spin when placed in the light from the Sun?
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/143-8170154-3959150?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=toy+radiometer
Photons exhibit both wave and mass properties…
Gordon Robertson says:
“Certainly, EM can be converted to heat by electrons in a mass….”
Why not?
DA…”Certainly, EM can be converted to heat by electrons in a mass. Why not?”
Don’t get your question. I said EM CAN be converted to heat in a mass.
GR: How does the heat of the Sun get to the Earth?
Gordon Robertson says:
January 23, 2018 at 8:31 PM
“Kinetic energy is ANY body in motion.”
I’m glad to see that includes photons.
We’re starting to get somewhere, Gordon!
Gordon Robertson
You are probably correct in your understanding of how Clausius used the word “heat” in his time. The point being made is this use caused confusion in discussions on heat. If heat moves from a hot to colder object is can no longer be considered a property of an object as you are using. This is why they have changed the meaning.
If you want to discuss current physics you should adopt the current use of the word. You know Clausius did not invent the word “heat”. He used what was the definition of his time.
Read this article. You can bring up Clausius’s use of “heat” all day long but that won’t help you communicate.
https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-engineering/heat-transfer/introduction-to-heat-transfer/heat-in-physics-definition-of-heat/
Norman wrote:
“If heat moves from a hot to colder object is can no longer be considered a property of an object as you are using.”
Well put, thanks.
norman…”If you want to discuss current physics you should adopt the current use of the word…”
I don’t want to discuss modern physics that is wrong. Many modern physicists were educated in a mathematics environment that is obviously based on a misunderstanding of the Stefan-Bolzmann equation and the Planck equation. Neither of those parties said anything about a net energy flow, both of their equations refer to a one way flow of EM from a body.
Somewhere along the line someone has concluded incorrectly that if EM can transfer heat one way it ‘should’ be able to transfer it both ways. That assumption is wrong and it’s based on a misunderstanding of atomic theory.
If you go to the electron level based on Bohr’s theories that becomes apparent. Electrons cannot emit EM from a cooler body that has the required energy and frequency to raise an electron in a warmer body to a higher energy level as required to raise it’s temperature.
I am not here to discuss physics, I am here to support the UAH data’s evidence that no catastrophic warming is happening or imminent. I am supporting Roy’ stance as luke-warmist even though I don’t agree with his views on thermodynamics. I wish he’d take a closer look, however, since proper thermodynamics theory supports his data.
I don’t give a hoot what interpretation of physics you alarmist base your theories on, I want other people reading this blog to get an alternative view of the science so they can research both sides and satisfy themselves as to which one is correct.
As it stands, anyone reading this blog probably wonders why we hate each other. For the record, I don’t hate any of you guys. I think some of you take me far too seriously but that’s the nature of blogging or communicating via email.
From my perspective I see it along the lines of the Monty Python skit where people pay to have a bloody good argument. A client sits down, slaps down his money, and says, “I want a bloody good argument”. The proprietor starts off rebutting, “No, you don’t”, and there off.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I dont want to discuss modern physics that is wrong. Many modern physicists were educated in a mathematics environment that is obviously based on a misunderstanding of the Stefan-Bolzmann equation and the Planck equation”
Stupidity right in front of us.
Gordon is the most stupid person I’ve ever encountered in my entire life.
Gordon is wrong about EVERYTHING.
And STILL he’s not ashamed of himself….
Gordon Robertson says:
“If you go to the electron level based on Bohrs theories that becomes apparent….”
The Bohr model is wrong, dumbsh!t.
Gordon Robertson
If you look at the current physics use of “heat”: “While internal energy refers to the total energy of all the molecules within the object, heat is the amount of energy flowing from one body to another spontaneously due to their temperature difference. Heat is a form of energy, but it is energy in transit.”
Now this point is critical to your understanding of correct physics: “In general, when two objects are brought into thermal contact, heat will flow between them until they come into equilibrium with each other. When a temperature difference does exist heat flows spontaneously from the warmer system to the colder system. Heat transfer occurs by conduction or by thermal radiation. When the flow of heat stops, they are said to be at the same temperature. They are then said to be in thermal equilibrium.”
Okay now read that carefully. Heat will stop flowing when the temperature of two objects are the same, but energy will not stop flowing. Energy will flow constantly between the two even at the same temperature.
If you took a course in Chemistry you would learn about equilibrium. If you have a closed container filled with liquid water you will have some water vapor above the liquid. There is an active exchange of water vapor to liquid and reverse taking place constantly at equilibrium.
Energy is exchanged constantly at equilibrium conditions but heat is not. Two objects facing each other are both emitting and absorbing IR constantly but if the temperature is the same their is no heat flow.
norman…”If you took a course in Chemistry you would learn about equilibrium”.
I don’t need a course in thermal equilibrium, I have taken several university level courses in chemistry, organic chemistry, and physical chemistry. I have a pretty good understanding of thermal equilibrium.
“Okay now read that carefully. Heat will stop flowing when the temperature of two objects are the same, but energy will not stop flowing. Energy will flow constantly between the two even at the same temperature”.
Why should any energy keep flowing at equilibrium? What energy is there with direct contact between the bodies other than thermal energy? Any transfer of heat between bodies in direct contact is thermal energy, unless you hook the surfaces into an electrical circuit.
If those bodies are parallel to each other, meaning they butt up against each other, EM is neither necessary nor necessarily flowing. Only direct conduction is available. Spread them an inch apart and there is no thermal conduction but EM flow.
I have heard the argument that under equilibrium conditions there are atoms on either surface that vary above and below the average temperature, therefore a two way transfer of heat is possible near equilibrium. No argument there even though I consider it a moot point.
Now put the surfaces back together so they’re touching. Heat one of the blocks with a flame so it’s significantly hotter than the other. What happens? Heat gets transferred from the heat source area via electrons in the atoms to the cooler surface. Then the heat diffuses into the cooler body by conduction only. That will occur till the bodies reach a temperature equilibrium.
Now separate them again to 1″ and repeat the process of applying heat to one surface only. The hotter surface will begin radiating EM to the cooler surface and it will warm to equilibrium as the EM is converted to heat by the same electrons that transport the heat from the heat source.
You are claiming the cooler body will radiate EM to the hotter body and raise the temperature of the hotter body. I am asking you to explain how that process takes place. How does EM from a cooler body raise the temperature of the hotter body?
Try to explain it without reverting to the mysterious net energy balance. Go into it and explain how EM from a cooler surface, which is electromagnetic energy, manages to raise the temperature of a hotter body that requires thermal energy.
Alternately, try to convince yourself that EM incident on a car motor can increase the mechanical energy efficiency of the motor. Hopefully, you can’t.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Alternately, try to convince yourself that EM incident on a car motor can increase the mechanical energy efficiency of the motor.”
You agree that the EM carries energy, right?
—
So where does that energy go?
Gordon Robertson
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states heat cannot flow from cold to hot without compensation. There is absolutely nothing in this law that supports your or g*e*r*a*n’s irrational and unscientific declarations that the Law means hot objects cannot absorb energy from colder ones. That is just dumb, wrong and not supported by any science. It is only found on crackpot cult sites that you believe have the truth. You reject all textbook material and side with the goofball Claes Johnson, and radical quack and loon Joe Postma. Neither can comprehend rational physics and have polluted their thoughts with their delusions.
Here I can give you a real quick set of experiments you can do to prove your heroes (Claes and Joe) are irrational crackpots.
Do them and please don’t respond with your nonsense until you have taken the time to complete them. They will clearly show your current understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a farce based upon delusional thoughts programmed into you by goofballs.
Take a powered rod like an aquarium heater or something. Attach a temperature measuring device on the rod’s surface.
Now do a series of tests to prove to yourself you have zero understanding of the 2nd Law. Put the device in ice water and see what temperature it reaches. Now put it in room temperature water and take a measurement (take the measurements before the heater changes the water temperature). And now put it in hot water. You will see that the surrounding temperature can affect the surface temperature of the heated rod. Let us say the heated rod will reach 100 C in air. In the cold water it will be much below this temperature. But the temperature of the rod will increase in the room temperature water. The room temperature water is still far below the temperature of the rod in air but the rod gets hotter in this water than the ice water.
norman…”Let us say the heated rod will reach 100 C in air. In the cold water it will be much below this temperature. But the temperature of the rod will increase in the room temperature water. The room temperature water is still far below the temperature of the rod in air but the rod gets hotter in this water than the ice water”.
The heated rod will TRY to reach the temperature natural to it with electrical current running through it. BTW, don’t run it in free air, it’s not designed for that and you’ll likely burn it out. It’s designed to be cooled by water, meaning the water carries off heat from it directly, warming in the process.
The problem you describe is the same one entropic encountered. It’s about heat dissipation. If you put it in warmer water the rod will dissipate heat more slowly. In colder water the dissipation is faster therefore the temperature of the rod is cooler.
The temperature difference governs the rate of heat transfer.
In free air, heat dissipation is minimal because the density of free air is very low and the air molecules cannot carry the heat off fast enough. Radiation alone cannot cool the heater adequately because it was designed with a filament meant to be cooled by water.
This is not about the 2nd law other than heat flowing from the rod directly into water. No EM involved. There is no evidence that heat flows from the water into the rod at any water temperature.
Unless of course, you place a cold heater rod in hot water. Still, the heat flow is one way. You would not expect heat to flow from the cold rod and raise the water temperature. That’s like putting a pot of cold water on an electric stove ring and expecting the cold ring to heat the water.
GR wrote:
“There is no evidence that heat flows from the water into the rod at any water temperature.”
So you claim.
Prove it.
You can’t.
Gordon Robertson
Why do you think heat of conduction flows slower when water is warmer? If the surrounding water temperature has no effect the rate of heat flow would not change, but since it does change the heater will reach a higher temperature in warmer water.
I have linked you to reality before on this issue. You ignore what you don’t like. Reality is not your strong suit. You are only happy with the make believe version.
ONCE AGAIN (you will ignore this anyway or pretend you did not see it, you do that whenever someone presents something that violates your delusional science view).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
In this link they have animations of blocks hitting each other. If you look you will see the slower moving object transfers energy to the faster one. Energy is exchanged both ways. David Appell is correct and you are not. Whatever you think of his online personality, he does know much more about physics than you will ever know. I disagree with him on issues but his physics is correct and established. He learned something when he studied the subject. You have learned nothing of value and make up stuff and peddle it off as if you know something. Completely delusional.
If you let the con-man ramble enough, he eventually wraps himself around his own axis.
Above, he stated: “There is absolutely nothing in this law that supports your or g*e*r*a*ns irrational and unscientific declarations that the Law means hot objects cannot absorb energy from colder ones.
But, in his sentence before, he had stated: “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states heat cannot flow from cold to hot without compensation.
It’s fun to watch.
Gordon Robertson
Since you don’t have a clue what the actual 2nd Law of Thermodynamics really says, you have your own false made up version that is not supported by any physics.
Here is further test you can do. This will demonstrate your lack of intelligence and reasoning ability. I am hoping you are not as stupid as g*e*r*a*n or the dumbest of all Mike Flynn (he makes g*e*r*a*n seem brilliant with you mindless repetitive posts).
So take your powered rod and stick it in ice water. The temperature of the rod drops. But as it heats the ice water and warms it, its temperature will go up. You may not believe this so you must do the tests yourself.
The powered rod is what is heating the ice water to a warmer temperature but this warmer water now allows the powered rod to reach a higher temperature than it was when you first put it into the ice water. Why is that? How can this water change the temperature of the rod, after all the water is NOT a heat source, it has no energy input of its own, it is getting its energy from the powered rod but at the end of the day this water is allowing the rod to reach higher temperatures. If you insulate the water container well you might find the rod can get really hot and the water along with it. Don’t be dense. Wake up. It is not too late to become intelligent. There are more than enough stupid people the world over, do you have to be part of this large group or can you break away and start to think?
Norman, good points, but Gordon won’t read or think.
He has come to his misunderstandings for a reason — his psychology needs them.
I don’t understand that either. But Gordon is clearly someone who can’t accept reality and who works very hard to construct their own alternative.
David Appell
I hope you are wrong about Gordon Robertson. I know Mike Flynn is a hopeless cause. I am not even sure if Flynn is a human or a program. This poster seems to respond sporadically to some comment you stated and then has doses of repetitive nonsense. Maybe that was why Flynn was off-line for a time. The programmer wanted to improve the AI. Unfortunately they were not successful. The Flynn Bot is as redundant and mindless as its first iteration. The programmers need to add a bit of creativity to this lifeless bot.
g*e*r*a*n may be intelligent enough to know the truth of physics but does his routine because he derives pleasure from being annoying. I see some of the comments he makes about you and your work and mine. Nothing to do with any science, designed to provoke.
He is funny though. When I call him an idiot and stupid troll he thinks I am pounding on the keys in total anger and in a rage. Not true. When I type idiot I am relaxed and calm. He is an idiot in two regards. He does not understand any physics (or does and pretends not to) and his purpose (or her) is to try to get some type of childish emotional response, this is the behavior of an idiot.
This video (short) shows this poster’s mentality. Let me know if the use of the word “stupid” correctly reflects this poster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAg1r6zw7Bg
The person watching this reminds me of g*e*r*a*n.
Norman,
And yet you still cant even come up with a testable GHE hypothesis.
Dont be too concerned – neither can anybody else!
Cheers.
Norman: MF can’t prove the null hypothesis.
So you see who you are dealing with here…..
David
Norman quoted, “heat is the amount of energy flowing from one body to another spontaneously due to their temperature difference.”
That defines heat as a net energy exchange. You seem fine with the idea coming from Norman. From me, you argue like crazy against it. What gives?
Where did I ever argue with you about that?
Fact is, heat is more than just “NET” energy exchange.
Because heat going in each direction has physical effects.
You already agree to that, right, IIRC?
If that is true, then heat is more that just net heat below.
Come on — this is completely completely obvious based on your every day experience.
David
I don’t care what definition a person uses. It’s really just semantics. But when someone goes with “net exchange”, a certain logic follows. For instance, heat would only flow in one direction between two objects.
You could think of energy as money and profit as heat. When money is exchanged, only one person can earn a profit. The other takes a loss.
I see people use three different versions of heat on this blog. Here is how I see them in terms of finance:
1). Internal energy — The balance in a bank account
2). Energy. —- Money
3). Net exchange of energy — profit
It’s not just “semantics” — it’s physics.
Heat flow IN EACH DIRECTION has a physical effect.
I’m not going to reply to you much longer if you can’t understand this very basic point.
Snape says:
“You could think of energy as money and profit as heat. When money is exchanged, only one person can earn a profit”
Completely wrong.
Dumb, too.
David
You’re not getting it. Norman was saying the same thing as me and you didn’t notice. Here you say the idea is completely dumb and wrong.
Very frustrating.
Snape, if you have something to say here, then say it — I’m not going to read every single comment to discern what you might or might not think.
Understood?
David, you don’t understand the very simple, often used idea of net exchange. Or if you do, you have no idea how to apply it.
That’s why you’re critical of my comments.
DA..”Norman, good points, but Gordon wont read or think.
He has come to his misunderstandings for a reason his psychology needs them”.
Reading you and Norman discussing physics is like watching Bert and Ernie on Sesame Street. Amusing, but irrelevant and stupid.
Gee whiz, Bert. Aw. Ernie.
Ha Gordon. You don’t know much physics, and you’re as well aware of that as I am.
Norman,
Im somewhat confused about the relevance of your comment.
What has using a heater to do with the GHE?
The Earth has an internal heater (radiogenic in origin) plus a little heat from tidal effects and so on. None of this has managed to even maintain the Earths crust at its previous molten temperature.
Would it be possible to address the supposed GHE, rather than indulging in a perfect lather of deny, divert and confuse?
Isnt additional CO2 in the atmosphere supposed to raise the temperature of the planet? If not, what are foolish Warmists on about? I havent seen any CO2 powered heaters available, but David Appell will no doubt demand that I prove they dont exist. Maybe the unicorns used all the CO2 heaters, and there are none left for me.
Its all pretty silly, isnt it?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Would it be possible to address the supposed GHE, rather than indulging in a perfect lather of deny, divert and confuse?”
Another gotcha question.
Demands, demands!
Have you considered doing your own research, rather than demanding answers from people you claim have no knowledge?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282118
Mike Flynn
Sorry if I do not respond to your posts. I have in the past. You are not intelligent enough to understand even the simplest of logic or rational discussion. Good luck and cheers!
If it helps, the Earth is a powered system. It receives energy constantly from the Sun (one side at least). Carbon Dioxide works in similar fashion to a heated rod in ice water. The ice water warms, the heated rod gets warmer. Do the tests you will find the answers to questions you ask.
I think I wasted too much time with this post to you. At least g*e*r*a*n attempts some humor. He just is not very creative. You offer nothing but mindless repetition of your very stupid points. Are you a bot? Would you answer honestly if you were?
Norman!
Don’t insult Flynn. He hasn’t earned it….
Just make fun of him. He does deserve that….
Norman,
You managed to deny, divert and confuse, yet again.
You havent actually managed to mention the non-existent GHE, have you?
Im not all sorry if you choose not to respond to my posts, but you just can’t help yourself, can you? Avoiding discussing the GHE wont help too much – somebody might still ask if there is a testable GHE hypothesis! Maybe you could blather about overcoats, cancer, the tobacco industry, Big Oil, or any number of irrelevant and pointless subjects.
In the meantime, the Australian BOM has declared all temperature records prior to 1910 unreliable (in order to avoid the inconvenient truth of heat waves in the 1890s), and the US Government is progressively removing references to climate change from Government websites.
Ben Santer is crying to the Canadian Government for funding, there is a US Navy ship unable to leave a harbour due to unexpected inconvenient ice (no doubt our to global warming)!
There doesnt seem to be as much enthusiasm for wasting money on the GHE farce, but keep pushing. Have you tried actually heating anything with CO2? Its a little more difficult than using an electric heater – but if anyone can do it, you can, Im sure!
Let me know if you can actually do it, rather than just claiming it can be done.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Have you tried actually heating anything with CO2?”
Another gotcha question!
That’s all Flynn has……
Mike Flynn???
Are you trying to make a point? Seems like you pulled out some garbage from the trash and posted it. Do you possess a mind and thinking ability? You repeat the same stupid material over and over and over. What is up with you? I still am not sure you are a human, you sound more like a program. I have interacted with a few online AI simulations and they respond a lot like you do.
I am not sure if you possess any thinking ability. You want someone to prove GHE for you. I would like you to prove you have even rudimentary thinking ability. So far I have seen zero from you. Just cobbled words that really don’t say anything. Again, are you a BOT? If you are a computer simulation will your program allow you to reveal this?
norman…” Carbon Dioxide works in similar fashion to a heated rod in ice water”.
Where does it get its power from? It’s like putting your powered rod in the Pacific Ocean and expecting the ocean to boil.
Gordon,
Its fairly obvious that magic is involved. Science seems to be conspicuously lacking. Maybe the missing GHE hypothesis is based on unspecified heated rods cooling when placed in iced water.
No wonder even politicians are becoming wary of foolish Warmists demanding money to stop the climate from changing – or else!
Cheers.
Gordon, serious question: do you understand about ab.sorp.tion and emission?
Gordon, you never answered the Fermi question above.
You also never proved your claim of only a few hundredths of a degree warming from atmosphere CO2
Why not?
Can you answer these questions or not?
DA…”Gordon, you never answered the Fermi question above”.
Did you mean Fermi levels or Fermi energy? Either way I don’t see what it has to do with your box on the ground.
We studied Fermi levels in semiconductor theory but it was a one semester course that we tended to ignore in favour of heavier courses like calculus, physics, electrical engineering circuit theory, etc. You can study that theory all you like, when you get out of school and close the books it’s quickly forgotten because you’ll never see it again unless you get into semiconductor design.
I recall the Fermi level being related to the junction of a PN or NP junction. A p-type silicon slab is doped with atoms so it has a lack of electrons and the N-type is doped so it has an excess of electrons. When you bring the two together, electrons diffuse naturally into the positive region and positive charged holes into the negative region. That sets up a pseudo-potential across the junction that needs around 0.8 volts in a silicon PN junction from the power supply to overcome it.
You can actually read the 0.8 volts on a meter across a diode or a transistor emitter-base junction. On an ohmmeter that’s how you test a diode or transistor. The meter reads about 0.7 – 0.8 volts, even on an ohmmeter, in one direction, and a very high resistance the other way if the junction is good.
Somehow I detect you are baiting again. If you knew anything about Fermi energy or Fermi levels you would have phrased your question to indicate that. I took a quick look at Fermi energy and I don’t see how any of that applies to the GHE or AGW, even at the atomic level.
When you can explain to me what Fermi level or energy is, I’ll answer your question. At least I’ve studied it.
DA…”You also never proved your claim of only a few hundredths of a degree warming from atmosphere CO2…”
BTW…if you think I am tired of answering the same question over and over, guess again. I enjoy writing this stuff so that third party viewers of this blog can verify it for themselves. I just need the excuse.
I have shown my proof several times. I showed using the Ideal Gas Law in a constant volume/constant mass system like the atmosphere, and Dalton’s Law of partial Pressures, that P is directly proportional to T. Dalton claims the total pressure of mixed gases is the sum of the partial pressures of the constituent gases.
Since CO2 has a partial pressure based on it’s mass, its PP would be a few hundredths of 1%. Since T is proportional to P then the partial temperature contributed by CO2 must be a few hundredths C.
QED.
You won’t see any attempt by alarmists at justifying the AGW claim that CO2 has a warming factor of 9% to 25%. That’s because they picked those numbers out of a hat to justify their pseudo-science theory, just as they cherry picked the concentrations of CO2 in the Pre Industrial Era to be 280 ppmv.
It would have been low anyway due to the cooling of the oceans in the Little Ice Age. Even at that, qualified scientists like Kreutz found levels of 400 ppmv in the 1930s, based on over 25,000 measurements.
mike…”Its fairly obvious that magic is involved. Science seems to be conspicuously lacking. Maybe the missing GHE hypothesis is based on unspecified heated rods cooling when placed in iced water”.
You never know what could happen on another world or dimension. Maybe they’re aliens. Glad we studied engineering, those studying straight science seem to be getting their heads filled with rubbish.
When you design bridges, buildings, and high powered electrical motors you can’t take the chance of relying on the opinions of others. You would never design a structure or device based on the likelihood it might not fall down. You would never use the output of an unvalidated model to build a bridge before testing the design to validate it on a mini-bridge.
You don’t show a client a model of a design and claim it is 48% likely to work. NOAA thinks that’s just fine, and the alarmists on this site defend them vehemently.
Furthermore, all the notions like the fictitious net energy balance seems to be coming from wiki articles. In the recent one from DA, a wiki type had the temerity to suggest what Clausius was thinking when he wrote the 2nd law.
In the same article the author presented the alleged Clausius inequality where the sum (integral)of dq/T is less than or equal to zero. When Clausius defined entropy, he claimed it to be the sum of dq/T over a process. If the process was reversible the sum is 0, if non-reversible, it’s positive. How did these clowns get entropy to be negative?
Why not just read what he actually said and why he said it, it’s freely available on the Net.
Of course, then you have people like binny cherry picking phrases from complete ideas and presenting it as proof that heat can flow from cold to hot.
Gordon Robertson says:
“I have shown my proof several times…”
Another lie. You have never shown this proof once.
You pretend that IR doesn’t exist, which is as stupid as assuming atoms don’t exist.
You don’t get to avoid reality, gordon clown.
You don’t get to lie about reality.
I will call out your lies forever.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Since CO2 has a partial pressure based on its mass, its PP would be a few hundredths of 1%. Since T is proportional to P then the partial temperature contributed by CO2 must be a few hundredths C.”
Why is T equal to PP?
—
You ignore IR, which is a lie of monstrous proportions.
Why doesn’t lying bother you, Gordon?
Didn’t your mother teach you not to lie?
I honestly don’t think she did.
Gordon, who taught you it was OK to lie like you do?
I can only assume it was your mother — because you lie so deeply, so completely, and it doesn’t even bother you that you lie.
I can only assume your mother was also a grand liar, and your learned lying from her….
David,
Did you intentionally misstate? He didn’t say T is equal to P
he said Proportional.
Why do you lie?
Did your mother teach you?
David Appell
I hope you refrain from bringing in someone’s Mother in a frustrated attack on someone. It is not necessary, is very provocative and will not further your case. It will only make people think very poorly of you.
You can call the poster a liar if you so choose but I would not include someone’s Mother! Far too low to be considered acceptable in my opinion!
Gordon Robertson
The power comes from the Sun. But it would not at all be analogous to a powered rod bringing the Pacific Ocean to a boil. Not sure what the point is. Maybe try some other analogy for the situation.
The Ice water has no source of heat but the heated rod (if you have good insulation around the system to prevent external energy from causing much disturbance). Yet as the rod adds energy to the ice water and warms it, the warmer water will increase the temperature of the rod even though the water is still colder than the heated rod.
I am trying to point out, with this easy to test idea, that your understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is far from correct. It is a made up version of the official concept. Nowhere does the Law ever state that energy from a cold object cannot influence the surface dynamics of a hotter object. You just make up your own version and try to peddle it. I challenge you to support your version with any established physics and you will not do this. You will repeat your version forever but you will not find one source of valid science to support it.
I have linked you to established science that clearly states you are not correct but that does not faze you in the least.
Gordon Robertson
What established science states about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and heat transfer.
Once again for you (please read, this is what real physics states not the pseudoscience you believe): “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
If you get off of Joe Postma and Claes Johnson blogs and open a textbook you will eventually come to realize they are both awful sources of science and really do not know what they are talking about but they are very good at convincing people they are knowledgeable. It is an illusion.
DA…”Another lie. You have never shown this proof once.
You pretend that IR doesnt exist, which is as stupid as assuming atoms dont exist”.
I’m thinking you have more serious problems/issues than a simple lack of comprehension. I have used the Ideal Gas Equation/Dalton on at least half a dozen occasions, and recently.
norman…”Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object”
There is nothing at your link related to the fictitious net energy flow. The link only talks about heat, as did Clausius.
You cannot talk about a generic energy with reference to radiation because there are two energies involved in the process. In fact, there is no such thing as generic energy, it’s a term used very loosely by people who are not being overly scientific.
I use the term myself but not when I need to be precise. In the case of radiation and the 2nd law it’s mandatory to be precise. The 2nd law is about nothing but heat. You cannot make reference to EM and the 2nd law in the same context because they have nothing to do with each other.
That’s where alarmists are missing the boat by claiming the 2nd law is satisfied by a mysterious net energy balance. Or that the 2nd law implies a net energy exchange. Even with EM flowing to space isotropically and by chance being intercepted by another body, that is not a net energy flow.
Because the EM is at different frequencies there is just as likely to be cancellation rather than summation, and the EM from cold to hot cannot be absorbed by the warmer body otherwise the 2nd law would be contradicted.
norman…”Yet as the rod adds energy to the ice water and warms it, the warmer water will increase the temperature of the rod even though the water is still colder than the heated rod”.
Why???
Apply a heat transfer equation to that and you’ll see a T1 and T2. As long as T2 > T1, heat will be transferred in that direction only. There are no provisions in any heat transfer equation for a two way transfer of heat.
To understand why, you need to go to the atomic level. You have a problem with that, however, since you cannot accept that EM is emitted and absorbed by electrons. Electrons convert thermal energy to EM and vice-versa. It is the energy level requirements of the electron wrt the Bohr model that determine what can and cannot be absorbed.
The notion that all EM incident on a body is absorbed is false. In the photoelectric effect, electrons on a metal respond only to certain frequencies in the EM radiation. The electrons do not respond to IR at all, only to certain UV frequencies.
I would harbour a guess that the frequencies correspond to an intrinsic resonance in the electron. After all, electrons are modeled as tiny harmonic oscillators in the atom just as EM is considered the same in free space.
In real life, you cannot talk about a single electron or single EM frequency. There are bazillions of electrons emitting from a body and they all emit at different frequencies. Therefore, we must talk about an EM spectrum, not individual photons. After all, how does a particle have a frequency?
Electrons will only respond to energy that matches the frequency corresponding to their temperature AND the energy intensity that can bump them up to the next highest energy level. EM from a cooler source has neither.
You even question the Bohr model, even though it is still taught in a modified form at most universities. The major difference between what is taught now and the original model with circular orbits is a more complex form of orbital structure.
Gordon Robertson
You seem to suffer selective perception. You can clearly read and copy the words in the last sentence of my link but you totally ignore the sentence preceding it. Why do you do this? I thought g*e*r*a*n was the only idiot on this blog who could not read more than a couple words.
You can do better. Since you ignored the sentence before the one you posted I will post it here: “Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process.”
Please don’t be intentionally stupid. If you ally with idiot g*e*r*a*n I am afraid you too will be as stupid as he is. I would hate his curse of reduced mental ability to infect your brain (like a virtual mad-cow syndrome…you read g*e*r*a*n and you become brain dead like him).
Con-man reveals his understanding of Earth’s atmosphere is as pathetic as his understanding of thermo:
“Carbon Dioxide works in similar fashion to a heated rod in ice water.”
2018 is turning out to be a great year in climate comedy.
The hilarious con-man believes that because you can heat an aquarium with an aquarium heater, that proves “cold” can warm “hot”!
His only “training” in thermodynamics is washing dishes. He understands the hot water is hotter than cold water.
Hilarious.
g*r…”He understands the hot water is hotter than cold water”.
Let’s not be too presumptuous, the alarmists seem to think there is no such thing as heat. They may regard the hot water effect as one form of energy being higher than another. Or maybe it’s a net balance of energies causing the sensation of hot water.
Gordon: can atoms and molecules in a gas do work?
Can a gas of photons do work?
David,
When might you get round to discussing the non – existent GHE?
In the interim, maybe you could tell me how many photons can occupy one millilitre?
If photons can have infinitely many discrete energies (and they can, of course), how could you measure how many could occupy one millilitre before it could hold no more? You cant say?
What a surprise. Foolish Warmist – you can demand answers, but can’t provide any.
Could you get back to the non-existent testable GHE hypothesis sometime?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“If photons can have infinitely many discrete energies (and they can, of course), how could you measure how many could occupy one millilitre before it could hold no more? You cant say?”
Demands, demands!
Have you considered doing your own research, rather than demanding answers from people you claim have no knowledge?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282118
{big grin}
DA…”Gordon: can atoms and molecules in a gas do work?”
Of course, PV = nRT. n = number of atoms/molecules. Of course, you have to be able to compress them.
“Can a gas of photons do work?”
No such thing. There are no gases made of photons, although some idiot mathematicians would try to convince you of that.
Light can do work through the photoelectric effect buy I don’t get your point. Work is not the function desired, it’s the ability to set up a light beam with a photocell and use it with an interrupting device. When the light is broken the circuit turns off automatically.
Not much other good for light powered devices based on work I can think of.
Gordon,
David doesnt have a point (unless it reflects the shape of his cranium, I suppose.)
His silly gotchas are presumably designed to deflect any possible discussion of the fantasy described as the GHE.
Given half a chance, hell start demanding to know why people wear some clothing to keep cool, and others to keep warm. Foolish Warmists dont seem terribly rational at times, I must admit.
Cheers.
MF: Now “gotchas” are silly?
I’ll remember that next time you whine about them.
{large grin}
If you say so, David, if you say so.
Cheers.
{big big grin, Mike}
mike…”His silly gotchas are presumably designed to deflect any possible discussion of the fantasy described as the GHE”.
They are taught at alarmist seminars how to defeat the arguments of so-called deniers. Problem is, the so-called deniers seem to be a lot smarter than the alarmists.
mike…”His silly gotchas are presumably designed to deflect any possible discussion of the fantasy described as the GHE”.
The GHE is along the Monty Python skit where the guy insults the guys wife and says, “nudge, nudge, wink wink, say not more say no more”.
I think they all know it is lies but they feel compelled to extend the myth.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There are no gases made of photons”
So what is the cosmic microwave background, Einstein?
DA…”So what is the cosmic microwave background, Einstein?”
Speaking of Einstein, he maintained until his death that some people thought they knew whether EM was particles or waves, but they don’t. I’ll go with Einstein.
The idea of photon clouds makes no more sense than electron clouds in a solid conductor. That’s one of the newer theories that electrons form clouds in metals.
Electrons do form clouds when boiled off a tungsten filament. That makes sense, but not photon clouds or electron clouds in solids.
DA…”So what is the cosmic microwave background, Einstein?”
Cosmic ‘particles’ are actual particles, like the stripped nucleii of atoms and the electrons once attached to them. They are like the solar wind and likely came from exploded stars.
Any cosmic background has nothing to do with EM,photons, or microwaves.
Tell the truth, did you ever study physics, even in grade school?
Gordon Robertson says:
“Light can do work through the photoelectric effect buy I dont get your point.”
Gordon thinks solar cells won’t work.
Gordon, what is the momentum change when a solar photon reflect off a solar cell?
Don’t wimp out on the question like you usually do.
Gordon Robertson says:
“”DAGordon: can atoms and molecules in a gas do work?
“Of course, PV = nRT. n = number of atoms/molecules. Of course, you have to be able to compress them.”
Gordon, you said nothing here. Nothing at all.
Can atoms and molecules in a gas do work?
—
Why do you think PV=nRT is the correct?
PS: You know this is a “parametrization,” right?
David,
Is “Gordon: can atoms and molecules in a gas do work?” a serious question or ….?
If so, what is your point?
If not, please explain an internal combustion motor or jet engine.
lewis…”Is Gordon: can atoms and molecules in a gas do work? a serious question or .?”
Lewis…DA has been cornered, he’s just stammering out any old physics-related questions he can find on Google to sound impressive.
They learn that at alarmist seminars.
The amount of snow in the northern hemisphere (land areas) calculated per cubic km of water exceeds this year the upper limit of the standard deviation from 1998-2011.
Greenland is not included.
https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
ren is back to pollute the blog
ren should man up and get his own blog where he can post his inanities all day long……
David,
I believe you have your own blog, but obviously you dont need to spend a lot of time monitoring the billions who dont show any interest at all in what you have to say.
Maybe you could invite ren to comment on your blog, so that you could ban him.
Do you think its reasonable that Dr Spencer might make his own decision on whose comments appear on his blog? Only joking, of course. His blog, his rules. You might even consider CO2 to be a dangerous pollutant, thereby demonstrating your credibility in judging pollution in general.
Keep going David. Maybe you can bend some some other slack-jawed grinnng drooler to your will. It might not achieve much, but it may do wonders for your declining self esteem.
Cheers.
MF, Your replies keep getting more and more vapid. Sad.
You still want answers to your gotcha questions. You don’t deserve them. Stew in that for awhile.
davie, you should “man up” and stay on your own blog. That way you can talk to yourself.
You may even be able to CONvince yourself you are too important to get a job.
exceeds this year the upper limit of the standard deviation from 1998-2011
Variation alone will produce such years when the 14-year baseline is so close to the present.
I wonder what the result would be if the baseline period ended 30 years ago (eg, 1974-1987) – the classic climate period.
Also worth noting that the long-term trends per season are quite different, while the annual snow cover is declining over the long term.
Please see how the atmosphere works in winter. One can see how the stratosphere declines more and more over the polar circle and the troposphere layer is more and more thin. This mechanism exposes the deception of anthropomorphic global warming.
Let’s be honest, how can a person influence the stratosphere?
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00956/bf2t5ldgu02z.png
Few people realize that the polar vortex is accelerating above the stratosphere. As you can see below, the wind speed in the highest layers is the highest and reaches a speed averagely of 70 m / s, or over 250 km / h.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_MEAN_JFM_NH_2018.png
One can see how the stratosphere declines more and more over the polar circle and the troposphere layer is more and more thin.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zt_nh.gif
Energy in the stratosphere does not come from the troposphere, but results from the undulations of the thermosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JFM_NH_2018.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2018.png
Thermosphere
The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 C (4,530 F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer might indicate significantly below 0 C (32 F), at least at night, because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
And couple thing about wiki words.
One would not “feel” warm because a warm human body would have evaporative cooling- water boils at 37 C.
Though you wouldn’t be living without something acting like pressure suit.
“A normal thermometer might indicate significantly below 0 C (32 F), at least at night, because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. ”
A normal thermometer in direct sunlight would get quite hot, but one could assume that the normal thermometer is in shade.
And if shade it depends on how it’s shaded and whole purpose of shading it is to measure air temperature and there not really any air temperature to measure at such low density of air. Or only thing warming is sun and warm earth below you- or are going to shade against both or just the sun?
Or you can’t measure the air temperature does that mean you trying to use this normal thermometer to measure warmth from earth? And if so it matters what earth is below you- and is there clouds. With clouds one measuring diffused reflected sunlight from the clouds.
Anyways I wonder when [at what elevation] you can measure air temperature. Or what elevation does make sense to measure air temperature with normal thermometer in white box
[air temperature in the shade].
ren…”Please see how the atmosphere works in winter. One can see how the stratosphere declines more and more over the polar circle and the troposphere layer is more and more thin”.
I read somewhere (DA will be after me for a source) that the colder air above the pole descends when the solar energy is missing or insignificant. Is that what you mean by stratospheric and tropospheric thinning?
Ren Has no idea what he means. He just cuts and pastes whatever random information he comes.
Ren is Blog pollution
No davie, you are referring to yourself with your lame links, that never “prove” what you claim.
The polar vortex increases the speed due to the temperature difference in winter over the polar circle. This is due to lack of ultraviolet radiation in the winter.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00956/0c0und6y2ald.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2017.png
The polar vortex is affected by waves that occur in winter over the polar circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_ALL_NH_2017.png
Please see how the atmosphere works in winter. One can see how the stratosphere declines more and more over the polar circle and the troposphere layer is more and more thin. This mechanism exposes the deception of anthropomorphic global warming.
Seasonal changes in atmospheric depth at the poles have nothing to do with long-term changes. This phenomenon (?) does’t impinge on AGW in any way.
So barry, are you going with the “null hypothesis” now?
Good timing…
Gordon, Do you know about the two-stream equations?
If not, why not? They are absolutely fundamental to any climate model. If you dont understand them, you cant even begin to understand climate model.
So much ignorance….
David,
There is a minor problem with climate models. They are completely pointless and irrelevant. Only the totally delusional believe that climate models are anything else than very expensive exercises in complete futility.
Foolish Warmists find this hard to accept. That is one of the reasons they are foolish.
Cheers.
DA…”They are absolutely fundamental to any climate model. If you dont understand them, you cant even begin to understand climate model”.
I know enough about computers, both at the hardware and software level, and differential equation theory, to know what models are about. I don’t care about the theory of how they work.
I mentioned before an old term from compterese…GIGO = garbage in, garbage out. When you program nonsense into a climate model like positive feedback from ACO2 and mythical warming percentages from the same, you get garbage out.
Two-stream approximations are just another pathetic attempt to replicate the atmosphere using radiation formula while ignoring the real heat transport agents like conduction and convection.
When you try to represent the entire atmosphere and its complex interaction with the surface and solar energy using differential equations you have carved yourself out a highly complexm fairly impossible task. I have no delusions about the inability of modelers to do that they are the ones deluding themselves while lying to the public.
If modelers would just admit they are TRYING to replicate the atmosphere but have a long ways to go, I could get into it. However, they are talking like they are actually there, which is total bs. They are not even close.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to think you can capture the atmosphere and its complexities in a climate model. Worthwhile climate scientists like John Christy of UAH acknowledge the complexity and remains humble about it while pantomime climatologists like Gavin Schmidt carry on the charade that they have the answers.
If that’s the case, why did no models detect the global warming hiatus from 1998 – 2015 and why have they all been way off with regard to the projection of future climate states? Why did none predict the coldest winter in the Northern Hemisphere in a long time?
Oh, I forgot, climate is not weather.
Very unfavorable forecast of the polar vortex at the beginning of February 2018 for the USA.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f192.png
Jan. 24, 2018. The lowest temperature of Mohe reached minus 44 degrees Celsius Wednesday. (Xinhua/Wang Kai)
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-01/24/136921403_15167922259631n.jpg
In the style of Ren,
The average temperature for the whole of NZ is highly likely to be the hottest January and also the hottest month on record in terms of anomalies see –
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11982151
The forecast of the polar vortex at the beginning of February means the return of strong frost to the US and China. Large cooling in Europe.
http://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00956/h95h5kfzyapj.png
David Appell (Freelance journalist, pen for hire, 16 hours of journalism studies), wrote –
“Why do you think PV=nRT is the correct?
Just a warning to potential employers – David exhibits occasional difficulty with adequately expressing his thoughts clearly. Hes prone to making typographical errors, and gets irate when they are pointed out, claiming readers should be able to discern what he really meant to say.
Sometimes, he will eventually apologise for these lapses.
Of course, I cannot prove that David is not a thoroughly competent (not to say widely revered scientific writer). Suffice it to say that I havent seen overwhelming evidence to support such a view.
I offer these comments in the most constructive manner. Caveat emptor, and all that.
You might care to ask him if he has ever sighted a testable GHE hypothesis, if you want to check his knowledge of the scientific method.
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson
The thread above was getting too long so I will bring it down here.
YOU: “normanYet as the rod adds energy to the ice water and warms it, the warmer water will increase the temperature of the rod even though the water is still colder than the heated rod.
Why???”
I asked you to do an experiment before making your moronic unscientific declarations about EMR that you have not concept of. You are obsessed with your made up world. I really don’t care at all about it, do you understand this? I can read good physics on my own, I don’t need your nonsense.
So do the test before you ask “Why???”and see what happens. If you are unwilling to perform even simple experiments than shut up! You criticize posters who actually experiment and point out your stupid declarations based upon nothing but your own limited imagination but you won’t do even the simplest of experiments. Just shut up and go take a hike. You are a truly waste of time if you won’t even attempt a test but come back with some really stupid physics that is based upon your unreal view of reality.
norman…”So do the test before you ask Why???and see what happens. If you are unwilling to perform even simple experiments than shut up!”
f*** you.
Your experiment was moronic. You forget that I am an expert in the electrical/electronics field and I know a damned sight more about electric heaters than you. I know a lot more about heat dissipation than you as well, obviously, otherwise you would not ask me to do an experiment involving heat dissipation while passing it off as a proof that contradicts the 2nd law.
I contradicted entropic’s two experiments because he too did not distinguish a heat dissipation problem from a reverse radiative heat transfer. At least he has been polite about it and I responded to him in kind, even offering encouragement and some advice on how to better his experiment.
You are just plain rude, and without cause.
Gordon Robertson
You are the rude poster in this case. I asked for a simple request. You do not have the courtesy to carry it out.
I stated this quite clearly ME: “Do them and please dont respond with your nonsense until you have taken the time to complete them. They will clearly show your current understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a farce based upon delusional thoughts programmed into you by goofballs”
I asked you to perform the tests before you launched into your stupid made up physics. Quit pretending your are an expert at physics. You don’t know a thing about it. You make up more junk that a landfill. If you had real physics knowledge (like gammacrux or Tim Folkerts) then the material you present would be most easy to support. You never can support it outside your phony made up reality. I just get tired of the “Skeptic” side that needs to make up physics and cannot support a bit of it and will not perform ONE experiment but will criticize everyone else who will (Roy Spencer has done a couple that prove you are a pretend phony).
You are most rude and inconsiderate and do not deserve any respect.
GR, I must again point out that I’m not “Entropic man”.
Your objection to the demonstrated results lacks any support. I fail to see how the cold air flow from the background, as it passes between the very hot plate and the cooler cookie sheet, would cause the temperature of the plate to increase. Without some effort at analysis, you are just blowing hot air…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282499
That punch line should win the argument.
Norman wrote –
“I am not sure if you possess any thinking ability. You want someone to prove GHE for you. I would like you to prove you have even rudimentary thinking ability.
Whether you are sure that I possess any thinking abilities means nothing to me. You could always make a decision in that regard. If you felt like it, of course. Have you tried?
Your mind reading abilities need more work. They are not providing you with accurate information, as far as I can see. I believe that real scientists work on the basis of the scientific method, which involves writing down a clear and unambiguous disprovable hypothesis relating to some phenomena. This hypothesis generally holds sway until disproven by experiment.
As to the GHE, there is no testable GHE hypothesis. That should be apparent to even such as yourself. A matter of fact – if it doesnt exist, it doesnt exist. You cant produce one, can you?
As to your wish that I prove anything to you – no. Why should I? What are the consequences if I choose not to comply with your demand? None at all, I surmise.
Feel as bad as you like, but I would give the same response to a drooling idiot.
Carry on.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
The Zombie no mind is posting to me, is he saying anything of value or any sign of original thought? Nope didn’t think so!
At least the zombie brain eater thought destroyer refrained from mentioning the Earth was molten a few billion years ago. That seems a standard for the mindless one. I am wondering what became of Cargo Cult? The zombie’s programmers have eliminated some of the really redundant material making it too obvious that Mike Flynn is a computer generated simulation.
Norm, the rabies vaccine may be wearing off. Maybe you should consider a double dose, tomorrow?
Stupid Troll
Go eat vomit, it is better than spewing it out of your mouth.
Gordon Robertson
YOUR lunatic declarations (am I supposed to be impressed?): “Because the EM is at different frequencies there is just as likely to be cancellation rather than summation, and the EM from cold to hot cannot be absorbed by the warmer body otherwise the 2nd law would be contradicted.”
FIND ONE VALID SOURCE OF PHYSICS THAT SUPPORTS YOUR STATEMENT!
I have provided you with valid physics that directly contradicts your stupidity yet you think you are some type of genius that has it figured out? You are almost as stupid as g*e*r*a*n but not quite that dumb. I think you are sinking to that quagmire of idiocy though. Soon you will have no rational thought left. Just moronic unsupportable declarations from a lunatic. Don’t go there, I am reaching out my hand to pull you out of the insanity of made up physics where everything you think is real and you don’t have to support any of what you claim.
HERE again for you since you did not read it very well: “It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.
Read the whole thing, the entire content. It clearly states energy can transfer from a cold object to a hot one. That means the energy is absorbed. Look up the words energy transfer. Since you won’t do it I will take the time to help you.
“Energy transfer
Energy transfer is the transfer of energy from one object or material to another. There are a few main ways that energy transfer occurs: ⁕Radiant energy ⁕Heat conduction ⁕Convection ⁕Mass transfer ⁕Electrical power transmission ⁕Mechanical work”
Norman,
You keep demanding that others do this or that – read this, read that, perform this or that pointless experiment. And if they dont, what then? Youll ignore them?
We wish, we wish!
Keep trying to deny, divert, and confuse, if you wish. You cant even provide a testable GHE hypothesis, so whats the point of complying with your bizarre demands? If you cant bend anybody to your will, maybe theres a reason.
Still no GHE, and all your wishful thinking and incessant demands wont create one. Even the US Government has realised this, and nobody ever accused politicians of being overendowed with common sense.
It seems that maybe decision makers pay more attention to me, than your good self!
Have you ever considered demanding that the US administration do as you ask?
Not much point taking issue with me, really. I dont control the billions that the pseudo scientists so desperately need for their computer game playing!
So carry on if you think it will make difference. I sincerely hope that you are not being petulant just for the sake of your wounded ego. That might just be wasting your no doubt valuable time!
Cheers.
Zombie Mike Flynn
Are you in competition with g*e*r*a*n and Gordon Robertson on who can write the dumbest most pointless posts.
No wounded ego. I am more depressed at how dumb the US has become. Now we have people like you, g*e*r*a*n and Gordon Robertson that make up physics on the fly and think they are correct. Intelligent people try to point out the flawed thought process, the incorrect physics the irrational views but you still persist. I long for days when the lights were on a people were smart. It used to be that just Politics had the make believe world that required no proof. Now you idiots have invaded the realm of science. I am doing what I can to keep you morons out of science and keep you in the Political World were any opinion is okay. Science does not need your pretend fake science. It does much better without your type.
Not a one of you could pass a course in college physics. You would not be able to understand the first chapter. You can’t make up your own physics in the classroom. You can do it on Roy’s blog.
As long as idiocracy invades science I will do my best to keep it at bay. So far there are just a couple of you around. I fear that it will grow in time. Real science takes lots of work an effort. You are far too lazy and unthinking to ever learn real science.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282708
Norm, maybe a triple dose?
g*e*r*a*n
I have to agree with you. I think I might have gotten a little too radical. Triple dose would be good. Radical emotional responses really do not do much. I guess I can just keep on keeping on with the real stuff against your counterfiet stuff. I don’t need to insult or disrespect the lot of you. Thanks for reminding me to “keep it cool”.
Sorry con-man, but your new con won’t work either.
But, it’s hilarious.
norman…”FIND ONE VALID SOURCE OF PHYSICS THAT SUPPORTS YOUR STATEMENT!”
Look up superposition related to electrical/electronics theory, not quantum theory. You’ll find it under circuit analysis and it explains about adding voltages especially when their frequencies differ.
Take two frequencies 180 degrees out of phase and they cancel…always. In phase they add. At frequencies in-between they either partially cancel or partially add.
Heard of Fresnel diffraction patterns using EM? Double-slit experiment? All due to phase cancellations and superposition.
As far as the 2nd law is concerned, what can I say? The scientist who wrote the law says heat can only be transferred hot to cold without compensation. You think otherwise, so prove it, for real, through experiment, not a thought experiment. I have no interest in proving it, the 2nd law is fine with me as it stands.
Gordon Robertson
I have never stated that “heat” flows from cold to hot.
So we both agree on this. However where does Clausius state that IR radiant energy from a cold body cannot be absorbed by a hotter body?
That is what you are stating, that is your claim. What part of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes your claim?
You state Heat does not flow from cold to hot. That does not support your claim that IR from cold will not be absorbed by a hotter surface.
You need to find support for this nonsense and you have not done it to date and will never do it.
The point made is that surroundings do effect the temperature of a powered object and also reduce the rate of cooling. You do not believe this.
I have linked you to more than one real world testing to show you wrong. Nothing can convince you. Since you are content with your false notions and will NEVER perform any real experiments, you will remain in you delusional world. I guess it makes you happy.
norman…”You state Heat does not flow from cold to hot. That does not support your claim that IR from cold will not be absorbed by a hotter surface”.
Study some basic atomic physics. If a hotter surface absorbs EM it HAS to warm. The 2nd law states that heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. Ergo, EM from a cooler body cannot warm a hotter surface.
Seems dead simple to me. I did prove it using electron theory and I linked you to a page explaining it. Still you argue the opposite.
Gordon Robertson
I have studied quite a bit of atomic physics. I do know much more about this subject than you do.
YOU make a false declaration here: “If a hotter surface absorbs EM it HAS to warm. The 2nd law states that heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. Ergo, EM from a cooler body cannot warm a hotter surface.”
No a hotter surface absorbing IR does not have to warm. It may warm but it is a conditional thing. How much IR is it absorbing verses how much it is emitting.
Here this will make it easy and hopefully eliminate your debates:
Non powered initially hot object:
1) Hot object emits more than it absorbs. It will cool
2) Hot object emits the same as it absorbs. Temperature stays same
3) Hot object emits less than it absorbs. It will warm
I think that covers most EMR cases.
A hot object can absorb energy from a cooler body and yet still cool.
Now the big point that not one “skeptic” to date seems to grasp.
A powered object is not the same as a non-powered object. The results will not be the same as for a non powered item.
So now we have a Hot powered object (power is constant input of new energy): Conditions are a vacuum to isolate radiation effects. Condition: Only a powered object and surroundings have an empact.
1) Powered Hot object absorbs zero energy from its surroundings.
This will be the coldest ground state for this item. It will reach a temperature based upon Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It will radiate at the maximum rate it is able.
2) Powered Hot object surrounded by colder surrounding. It will have a higher temperature than in case 1). Some energy will be absorbed from the surroundings adding energy to the object until it warms to a new equilibrium temperature somewhere above the coldest state in 1).
3) If you have even warmer surroundings you will have a higher equilibrium temperature. The Hot powered objects equilibrium temperature will directly correlate with surrounding temperature.
Norm, your last 2) and 3) are wrong.
You just fail to understand 2LoT.
norman…”t is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object”.
***********
That’s from an uniformed contributor to a wiki. For all I know you set up the wiki page using cut and paste from Google. Either that or it was David Appell.
Clausius never said anything like that, not anywhere in any of his writings on heat. There is not such thing in heat transfer as a net transfer since heat transfers one way only. That includes radiative transfer.
Gordon Robertson
Like I stated. You have selective perception issues. You can’t read properly.
The article was not a wiki article it was HyperPhysics.
Where in the world do you read “heat” inserted in that statement. Read it again and find where it says net HEAT. You will not be able to find it. Your delusional mind sees what is not there and makes up what is not true.
Heat transfers only one way. Energy does not.
Here is the Author of HyperPhysics. He teaches the material.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hphys.html
He has an email. Tell him that he does not know anything about heat transfer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282708
g*e*r*a*n
I think maybe you need to get your dictionary out. Or watch Sesame Street and learn that the things are not the same. You are attmpting to prove that I am contradicting myself. Perhaps it is your inability to understand that “energy” and “heat” are not like each other. Different words, different concepts.
In your link: “If you let the con-man ramble enough, he eventually wraps himself around his own axis.
Above, he stated: There is absolutely nothing in this law that supports your or g*e*r*a*ns irrational and unscientific declarations that the Law means hot objects cannot absorb energy from colder ones.
But, in his sentence before, he had stated: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states heat cannot flow from cold to hot without compensation.
Its fun to watch.”
Correct: Heat cannot flow from cold to hot without compensation.
If you understand the current use of the word “heat” is also clearly is true that heat stops flowing when the temperature of two objects is the same. It is not true energy stops flowing. IR is still constantly emitted and absorbed. Heat flow stops with same temperature, energy flow (IR radiant energy) does not. The two are not the same. Read up on it. The textbooks are careful in their use of each term.
Norman,
Whats your point? Have you one, or are you just trying to deny, divert and confuse?
What has your comment to do with the non-existent heating properties of CO2?
The fact is that you cannot warm even a teaspoon of water, no matter how many million watts from cubic kilometres of ice you use. A foolish Warmist fantasy!
No GHE – no science – no hypothesis – no Nobel Prize. A farce based on fantasy.
Cheers.
The con-man doesn’t even realize he is arguing with himself.
Saying one thing, then contradicting that, then saying the opposite, then contracting that.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
You did not accept my challenge to you. Get a dictionary out and read up on some definitions. You see contradictions in my posts because you do not define the words correctly.
I did explain it quite well to you.
When two objects are at the same temperature, heat flow stops. But energy exchange does not. The molecules of each surface will still emit energy and absorb energy from each other. Not really that hard to understand. You see contradiction because you want or need to, not because any actually exists.
con-man, look up, in your dictionary, “arguing with yourself”.
Norman,
Why should anybody do anything just because you ask them to?
Facts are facts. You may believe that the GHE exists. You may believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipped by the Pastafarians has a literal corporeal existence.
Good for you. Blathering about heat transfer does not make the GHE a fact. You can’t even state a testable GHE hypothesis, but you seem convinced that anybody who points this fact out is a liar, denier or mentally impaired!
Have you seen the latest paper from Schmidt and Hansen? I understand it says that global temperatures may go up, may go down, or may remain the same over the next 10 years or so.
Darn – some science that, wouldnt you say?
CO2 has miraculous properties – cools, warms, does nothing at all, depending on what you predetermine!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
YOUR POINT: “Why should anybody do anything just because you ask them to?”
I could counter, why shouldn’t they. If it is going to help them learn new information why would you be opposed to them doing a request?
Mike Flynn, maybe you are understanding why the issue is still being debated. Climate is a most complex system. There are many factors involved in determining surface temperature (or a couple meters of air above the surface). Some factors warm, others cool. I would think that additional CO2 will always produce some warming. Other factors can overwhelm this warming.
Roy Spencer has already performed testable hypothesis in support for GHE. I am sure there are others that have been done.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
Norman,
Neither Dr Spencer nor anyone else has managed to propose a testable GHE hypothesis. Maybe you dont understand the purpose and structure of a scientific hypothesis. Many foolish Warmists share ignorance of basic scientific methods.
Climate is just an average of weather – no more, no less.
You may well think that CO2 has miraculous heating properties. You may even believe that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, or that Michael Mann received a Nobel Prize!
You are free to think as much as you like, and be as sure as you like. This will not create a testable GHE hypothesis. Such a concept is plainly nonsensical – making thermometers hotter without providing heat!
It doesnt seem that your appeals to authority are helping much. Maybe you could dig up a copy of the testable GHE hypothesis, which you are so sure must exist. That would help no end!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
It is only you that seem to lack understanding of what a testable hypothesis is. Don’t blame your ignorance of science on anyone else but yourself.
GHE effect. Atmospheric gases that are able to absorb and emit IR radiant energy will lead to warmer surface temperatures then if such gases were not present.
Testable hypothesis. You have two objects located roughly the same distance from the Sun. After controlling for all the different factors, albedo, difference in rotation rates, you are able to test the hypothesis that GHG will indeed allow a planet’s surface to reach higher overall (average) temperatures.
You then start collecting temperature data for both objects. After years of information gathering you find that indeed the average temperature of the Earth is much warmer than the average temperature of the Moon. You have tested the hypothesis. Its prediction came true. You could even make it a theory if you could collect a lot more data from many more planets.
It is a testable hypothesis and it has been verified by testing. That you reject the testing is only reflects poorly on your scientific upbringing and you inability to understand what a testable hypothesis is. I can’t help you. Sorry!
The hilarious climate clown “lectures”: “That you reject the testing only reflects poorly on your scientific upbringing and you inability to understand what a testable hypothesis is.”
Con-man, that you believe the Moon’s higher average temperature is indicative of a GHE, just reflects poorly on your scientific upbringing and your inability to understand what a testable hypothesis is.
The Moon does NOT have 70% of its surface covered by oceans. See, oceans absorb solar energy quite well. And, they store this energy quite well. That’s why Earth has a higher average temperature than the Moon.
What you’re missing is that the high temperatures on the Moon reach the boiling point of water. The reason temperatures don’t get so high on Earth is due to the cooling provided by the atmosphere. The atmosphere cools the planet, it doesn’t heat it.
Does that help?
Just in case anybody has been fooled by David Appells assertion that a null hypothesis requires proof –
The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise.
In the case of climate change on Earth, the null hypothesis is that CO2 has no quantifiable effect on weather, and hence climate, generally.
Maybe David can provide an alternative hypothesis – testable, and all that. Until then, the null hypothesis remains – assumed to be true. No proof required. Business as usual!
When David gets a firm grip on the intricacies of the scientific method, he might decide to seek employment as a science writer. He might have a little way to go.
Cheers.
Appell to provide any sensible science!!?? Doubtful indeed.
Copied this from above where he was given a chance to correct any misunderstanding. His response is the usual birth of silence.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281469
January 17, 2018 at 10:32 PM
David lets establish something clearly:
The only person in denial of facts is you.
The only person who may have lied in our interaction is you for you have deliberately denied facts when they are pointed out to you. That is lying!
DA said: You cant do an proper experiment without a control. This is a basic part of the scientific method,
DA said: I said you cant do an experiment to prove AGW, because there is no control Earth.
Your first statement can only logically be interpreted that for you:
No control means no proper experiment and hence does not fulfil the basic part of the scientific method.
Your second statement means according to you:
there is no control earth hence no proper experiment can be done and hence does not fulfil the basic part of scientific method to “prove” AGW.
Your emphasis and mine is clearly on AGW not some other part of climate science.
I conclude that as far as AGW is concerned climate science does not comply with the scientific method according to you.
When I point out that this is what your statements mean you object and say:
I never said climate science doesnt follow the “scientific method.”
Really!? ~ Well here is your opportunity. Explain it clearly.
So does AGW follow the scientific method or does it not??
If it does then show us the “proper experiments.”
If it does not then why are you arguing when that is what I have said some of your statements amount to?
If you do an honest job without conflation and obfuscation I promise not to call you a troll in response.
If I have misunderstood then call me out on it with explanation; I have no problem with that either.
TonyM, David Appell
Think Kuhnian.
You are too focused on the Popperian concept of a single controlled experiment. Scientific method has grown beyond that stage.
Think instead of combining a number of lines of evidence to form a paradigm. This process uses coherent, consistent and consilient evidence to form a consensus.
In simpler words, you collect evidence which makes logical sense and does not contain internal contradictions.
You find that a number of different lines of evidence point towards a common interpretation of reality. That is consilience.
When the weight of evidence for the new paradigm is powerful enough, most scientists agree to accept it as a provisional description of reality and build further research around it.
There are entire branches of science for which the classic Popperian controlled experiment is almost impossible. (Black hole physics?)
Similarly climate science can do controlled experiments on the laboratory scale, but not on a planetary scale.
Nice directionless ramble, Em.
But, as Mike Flynn would say, “still no GHE”.
Hilarious.
Point well made Entropic Man, and of course G* and his ilk can’t comprehend.
With Black holes, ever more observations are being made, and can be compared to theory or simulations, such as the recent obs of gravity waves from a black hole collision. In that case simulations were done way before, and were to ready to compare to what was observed. Almost as good as a controlled experiment.
Same applies to climate change.
En,
The “science” you espouse was here long before Galileo. It led to trial by ordeal and ability to detect witches to name a few. There are no bounds and it is not confined to so called science. Eugenics and Lysenkoism and a myriad of other ideas are testament to its worth.
Not that I am suggesting any scientist should be bound in what he wants to think and explore far from it. But ultimately he must subject his thoughts to empirical scrutiny or else they will still be thought bubbles and most likely junk.
It suffices to quote Freeman Dyson saying: “I am not a Kuhnian!”, Happy to join him!
Anyway am still waiting on your efforts with:
That of course assumes we have these different, independent, unrelated actual experiments that you allude to. Now name them and please dont tell me about model experiments: the models fail!
En says: ..climate science can do controlled experiments on the laboratory scale, but not on a planetary scale.
Wrong on two counts.
There are no controlled experiments in climate science unless you mean the likes of DA junk experiment. Had he any brains he would have acknowledged the flawed experiment and found one which does show absorp-tion at specific frequencies(but that is not in question!!) Instead he lied by suggesting that pressure broadening allowed CO2 to absorb all infra red.
Every prediction made which encompasses these so called converging of views and experiments is an experiment on the whole or a part. They invariably fail! Lots of alarmism; virtually all fail! What sort of fake science are you trying to promote if its predictions invariably fail?
As Feynmann said ‘there is a special kind of integrity’ which scientists should uphold. This field seems to treat the subject as a one sided exercise in Law.
tonyM
In the experiment David Appell linked to with the CO2 absorbing all the IR emitted by a candle. I did research on it and what it shows is correct but they did use a special filter on the IR camera. It only allowed around 15 micron energy to go through. It does demonstrate that CO2 will completely absorb all the IR emitted by the candle in the 15 micron wavelength of IR. At the same time it is absorbing the energy from the candle it is also emitting energy in all directions.
For empirical data would you consider the Moon (no GHG) and Earth (GHG) as scientific evidence? Above I am debating with Mike Flynn about the nature of a testable hypothesis.
GHE hypothesis makes the prediction that a planet surrounded with GHG that are transparent to visible light, but opaque to IR band will have a warmer surface, on average, than a planet without such gases.
The Earth and Moon are in similar locations and do receive the same amount of Solar energy. The Earth at the TOA (since some energy is absorbed by the atmosphere) and the Moon at its surface. The Earth’s average temperature is considerably higher than the Moon’s. The prediction from the hypothesis is satisfied with empirical data. If one would do many planets you could establishe it as a theory and then even as a Law if you get enough evidence.
This does not mean AGW is an established hypothesis. There is some evidence (even with Roy’s graphs) that the Earth’s surface is warming somewhat. It could be AGW but it could be other factors (less clouds, changes in evaporation rate, changes in convection, changes in surface albedo, changes in atmospheric aeorosols). I keep an open mind on AGW. I like the debates on AGW with various views. I find it ridiculous that some have to alter physics to support their belief that the GHE does not exist even when you have the very controlled data (Earth and Moon) that supports this hypothesis.
Con-man, now that is what we’re looking for–great new hilarity! To you the Moon “proves” the GHE.
Hilarious.
(Don’t tell Norm, but the Moon doesn’t have any oceans. And, it does NOT rotate on its axis.)
2018 is going to be a great year in climate comedy!
normal…”GHE hypothesis makes the prediction that a planet surrounded with GHG that are transparent to visible light, but opaque to IR band will have a warmer surface, on average, than a planet without such gases”.
What does ‘surrounded’ mean?
The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which according to the IPCC is made up of 96% natural CO2 based on a concentration of 390 ppmv, is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. I would hardly call that ‘surrounded’.
Water vapour makes up 0.3% of the entire atmosphere although closer to the surface it is more like 1% on average. Again, hardly a description of ‘surrounded’.
In your candle experiment, how much CO2 is used? There’s no way to isolate the CO2 in air to determine how much EM it is absorbing. You’d have to remove all WV from the air and make sure there was no conduction/convection to N2/O2.
Norman:
Will continue this thread anew; to get some fresh air 🙂
g*e*r*a*n
You are a stupid stupid troll. Yes idiot, the Moon rotates on its axis. Also the oceans are a cooling mechanism not a warming one so your point to pull that in the discussion is stupid again. Why so dumb? Why do humans have to be so incredibly stupid and proud of it?
What other very stupid ideas do you have. Entertain with more dumb declarations that you can’t prove. Make up some more dumb facts. We need a laugh now and then.
Idiot, does the Moon have a lower average surface temperature than Earth? If so then why? Idiots all around the world want you to educate them, the rest of us need a good laugh.
Con-man, the rabies vaccine appears to be wearing off, AGAIN.
The Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. It orbits around Earth. The motion is exactly like a race car on an oval track. Easy to verify.
The oceans “trap” solar energy, which stabilizes Earth’s temperatures. When the oceans get too warm, they release excess heat energy, which ends up getting radiated to space, via the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a net cooling thermodynamic system, employing many separate physical laws.
It can be confusing, for those that have not studied science.
(How did the dish washing go today?)
g*e*r*a*n
The motion of the Moon is much more like the ISS. They both orbit, they both rotate on their axis to keep the same face toward the Earth. For the Moon the rotation is natural. For the ISS it is induced. If the ISS did not have forced rotation while orbiting, the same face would not face the Earth. You are confused with strings and things. Gravity does not restrict or lock the axis of rotation.
I very clearly explained why things have to rotate to move around an object and keep facing it. I told you to do this by walking (similar to orbiting) around a table with your same side facing it. If you do not rotate on your axis (a center line that the rest of your body must rotate around) you will not walk around the table but move off in a straight fashion. Walk around the table and look what your feet have to do to accomplish this. Don’t be so dumb. I am sure the videos you watched to convince you of this nonsense (kid with spools and string) was making fun of how stupid people are that they would actually believe this nonesnse. I am sure it was done as a bet with some friend to see how many people they could convince of the absurd notion that the Moon does not spin on its axis. Funny stuff and you fell for it. Maybe I should post your ideas on the Moon to these peolpe, It would probably give them a belly laugh to read that some people actually believe the Moon does not rotate on its axis. To mimic “Hilarious!”
anger leaves out a few words from real nature observation: The motion is exactly like a race car rotating on its axis on an oval track.
con-man and CH, see here, for more science you can avoid:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282912
Yes, thank you anger I’ll be sure to avoid that non-experimental, non-observational hilarious! “science” and note the left driver door of the race car always points to the infield CCW US races as the race car rotates on its axis going around the closed course. More unsupported assertions please, very entertaining.
cabbage head stated he would “be sure to avoid” the link.
But, of course he was WRONG again.
Hilarious.
Gordon,
You wrote:
In this article, the dimwit makes the astounding assertion that the 2nd law obviously means a net balance of energy. Nowhere in any of the material written by Clausius does he refer to any energy other than heat.
Clausius was not aware of radiative energy. You can find mention on the NET transfer of heat on many physics notes on university websites.
Eg:
Georgia State University:
“It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
Which is quite in accord with the wiki article:
The statement by Clausius uses the concept of ‘passage of heat’. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means ‘net transfer of energy as heat’, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other.
I can find more cites from physics texts backing this up if you like.
2nd Law is about NET changes, and is in no way violated by discrete exchanges between cooler and hotter bodies as long as the NET remains hot to cold.
Clausius was not aware of radiative energy
That got truncated in the editing. He was certainly aware of radiation, but the level of understanding of it in his time was only beginning to burgeon.
barry, you continue to be confused by “net transfer of energy”. You appear to be wanting to twist that into something it is NOT.
Try this: “A “cold” object can NOT raise the temperature of a “hot” object”.
Forget “net”, forget “heat”, and all the ensuing tangled definitions. Just understand “cold” can NOT “raise the temperature” of “hot”.
Maybe that will help.
Barry, the concepts of ‘Net’ and ‘Heat’ are to difficult to grasp by G* and Halp.
Not true, Nate. But, as usual, you don’t care about truth.
G* you and I spent 47 posts talking about what Net Heat means. And you finally seemed to get it. But now it seems you’ve decided ignorance is preferred.
Sorry Nate, but your imagination fools you again.
Barry, the concepts of Net and Heat are to difficult to grasp by G* and Halp.
Their ideology precludes it.
What ideology is that?
barry…”It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process”
This statement is clearly wrong and I don’t care if it came from a Ph.D or a university. Having a degree does not excuse one from ignorance. There is no reference whatsoever to a net transfer of energy in either Clausius, Stefan-Boltzmann, or Planck. Bohr made it clear that an electron requires energy of a specific frequency and intensity to be absorbed, apparently the folks at Hyperphysics lack that awareness.
barry…”The statement by Clausius uses the concept of passage of heat. As is usual in thermodynamic discussions, this means net transfer of energy as heat, and does not refer to contributory transfers one way and the other”.
I don’t care how many quotes you can dig up, I am asking you to think for yourself. You are obfuscating again after I pointed out the obvious in the Clausius statement you posted. He made it absolutely clear that heat cannot be transferred from a cold body to a warm body by its own means. He emphasized that it can NEVER happen without compensation.
The quote you supplied, and binny at an earlier date, is in reference to compensation. With compensation, heat can be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body, as in a refrigerator, and Clausius was making it very clear that in such a com.pens.atory exchange, the net heat exchange must be from hot to cold. Furthermore, it has to be a two way exchange since heat needs to be delivered to the cooler body as it delivers heat to the hotter body.
It just occurred to me that what I just said may be the source of confusion out there. Someone has confused the process in a device like a refrigerator with normal heat transfer. So, yes, if external compensation is supplied that delivers heat to a cooler source as it delivers heat to a warmer body then a net transfer of HEAT will work.
That requires some neat tricks in an air conditioning system. The warmer body is the atmosphere and the cooler body is the air in the room to be cooled. A compressor is required to compress a re.frig.erant to a high pressure liquid and it delivers heat to the warmer atmosphere. Later, the high pressure/temperature liquid evapourates in an evapourator and it sucks heat out of the room to be cooled.
That process cannot happen without external compensation.
You tried to make it sound as if that’s true for any heat transfer in the atmosphere and it’s simply not true. In the atmosphere, there is no compensation and heat can never be transferred from a cooler part of the atmosphere to the warmer surface. GHE and AGW kaput.
Now if I could just convince Roy. ☺ ☺
It works perfectly for what Roy and John have learned from their data. There is no heat being transferred from the atmosphere to the surface. The UAH data tells us that.
Here are some of Clausius’ words on the 2nd Law:
In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it
Warm bodies receive ‘heat’ from cooler bodies. They must impart more ‘heat’ to cooler bodies.
This is a statement about the NET flow of heat and the 2nd Law, distinguishing the NET flow from mutual energy exchange.
Kristian would despise Clausius here. Kristian would tax this physicist about using the term ‘heat’, saying that he’s completely wrong. I’d partially agree, owing to Kristian’s strict definition of terms (a severity not embraced by other physicists). Clausius would be fine if he was using the term ‘energy’ instead ‘heat’. But if you’re not an incorrigible pedant, there’s nothing to worry about. We know what he means.
Clausius also says:
On considering the results of such processes more closely, we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to warmer body and another quantity of heat transferred from a warmer to a colder body without any other permanent change occurring. In this case we have not a simple transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body, or an ascending transmission of heat, as it may be called, but two connected transmission of opposite characters, one ascending and the other descending, which compensate each other. It may, moreover, happen that instead of a descending transmission of heat accompanying, in the one and the same process, the ascending transmission, another permanent change may occur which has the peculiarity of not being reversible without either becoming replaced by a new permanent change of a similar kind, or producing a descending transmission of heat. In this case the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation for the ascending transmission.
Now it is to these compensations that our principle refers; and with the aid of this conception the principle may be also expressed thus: an uncompensated transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body can never occur. The term uncompensated here expresses the same idea that was intended to be conveyed by the words “by itself” in the previous enunciation of the principle, and by he expression “without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time” in the original text.
Yes, ‘heat’ (energy) can pass from a cooler body to a warmer one according to Clauius, but this cannot occur without a compensating factor – more ‘heat’ (energy) must pass from the hotter body to the cooler.
IOW, mutual ‘heat’ (energy) exchanges do not violate the 2nd Law, as long as the NET exchange is from hot to cold.
In Clausius’ own words.
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html
4th Memoir 1854
barry…”Here are some of Clausius words on the 2nd Law:”
I used to respect you before you started this nonsense about obfuscating what people actually said. With the IPCC they stated emphatically there was a warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012. You denied it till I posted the link, then you failed to acknowledge your error.
With NOAA, same thing. I posted a link to a NOAA page where they admitted slashing over 75% of the data from their surface stations. You obfuscated that too rather than acknowledge it.
Now you are quoting Clausius completely out of context. You ommited what he said about the 2nd law immediately before your quote, which was:
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html
“This principle, upon which the whole of the following development rests, is as follows:
[He then states in bold type:]
“HEAT CAN NEVER PASS FROM A COLDER TO A WARMER BODY WITHOUT SOME OTHER CHANGE, CONNECTED THEREWITH, OCCURRING AT THE SAME TIME”.
[he goes on:]
“Everything we know concerning the interchange of heat between two bodies of different temperature confirms this; for heat everywhere manifests a tendency to equalize differences of temperature, and therefore to pass in contrary direction, i.e. from a warmer to colder bodies. Without further explanation, therefore, the truth of this principle will be granted”.
[then he repeats the principle:]
“The principle may be more briefly expressed thus: Heat cannot by itself pass from a colder to a warmer body; the words by itself, however, here requires explanation. Their meaning will, it is true, be rendered sufficiently clear by the exposition contained in the present memoir, nevertheless it appears desirable to add a few word here in order to leave no doubt as to the signification and comprehensiveness of the principle”.
[He is now going to explain compensation but you failed to get that and leaped to a conclusion. In other words, the law still holds but if heat is to be transferred cold to hot it must meet certain requirements]
[Now your quote:]
“In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it. The principle holds, however, not only for process of this kind, but for all others by which a transmission of heat can be brought about between two bodies of different temperature, amongst which process must be particularly noticed those wherein the interchange of heat is produced by means of one or more bodies which, on changing their condition, either receive heat from a body, or impart heat to other bodies”
[now the crux, about compensation, which you tried to pass over as proof that heat can flow cold to hot. Read EVERYTHING the man wrote not just what you want to see.]
“On considering the results of such processes more closely, we find that in one and the same process heat may be carried from a colder to warmer body and another quantity of heat transferred from a warmer to a colder body without any other permanent change occurring. In this case we have not a simple transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body, or an ascending transmission of heat, as it may be called, but two connected transmission of opposite characters, one ascending and the other descending, which compensate each other. It may, moreover, happen that instead of a descending transmission of heat accompanying, in the one and the same process, the ascending transmission, another permanent change may occur which has the peculiarity of not being reversible without either becoming replaced by a new permanent change of a similar kind, or producing a descending transmission of heat. In this case the ascending transmission of heat may be said to be accompanied, not immediately, but mediately, by a descending one, and the permanent change which replaces the latter may be regarded as a compensation for the ascending transmission.
Now it is to these compensations that our principle refers; and with the aid of this conception the principle may be also expressed thus: an uncompensated transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body can never occur. The term uncompensated here expresses the same idea that was intended to be conveyed by the words by itself in the previous enunciation of the principle, and by he expression without some other change connected therewith, occurring at the same time in the original text”.
[Repeating the last part:]
“Now it is to these compensations that our principle refers; and with the aid of this conception the principle may be also expressed thus: an uncompensated transmission of heat from a colder to a warmer body can never occur”.
NEVER OCCUR!!!
Binny tried to pass the same quote over and I explained to him that he’d missed the part about the compensation. Heat cannot flow from a colder body to a warmer body at any time unless the heat lost by the colder body is IMMEDIATELY compensated. That’s what happens in a refrigerator or an air conditioner but it requires external power, a special gas, a compressor, a condenser, an expansion valve, and an evapourator.
Where do you find that in the atmosphere???
barry….”Kristian would despise Clausius here. Kristian would tax this physicist about using the term heat, saying that hes completely wrong”.
I have no problem with Kristian. For the most part I agree with what he is saying about back-radiation and macro processes. It does not bother me that we disagree on heat, I take him to be opposed to the notion of catastrophic AGW/climate change and I can live with agreeing to disagree.
I have a lot of experience with blogging and I have learned that not everyone agrees. There are minor things my fellow skeptics claim with which I don’t agree 100%. I don’t see any reason to argue for the sake of it, as many do on blogs. Some people get livid over minor issues.
I would feel the same with you alarmists if you could give me a reasonable scientific explanation for AGW. I don’t give a hoot about the GHE, it’s this pseudo-science they call the extended GHE that bothers me (AGW). I think it’s ludicrous that 0.04% of the atmosphere could lead to catastrophic global warming/climate change.
Of course, I am not going to back off on the 2nd law either.
It bothers me that you guys take the 0.12C/decade UAH trend as gospel proof of CO2 warming. I have debated over and over that the trend is not indicative of the contexts that have appeared, like re-warming from volcanic aerosols and an 18 year warming hiatus. You guys don’t even begin to get what I’m talking about.
I can live with the fact there has been a certain amount of warming over the UAH data range, I just can’t stand to see politicians bs’ing us about an imminent tragedy if we don’t stop emitting immediately. We should all be aware by now that any politician will use any excuse to increase taxes and restrict our way of life.
barry,
Who cares? The GHE is a fantasy that you cannot even define.
It doesnt matter how much ice you have, emitting 300W/m2 – say 1000 m2, that 300,000 Watts wont even heat one teaspoon of water!
And this remains true, no matter how many authorities you call on, or how many learned treatises you misread.
I have to point out that the average foolish Warmists understanding of radiative physics is absolutely abysmal. Strange notions that N2 and O2 cannot be heated by infrared (although foolish Warmists seem to think that only certain wavelengths of light exist anyway), and that CO2 can only be heated by certain wavelengths of light.
Any gas can be heated by compression as well, and doesnt trap or store heat – in the absence of energy input, it cools – all the way to absolute zero, emitting progressively longer wavelengths as it does so, in the absence of any energy input.
Foolish Warmists have convinced themselves that CO2 can only emit specific wavelengths – which would be handy if true, but alas its not. Infrared thermometers cannot distinguish one thing from another at the same temperature (if the emissivity is the same, of course). If you want to believe that matter at absolute zero is hotter or colder depending on its composition, good luck. Or at 0 C, or 20 C, or any other temperature.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
YOU: “I have to point out that the average foolish Warmists understanding of radiative physics is absolutely abysmal. Strange notions that N2 and O2 cannot be heated by infrared (although foolish Warmists seem to think that only certain wavelengths of light exist anyway), and that CO2 can only be heated by certain wavelengths of light.”
That does not include “foolish Warmist’s” but all real scientists that work with spectroscopy. You really need to learn some physics so you don’t have to pretend every post that you know something.
Read man, read. You are completely delusional with your totally made up physics.
I just wonder, where do you get this made up physics? Are you just making it up on your own or is their an actual source for this? I can guarantee Feynman would never support this crazy thoughts. Since you do not grant requests I suppose it is a waste of time, but here goes. What is the source of your declarations that N2 and O2 can be heated by IR? If you don’t provide any then you are a pretender, making up stuff as you go along posting.
I guess you must think that is “good” science. Make up false declarations, refuse to support them, tell people who ask for supporting evidence that you are not obligated to give it.
con-man, why don’t you link us to your comments about cold objects warming hot objects? You could then use that as “evidence” you understand radiative physics.
I’m sure no one would laugh…
g*e*r*a*n
Again you seem to have problems with words. I intentionally am careful with my wording on what a colder item will do to a hotter one.
First do you know what I mean when I type the words “powered object”?
The equilibrium temperature of a powered object will change based upon the temperature of the surroundings.
If you have a powered object receiving a constant input of new energy from some source, the temperature of the object will depend upon the surroundings. I have given you empirical evidence that this very thing takes place. I can’t help if you do not understand it.
So you should state my claim correctly and not make up your own version (like you do with physics).
My statement is that the temperature of surroundings will alter the temperature of a powered objects equilibrium temperature.
Colder surroundings, colder object.
Warmer surrounding, warmer object.
Can it get any easier?
con-man, spin it all you want. It just gets funnier and funnier.
Neither a “powered object” or “surroundings” can change 2LoT.
You just can’t understand that.
g*e*r*a*n
You have one thing correct but only one. The rest of your post is nonsense made up physics.
YOU: “Neither a powered object or surroundings can change 2LoT.”
The Law will not change but you don’t understand the 2LoT at all. You think you do but you really don’t. No matter how many links to real actual science I give you, you still are unable to comprehend what the Law states.
You and Gordon Robertson make up your own version (which neither of you can support) that energy cannot flow from cold to hot or that the temperature of a cold object has no effect on a hotter one. You are very wrong. Since neither of the two of you will ever run tests I will link you to the very test that proves you totally wrong. I know you can’t understand why you are wrong. Others will (except for you shadow J Halp-less, he agrees with you no matter how far off you are).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824861/table/Tab2/
What do I see. I see that the difference in colder surroundings changes the temperature of powered devices. It can’t be any clearer that you are very wrong and really do not understand what you think you know.
Too bad you can’t get it. Will Joe Postma beat you if you start understanding real physics? I know he can get very savage to people who dare challenge his ridiculous made up science. Mostly he attacks them then bans them so they can’t tell him how wrong he is. Postma can’t allow his followers to see he is a bogus con-artist.
Norm, funny, but nothing new. You’ve tried that link before. It just is more evidence you don’t understand heat transfer, thermodynamics, and radiative physics.
Hint: Anyone can read a wiki page about thermo, but that doesn’t mean they understand.
Case in point.
g*e*r*a*n
I would think Wiki is a better source than yours. I prefer textbook material on the subject.
The link shows quite well that I totally understand heat transfer physics. You are the one that lacks anything real. You have your made up versions and since the real version of physics is not compatible with your fantasy physics, you reject it in favor of your make believe version.
The lab test has two surrounding temperatures that vary. The input energy to the lab equipment is not changing. The variable is the surrounding temperature.
You clearly have two examples of colder surrounding temperatures than the temperature of the powered equipment. The big thing is that when the surroundings are warmer than so are the lab equipment. The air is still colder than the lab equipment in both cases.
You can say some nonsense like you did: ” It just is more evidence you dont understand heat transfer, thermodynamics, and radiative physics.”
So how exactly does that lab test demonstrate my lack of understanding of heat transfer. Making such a statement with no reason behind it will demonstrate you lack the ability to reason. You can post declarative statements but you are unable to prove them in any way. This is just another example you are a stupid troll. You make declarative statements with no evidence, no support, no reason. Basically you are only demonstrating your own inadequate abilities, in no way do you demonstrate mine.
Con-man, the answer involves heat transfer and thermodynamics, which you do not understand.
You can’t even understand a simple concept like “rotating on an axis”.
How can I describe the color yellow to a blind person?
g*e*r*a*n
Riiiiiight. Whatever you say. You basically are bluffing and I am calling your hand. 7 high for you playing against my Full-House. I have established science on my side. Your made up stuff only works as long as you don’t lay down your hand and demonstrate you have nothing.
Most posters recognize you are a bluffer and really don’t know anything. They find out quickly when you actually try to make some points like that the Moon does not rotate on its axis or that a hotter object cannot absorb any energy from a cooler one. These dodo statements show your hand is empty. You seem to do best when bluffing and pretending you have this high intelligence and know things. So put down your hand. Let us see what they have. Your last post was a bluff on a weak hand. Let us see if you can beat my Full-House (Three aces by the way). You can’t. You can bluff and pretend. It works as long as you don’t lay down your hand or explain anything.
Don’t other posters have a running tally of how many meaningless posts you put out on this blog. I believe the count is quite high at this time.
Con-man, I could never reach you with advanced physics. NEVER.
But, there’s always hope with something as easy as a race car moving around an oval track.
Let’s see what happens.
Hopefully you are aware that the Earth does rotate on its axis. It also is in orbit around the Sun. There are TWO different, distinct, independent motions. One is “rotating on an axis”, and the other is “orbiting”.
From the Sun, we would see the earth rotating on its axis. You would see one side, then in about 12 hours, you would see the other side.
If you are still with me, assume we can stop the Earth from orbiting. The Earth stops in its orbit, but does not stop rotating. Now, from the Sun, we would still see the Earth rotating, even though it was no longer moving in orbit.
Two distinct motions.
Now, back to the race car. It only has ONE motion–orbiting. It APPEARS to be “rotating on its axis” from outside the oval, because you will see all sides of the car in one orbit. But, if the car stops. It is no longer orbiting, and you can see that is not rotating on its axis. It stops orbiting, it stops moving. There was never any “rotating on an axis”, only the appearance thereof.
That should be enough to convince you that a race care is NOT rotating on it axis, but we know about those worms.
norman…”What do I see. I see that the difference in colder surroundings changes the temperature of powered devices”.
You have it backwards Normie. The power generated by a powered device like your aquarium heater depends on the resistance of the heater and the voltage applied. It’s Ohm’s Law: I = E/R where power = I^2R. Heat is often referred to as an I^2R loss. It’s called a copper loss in devices like transformers but in a pure resistance it’s often called an I^2R loss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_loss
ps. I knew that before finding a link for you, I have decades of experience in the electrical/electronics field.
In free air, that device will reach it’s maximum temperature. It cannot exceed that temperature unless you apply a hotter source like a propane torch. All it can do is cool. If you dip it in water, it will cool, and it will transfer heat to the water.
The colder the water, the faster it will cool. However, since it is receiving electrical power it will not cool to the temperature of the water. Rather, it will warm the water till both are in thermal equilibrium.
There is no way the water will transfer heat to the device unless the device temperature is less than 100C and the water is boiling. That is quite likely since you don’t want to be boiling your fish.
If you had a device capable of supplying 1500 watts of heat, that’s what would happen. So, the device is designed to supply only enough heat to the water to raise the water temperature to a level where it is conducive to aquatic life.
g*e*r*a*n
Your race car example not rotating on its axis is not as good as you think it is.
When it is in motion around the track the wheels provide the rotation motion. If you do not turn the wheels you don’t stay on the track. If the car does not rotate on its axis it will move straight right off the track. I am amazed you use this as an example to try to make your point. Look at the wheels of the car as it enters the curve. The wheels rotate the car on its axis, the front of the car will face the opposite direction on the opposite side of the track. How is that possible without a rotation on its axis?
If the Moon were stopped in orbit it would slowly rotate on its axis in around 28 days. You would then see it rotating. You don’t see the rotation because it orbits at the same rate it rotates.
You have seen many little videos showing you this but it has no effect on your stubborn insanity.
I will link you to the video SkepticGoneWild linked you to before. They do exactly what you want. Have the Moon stationary and rotating on its axis. Then they move it around in an orbit. If they move this rotating Moon at the same rate as orbit the same face always faces the Earth. If it does not rotated observers on the Earth would see different sides of the Moon as it orbits.
It is really simple your refusal to understand simple concepts is only your own problem. I think no one is able to help you on this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ExFAU2los
Watch the video, they do exactly what you need to see.
g*e*r*a*n
This video explains tidal locking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmc5XqChJpY
Gordon Robertson
You are close to understanding correct heat transfer but not quite there.
You almost get it correct then you go off on your fake physics again.
HERE YOU STATE: “The colder the water, the faster it will cool. However, since it is receiving electrical power it will not cool to the temperature of the water. Rather, it will warm the water till both are in thermal equilibrium.”
If you can see this reality what happens to the temperature of the heated rod is put from ice water into warm water? Long before it can even heat the water?
You understand that colder water cools hot objects faster but do you know why? I have linked you to little videos that show it very clearly. It is a two-way energy transfer again. It is a reality that some day you will have to face. The cold molecules give their energy to the hotter molecules. There is a two-way exchange of energy. This is why as the water warms the heat flow from the hot object is much less, because the water molecules return more energy to the hot molecules relative to the colder water molecules.
Here watch this video. If you don’t see it this time around I will link it to you in the future until you can see and learn what is actually going on and why warmer water will allow the heated rod to reach a higher temperature (even before the water itself is warmed by the rod…because the warmer water is returning more energy to the rod than the cold water does in each of the trillions of collisions taking place every second).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
In the link they show results of elastic collisions. When an object is not moving, all the moving object’s energy is transferred to the non moving object. (this would be the highest rate of conduction heat loss when you have an object at absolute zero, all the molecular kinetic energy of the hot object will transfer to the absolute zero object). The next blocks show what happens when you have two objects in collision. A faster one and a slower one. The faster one transfers all its energy to the slower one while the slower one transfers all its energy to the faster one. You can see from this as the speed of the two objects approach each other the energy exchange is equal (which is why two objects at the same temperature will not conduct heat to each other). The elastic collisions do not stop, the energy exchange does not quit. The reason conduction is based upon temperature difference is because as the colder object temperature molecules approach the kinetic energy of the hotter object, they transfer more energy to the hot object and less overall heat flows. That is how it works, your belief in it does not matter.
Poor Norm verifies the worms in his head.
Steering the race car to follow the oval track is NOT “rotating on an axis”. The poor con-man can NOT think for himself. As explained numerous times, there are TWO distinct, different, independent motions–“orbiting”, and “rotating on an axis”. This is the kind of simple facts that the brain-dead cannot understand.
A race car is only performing ONE of the TWO motions. It is “orbiting”, not “rotating on its axis”.
(This is why the climate clowns cannot understand 2LoT. They cannot think.)
Hilarious.
I almost forgot.
The video con-man mentioned. It’s a computer graphic. He doesn’t understand computer graphics. The “spin” of the moon is programmed to match its motion in orbit!
Hilarious.
And, in his comment way up above, the con-man mentioned the ISS. He believes the ISS proves that the Moon rotates on its axis.
Hilarious.
Con-man, the ISS is in an artificial low orbit. It requires regular “adjustments” to remain in orbit. The adjustments require fuel for propulsion. The propulsion produces momentum that must then be re-adjusted. You have so little knowledge of anything, except pounding on that keyboard, and washing dishes. But, please continue.
What a great year for climate comedy!
anger, the Indy race car orbits the infield and rotates on its axis to keep left side viewing the infield by simple observation of the Indy500 race.
Perhaps you have never observed the Indy500. The race is coming up again at end of May, go Danica. You will want to observe the orbiting and one rotation on its axis for each car during the first lap. More than one rotation on its axis during the first orbit is called “spinning out” with sometimes disastrous & expensive consequences.
Actually, CH stumbled upon a good point.
A “spinout” is “rotating on an axis”. So during a “spinout”, does a viewer inside the track see all sides of the car?
When you see ALL sides of the orbiting object, from inside the orbit, it is “rotating on its axis”. Otherwise, it is NOT rotating on its axis.
Climate clowns may be the exception. They rotate on their axis 24/7.
Hilarious.
“Otherwise, it is NOT rotating on its axis.”
Otherwise, the Indy race car rotates once on its axis as stated for each orbit of the infield. Just observe the Indy500 in May anger to find the mundane truth you seek. Otherwise, remain hilariously! wrong.
g*e*r*a*n
You are bluffing again. This time you have a 6 high but not a straight, just a really low hand.
You might have watched some videos of an animated Moon showing its orbit and rotation. This one is not that one. Watch the video before you comment. It might help you no look so stupid.
In the video I linked you to the person has the Moon rotating on its axis. He grabs this virtual moon and moves it around an orbit at the same rate it is rotating so it will keep its same face to the Earth.
Your comment on the ISS is really out there and has nothing at all to what I stated. You are talking about it using fuel to remain in orbit. I am talking about an induced rotation (one rotation on axis per orbit) so the same face of the Station faces Earth.
Forget the race car it is far too difficult for you to understand that the car is rotating as it moves around the track. Just do the easier one. Walk around a frigg’in table! Watch what your feet must do to accomplish this task. They must rotate, turn, in order for you to walk around the table keeping your same side to the table. If your feet to not rotate as you move around the table, a person on the table will see all your sides. If you do not rotate you feet, keep them straight ahead, no rotation on an axis. The viewer on the table will see one side, a back side the opposing side and your front. If you rotate on revolution as you walk around the table the viewer on the table will always see your same side. Now who is braindead? I think you are the only one that lacks thinking ability between the two of us. I can think, reason, understand concepts. You can do none of this. I probably can clean glassware far better than you. What are you valuable qualifications? You are a complete idiot on this blog. You make stupid statements but never support them. I really find it amazing someone actually paid you money for some service you offered. From reading your posts and seeing you limited reasoning ability, I can’t imagine what you were able to do for a living.
Con-man, your hilarity never ends. Such inanity is new to me.
If you believe that walking around a table is “rotating on an axis”, try this.
Attach a string to the center of the table. Now, without moving around the table, rotate on your axis. Notice the string tries to prevent your movement.
Now, orbit around the table. Notice the string does not hinder your movement.
Hilarious.
“Notice the string does not hinder your movement.”
Sure it does, it wraps non-rotating Norman right up UNLESS….Norman rotates once per orbit of the table in which case the string doesn’t wrap and doesn’t hinder his movement.
This illustrates your problem with science anger, you don’t actually do the experiment like Dr. Spencer et. al., you just imagine stuff & beclown yourself hilariously! Sorry.
No, cabbage head, it just indicates your inability to understand TWO motions.
Probably related to other inabilities you have.
Very good anger, you now admit there are TWO motions orbiting and rotation on an axis. Thank you. Norman had an effect on anger! Well, probably anger will admit a mistake below but the LV odds makers making are making money still.
(This clown actually believes cabbages emit visible light!)
Yes, but only when anger turns off his Romulan cloaking device can cabbages be seen by human eye and observed by instrumentation.
I’m sure no one would laugh… /sarc
(See!)
Gordon,
1) Will you state in your reply whether you think EM radiation and heat are the same thing or not. I have a follow up.
Clauisus clearly states that ‘heat’ passes both from a warmer object to a cooler object, and from a cooler object to a warmer object.
“In the first place, the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it”
This is indisputable. Those are his words. ‘Heat’ is mutually exchanged.
I paid direct heed to his comments on compensating factors. At all times, more ‘heat’ must pass from the hotter to the cool body. ‘Heat’ cannot flow only in one direction from cooler to hotter, it must flow both ways, and more ‘heat’ must pass from the warmer body to the cooler body.
Clausius is here saying that the NET flow of heat must be from hot to cold, while there is discrete exchange of heat between both.
ALL YOU’VE DONE is to ignore that he said ‘heat’ is passed between both hotter and cooler bodies and instead highlighted the NET result.
It’s in black and white in Clausiu’s own words…
“…the principle implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it…”
You can’t ignore that. You can’t twist it. And neither of us are ignoring his comments on compensation.
Clausius is saying exactly what has been said here many times – energy is mutually exchanged between bodies of different temperature, but the NET is result is always that heat (energy) flows from hot to cold.
Said it once and I’ll say it again, you and other skeptics take the NET result of the 2nd Law and mistakenly apply that to discrete exchanges of energy.
You are dead wrong about this, which is why I can supply references – even to Clausius – corroborating that view, and you cannot.
I am still waiting for you after many requests to supply one credible physics text that says radiation…
radiation
RADIATION
from cooler bodies cannot be absorbed by warmer bodies.
I gave a link to give you the opportunity to see if I had omitted anything relevant. You made use of that, and you did so erroneously.
WILL you do me the courtesy of providing a link that corroborates your claim that warmer bodies cannot absorb radiation from cooler bodies?
I want to know if there is even one credible source that corroborates this view. And no, restating the 2nd Law will not do. A specific statement on radiation (not heat) behaving in the way you say.
(continues in a new thread below)
barry…”Clausius is here saying that the NET flow of heat must be from hot to cold, while there is discrete exchange of heat between both”.
When he stated that it was to clarify what he meant in his initial statement by ‘by it’s own means’. He stated that heat cannot be transferred ‘by its own means’ from a colder body to a warmer body. Then he qualified that by talking about compensation. He made it clear that in a case where it is transferred from a colder body to a warmer body it requires a two way exchange of heat to provide compensation.
He followed that by emphasizing that heat can NEVER be transferred from cold to hot if there is no compensation.
You quoted him from his explanation of compensation where he was referring to an explicit case, as in a refrigerator, where heat can be extracted from a colder body and transferred to a hotter body using compensation.
In an automobile air conditioning system that’s pretty well what happens. Warm air is extracted from the cab during evapourization to a low pressure gas of a high pressure liquid and almost immediately vented to the warmer atmosphere via a condenser after compression of the low pressure gas to a high pressure/temperature liquid.
Clausius emphasized that such a process can NEVER take place by itself. In other words you don’t get something for nothing. That’s a well known fact in physics yet it has escaped those who hypothesized the AGW theory.
Yep, a cooler body cannot pass ‘heat’ to a warmer body without the warmer body passing ‘heat’ back to the cooler body.
The point is that there is a mutual exchange of ‘heat’ between the two bodies of different temperature. Clausius says it even clearer in section XII of his opus on The Mechanical Theory of Heat.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog
It is quite clear here that Clausius is saying bodies at different temps exchange heat, and that the NET result is that the flow is from hot to cold.
You did not answer the question: is EM radiation the same thing as heat?
I’ve read your view – you say they are not the same thing.
The 2nd Law applies, then, to “heat’, not radiation. They are not interchangeable terms, according to you.
You have not provided corroboration that a warm body cannot absorb radiation (different from ‘heat’) from a colder body. That is because you are wrong about that. Otherwise, please supply a credible physics text saying this specifically about EM RADIATION, and not just repeat the 2nd Law, which is about heat.
Finally, can you please explain what Clausius means by the phrase “simultaneous double heat exchange” between two bodies of different temperature?
Gordon,
I’ll repeat Clausius’ statement, and also give you the page number at the link for you to read and see if I’ve misquoted or omitted anything of relevance from there.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
“Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog
Page 295
What does Clausius mean by “simultaneous double heat exchange” between bodies of different temperature?
Zero, how many times are you going to ask this frivolous question? It just indicates you have zero knowledge of thermodynamics.
N’est-ce pas?
how many times are you going to ask this frivolous question?
No more times than it takes for someone to answer it in detail.
You can count how many times I’ve asked it to deduce how many times it has been dodged.
Are you counting how many times you have ignored by answer?
Winter is preparing a powerful attack in North America.
http://files.tinypic.pl/i/00956/ow7er9vhggyk.png
He says the same thing more clearly in his work:
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
SECTION XII
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog
Page 295
—————————————
It’s right there in black and white. Clausius own words. “Simultaneous double heat exchange” between bodies of different temperature. And that the NET result (“the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange”) is that heat flows from hot to cold.
Exactly as others here have said for a long time.
Further denial of Clausius’ own words – which are extremely clear here – will demonstrate extreme incompetence.
Ill stick with the references in this comment:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31206
barry, in your wildest imagination, do you believe anything Clausius wrote indicates a cold object will “raise the temperature” of a hotter object?
They are fine statements about heat.
At the same time, are you dismissing or ignoring the words of the man who invented the 2nd Law?
I will just stick with what works. What makes sense for the world around me.
Well, of course you will. Whatever “works for you.”
You are the living definition of an ideologue. Your own post could not be clearer.
You are putting words in my mouth. But thats the way you like to wriggle.
barry 7:55am, you are correct to quote Clausius verbatim because proper experiments support those assertions you clipped for anyone actually interested in the original work. As you probably know, anger has been given experiments that discredit anger comments such as “in your wildest imagination, do you believe anything Clausius wrote indicates a cold object will “raise the temperature” of a hotter object”.
Nature’s answer is of course found from proper experimental evidence as performed by Dr. Spencer, myself and others. Also, Halp-less providing links to a climate sophistry site is worthless as the site has no experimental evidence supporting many of the assertions there.
Blogger id Joe Postma used to comment around here which was one motivator for Dr. Spencer to do experiments proving many of Joe’s comments were unfounded – a reason Joe invented his climate sophistry site to be totally free from experimental evidence (same for many of anger, Robertson, Kristian, Halp-less unfounded claims).
Let the whining about experiments begin, I can predict it will be hilarious! & only for entertainment value.
Hey CH, Norm is trying to find some of his funnier pseudoscience. How about you linking to your funny comments about cabbages emitting visible light?
Let’s make 2018 climate comedy’s funniest year ever!
anger’s comments top the list for 2018 funniest with no mundane experimental evidence, followed closely by Robertson. Halp-less is still striving for hilarious! comments but with a little more effort can win a nomination or two. The linked comments at appropriately named climate sophistry not withstanding.
Does that mean you are not going to share your valuable “cabbages-emitting-visible-light” experiments with us?
Norm is ashamed of his past nonsense also. Maybe when I search for his I can find yours.
Funny that you are always into experiments, but unwilling share yours…
“unwilling share yours…”
Dr. Spencer’s experiments are more than sufficient. Here’s one of mine anger was shown with an apple resulting in a temperature increase due to a two way exchange of radiation with a cold mug of beer something that anger (and Robertson) hilariously! write(s) is beyond wildest imagination:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2017-0-63-deg-c/#comment-272175
Thanks for sharing that hilarious example, CH. That’s exactly what Im looking for.
Of course, I may have to explain to the 12-year-olds that the experiment means nothing as to a mug of cold beer warming an apple. The lamp was warming the apple! The poor cabbage head got all confused over the plates, which were not even part of the experiment.
A waste of time, but funny, nevertheless.
“The lamp was warming the apple!”
Yes, on the lit side, in steady state equilibrium, and so did the cold mug of beer increase the apple T to a new steady state equilibrium higher T when placed near the warmer apple unlit side. You have much to learn grass hopper. Try some of your own experiments anger, like TV’s Mr. Wizard. You can see a lot just by observing – Y.B.
A waste of time, but funny, nevertheless.
Yes, for anger it is a waste of time observing tests as doesn’t use the results in comments since that would just be mundane science not the hilarious! 2018 league leading funny science made up by anger. More please anger, entertaining to the max.
Again, CH wanders up the down path, experimenting without knowledge of proper procedures and documentation for extrapolation of sound, verifiable science in a retrievable format suitable for framing. Tests non-conclusive methods, un-documented, non-repeatable, and precipitously evaporable.
(I can ramble endlessly also. Not a problem. It gets hard when you are trying to convey something worthwhile, huh CH?)
“I can ramble endlessly also.”
For once I observationally concur with anger unhindered by experiment.
And CH wisely avoids the rest of the quote:
“It gets hard when you are trying to convey something worthwhile”
Of course, CH doesn’t ever “convey something worthwhile”.
Halp sticks with what works for his ideology. That means he ignores any facts that disagree with it. That works for him.
Nate, you just proved me right again! Knew you couldnt ignore me for long. Seems its a bit of a crush. You will get over it though.
G.
Are you unable to deal with what is written here?
Tell me, can you explain Clausius’ phrase “simultaneous double heat exchange” between hot and cold bodies?
What does that phrase mean exactly, g*e*r*a*n?
barry, I asked first: “In your wildest imagination, do you believe anything Clausius wrote indicates a cold object will “raise the temperature” of a hotter object?
As predicted – divert.
Can you explain Clausius phrase “simultaneous double heat exchange” between hot and cold bodies?
What does that phrase mean exactly, g*e*r*a*n?
barry, two-way street, remember?
You answer my question, and I’ll answer yours.
You’re making your own prediction true by diverting from answering.
barry, two-way street, remember?
You answer my question, and Ill answer yours.
Last time, I provided and you did not. You are in debt.
Can you explain Clausius phrase simultaneous double heat exchange between hot and cold bodies?
What does that phrase mean exactly, g*e*r*a*n?
No barry, that is not right.
You are diverting again.
Deny, divert, confuse. Running away as usual when the hard question comes.
Can you explain Clausius phrase “simultaneous double heat exchange” between hot and cold bodies?
What does that phrase mean exactly, g*e*r*a*n?
Run away from the question, there’s a good boy.
Okay barry, obviously you have more time to play than I do. I can answer your question, because it is clear from thermodynamics.
Question: Can you explain Clausius’ phrase “simultaneous double heat exchange” between hot and cold bodies?
Answer: Clausius is referring to the fact that a cold object radiates in all directions, as does a hot object. So, some of the radiative flux from the cold object will impact the hot object. That does NOT imply the flux will be absorbed. Consequently Clausius indicates that “the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter”.
Or, to put it in simple terms, a cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.
Now, have fun spinning your way out of that.
I honestly didn’t think you’d reply. well done.
So, some of the radiative flux from the cold object will impact the hot object. That does NOT imply the flux will be absorbed.
What is the impact that the radiation from the colder body will have on the warmer one? In the “simultaneous double heat exchange?”
barry, two-way street, remember?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282832
“That does NOT imply the flux will be absorbed.”
Some of the incident radiation flux will be ab_sor_bed each way as Clausius well knew since no material with diameter much larger than the wavelength of interest and with a temperature as properly tested has ever been found with ab_sorp_tivity 0.0, albedo reflectivity 1.0. Hence Robertson and anger assertions to the contrary are completely unfounded in real nature.
“Some”!
Poor CH, he’s so desperate to sound “sciencey”, but just can’t figure it out.
But, he’s funny nevertheless.
do you believe anything Clausius wrote indicates a cold object will raise the temperature of a hotter object?
Not without a compensating factor, as he wrote. I have no doubt he understood insulation.
Your turn.
some of the radiative flux from the cold object will impact the hot object.
What is the impact that the radiation from the colder body will have on the warmer one in the “simultaneous double heat exchange?”
barry ponders: What is the impact that the radiation from the colder body will have on the warmer one in the “simultaneous double heat exchange?”
It won’t raise the temperature of the “warmer one”.
Sorry.
Tests show cooler one can raise the temperature of the “warmer one” as long as universe entropy is increased such as observations added cooler clouds can do to the warmer air and water near surface.
A cold mug of beer radiation has been shown to increase the temperature of a warmer apple increasing universe entropy in the process but this is ignored by anger because it isn’t funny enough, just a mundane unfunny science experiment that anger will never perform properly.
What is the form of the ‘impact’ of the radiation from the colder body on the hotter one? In the context of Clausius’ “simultaneous double heat exchange”?
The phrase seems very clear to me. The colder body and the warmer one exchange ‘heat’.
If you think that the impact is not an exchange of heat, then you are directly contradicting Clausius. Can you clarify (while avoiding mantras)?
barry, if you are addressing the cabbage head, don’t expect an intelligible response. He believes cabbages emit visible light.
Surely you don’t believe that too?
barry 7:22pm, you are not ever going to get “slow the cooling” or for example “increase of temperature over no cooler object present” out of anger or Robertson. They both know correct answer leads to falsification of many (most?) of their comments. It is painful reading you attempt the impossible.
“He believes cabbages emit visible light.”
anger believes the Romulan cloaking device has been perfected as apparently and hilariously! writes cabbages are invisible to human eyes and instrumentation. And an Indy race car doesn’t rotate on its axis once each orbit clearly visible to spectators but hidden to anger using the perfected cloaking device.
Diverting again, G? I’m talking to you. It’s your turn to answer on the 2-way street.
What is the form of the “impact” (quoting your word) of the radiation from the colder body on the hotter one in the context of Clausius “simultaneous double heat exchange”?
zero, now that I know you are addressing me, I would be honored to answer.
Zero’s question: What is the form of the “impact” of the radiation from the colder body on the hotter one in the context of Clausius “simultaneous double heat exchange”?
Answer: There is no increase of temperature of the hotter body.
Ah, so you said that there would be an impact, and when asked to describe it you say there will be no impact.
It’s a good thing that you contradict yourself so clearly.
It’s a good thing that you are so overtly mendacious.
It makes it easier for anyone following the conversation to see that you (and thus your views) are incoherent and untrustworthy.
I’ll leave the door open to answer the question one last time. The chances are high that you will merely reinforce the above.
What is the “impact” that you spoke of, that the radiation from the colder body will have on the warmer one in the “simultaneous double heat exchange?”
Please state clearly and without equivocation.
zero, do I have to explain common words to you?
I guess so. That’s why you are called “zero”.
If you don’t understand “impact”, do you understand “collision”?
Do you not have a dictionary?
Thanks again for demonstrating to passers-by that you completely dodge the hard questions.
Diversion – your main game. So dishonest.
Let me help you out as a courtesy.
impact
noun
1.
the action of one object coming forcibly into contact with another.
2.
a marked effect or influence.
Now, zero, you get to link to any question I have dodged.
Don’t “zero” out, like Nate did.
(Oh, and wanting me to supply links is NOT a question.)
Hilarious.
Here you go, G.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282849
What is the “impact” that you spoke of that the radiation from the colder body will have on the warmer one in the “simultaneous double heat exchange?”
Your answer – “it won’t raise the temperature” – is a non-answer. effectively, you’ve contradicted yourself.
You said there’d be an “impact”. Describe what that impact is clearly, in the context of Clausius’ “mutual double exchange of heat” between 2 bodies of different temperature.
Oh, and wanting me to supply links is NOT a question
“Can you corroborate with a credible physics text that black bodies cannot absorb radiation from cooler black bodies?”
Is definitely a question. Responding to it with links to authoritative sources demonstrates that you’re not just making up BS.
After months of failing to respond to this it is very clear that you are making up BS.
barry, you apparently did not look up the word “impact”. Or else, you’re trying to spin, AGAIN.
An “impact” is a “collision”.
Does that help?
barry, you apparently did not look up the word impact. Or else, youre trying to spin, AGAIN.
Ahem:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-283013
An “impact” is a “collision”.
Does that help?
Ironic that you say I’m spinning. Dogged denial dodges direct discourse.
You still haven’t described what Clausius means by a “simultaneous double heat exchange” between two bodies of different temperature. Your answer? “Collision.” Chortle.
Wriggler, I will help to bring your bizarre series of reading comprehension failures to an end by substituting the word *impact* for *collide with* in g*e*r*a*ns answer, that he has already given you some time ago:
G: Clausius is referring to the fact that a cold object radiates in all directions, as does a hot object. So, some of the radiative flux from the cold object will collide with the hot object. That does NOT imply the flux will be absorbed. Consequently Clausius indicates that the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.
J: I hope that helps this discussion move forward, since its quite tedious as a spectator sitting here watching you throw your weight around, demanding answers out of people that have already been given simply because *you* are the one failing to comprehend. It is just embarrassing, and extremely irritating to read.
barry struggles to avoid facts and logic, to keep his false beliefs going.
“So, some of the radiative flux from the cold object will collide with the hot object. That does NOT imply the flux will be absorbed.”
The problem with this statement is that if flux is colliding with a black body, then, by definition, it WILL BE absorbed. ((Look it up people!)
For many many real world materials, > 90% of it will be absorbed.
Again, neither G* nor Halp can show no evidence to the contrary.
Put up or shut up!
Arrrf, ‘can show no evidence’ should be ‘can show evidence’
Here’s a safe prediction – G and Robertson will not answer the above question.
Deny divert confuse is what will happen. Just watch.
Yep, it’s happening above. G refuses to answer.
barry, are you so tangled in your own web that you are talking to yourself?
Deny divert confuse.
Roy doesn’t think much of you. Skeptics point out your rubbish. And the rest know you for the sleazy little dodger you are.
I’m talking to you, g*e*r*a*n. You who have no integrity. No honesty. No honour.
You keep talking when you can’t answer the question, hoping no one will notice that you’ve been exposed. Again.
Here’s the “web’ – can you untangle it?
Can you explain Clausius phrase “simultaneous double heat exchange” between hot and cold bodies?
What does that phrase mean exactly, g*e*r*a*n?
A straight answer is the right way to proceed. It’s honest, keeps the conversation moving, reinforces good faith.
Your next post will remind us what you’re made of. Go on. Hit those keys and then the send button. You have a reputation to maintain.
Wriggler, you seem tense. Everything OK?
barry is turning into a rapid chihuahua.
As he was submitting his nonsense, I was responding responsibly:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282847
It’s the difference between science and his desperate pseudoscience.
Ah, I thought there was some yelping going on. Desperate times…
“You who have no integrity. No honesty. No honour.”
Also a perfect description of Halp, though I would use ‘honor’.
You are crushing *hard*.
Once again, g* says, “a cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.”
It appears that you and Halpless have failed to perform a certain experiment, and still doubt the warming abilities of underwear.
Do I need to repost it?
The “tag-team” arrives!
They brought more insults and “cute”, but nothing of substance. They want so hard to help poor barry, but they can’t answer the question I gave him.
Hilarious.
Here’s some background: It was pointed out to g* and halpless that clothes (a colder object) can raise the temperature of a warmer one, disapproving their claim to the contrary. They objected, so an experiment was suggested where they could observe the effect first hand.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/?replytocom=280757#respond
I nominate Gordon, TonyM, and Mike Flynn to oversee the test, making sure the scientific method is followed.
G* complains of no substance– posts 98 times with no substance, just this week.
“You are crushing *hard*.”
No Halp, just like to enlighten others about your proven ability to ignore inconvenient facts.
snake claims: “It was pointed out to g* and halpless that clothes (a colder object) can raise the temperature of a warmer one, disapproving their claim to the contrary.”
Poor snake demonstrates his lack of understanding of thermodynamics. He thinks putting on a sweater is “proof” that “cold” warms “hot”.
Hilarious pseudoscience. (But, don’t tell snake.)
“They want so hard to help poor barry, but they cant answer the question I gave him.”
G*, A whole slew of us have asked you a question about black bodies, and you are unwilling/unable to answer.
Yet you think your questions and quizzes deserve immediate answers.
Poor Nate, he tries to “mis-represent” AGAIN, and gets caught: “G*, A whole slew of us have asked you a question about black bodies, and you are unwilling/unable to answer.”
Nate, just one link to where I was unwilling/unable to answer about black bodies.
Just one.
No endless rambling, no “red herrings”, no obfuscation, just ONE link to verify what you claim.
you seem tense
Disgusted. I’m fine, thank you.
G, you’ve been asked dozens of times to supply a credible physics link corroborating your claims that theoretical black bodies cannot absorb radiation from colder black bodies. Nate is right, you never have. Because you are wrong.
barry, did you just assume you could come back, after losing all credibility?
Did you just assume you could waltz back in, with no sincere, responsible, accepted apology?
Of course you did.
You’re a climate clown.
Hilarious.
Diverting again?
Where’s the link, G? You’re up to 60 refusals.
barry, you are a verifiable climate clown. The evidence is right here on this thread.
So, make it 600. Make it 60,000.
Crank in all the zeros you want there, Mr. Zero.
That’s a good nickname for you–“Zero”. Kinda fits–zero science, zero logic, zero all the way down.
Hint: You’ve got a lot of “adjusting” to do to get your “climate change”.
Hilarious.
BTW, Nate thanks you for letting him off the hook. He said I didn’t “answer questions”. You twisted it around to “supplying links”.
Keep twisting, zero. It’s fun to watch.
61
Keep running away from the hard questions. Better than admitting you couldn’t find a link to support your nonsense, I suppose.
zero, your “math” is incorrect.
The count is 61,000,000,000,000.
Try to keep up, so folks won’t think you’re a phony.
Still no link. 62.
It’s probable you’ve dodged hard questions 60000 times, but we’re counting the dodges on this specific matter on this website.
zero, you’re off by zeros.
Hilarious.
J: Wriggler, you seem tense.
W: Disgusted.
J: Ah, I knew it was something OTT and probably ingenuine.
‘Nate, just one link to where I was unwilling/unable to answer about black bodies.’
G there are dozens. It would be simpler if you could show the one comment where you answered the question (with real evidence as we requested).
ANOTHER “cop-out”, Nate?
G*, you want me to show you evidence to support my claims? You won’t accept my claims with out it? You want me to find links?
What an outrageous demand. Je refuse!
Nate, as they say, “put up, or shut up”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282891
G*, you’re not very good at irony are you?
The point was that you have neither put up nor shut up.
Until you do, I boycott all your demands.
Just ONE MORE “cop-out” for Nate.
No science, just false accusations that he can not back up.
Hilarious.
barry…”Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter”.
I have already explained that. Heat cannot be radiated, he was talking about EM. However, in those days EM theory was in its infancy. No one had any idea that heat was not radiated, but that it was converted to EM then radiated.
Even Planck admitted he did not know about EM radiation via electrons as he developed his theory on EM quanta. He admitted later that had he known about it the theory would have helped him immensely. Planck called EM ‘heat rays’.
They knew about EM as far back as Faraday in the early 1800s and later, Maxwell did stellar work describing EM without having a clue as to how it was generated. However, the actual modern theory did not emerge till 1913 with Bohr.
Even though electron theory began in the 1890s, while Planck was working out his theory of EM quanta, it was not till 1913 that Bohr presented a clear analysis of how electrons absorb and emit EM.
If you are honest with yourself you will read that into the words of Clausius you have cited. He had no idea how radiation worked. We can forgive Clausius for that because the rest of his work was brilliant given what he had to work with.
It’s not fair to use the phrase you quoted above as Clausius claiming heat flowed both ways. He made it abundantly clear in connection with your initial quote from yesterday that heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot without compensation. Clausius was likely perplexed by exactly how radiation worked, and who can blame him?
You and other alarmists are proving over a century after Clausius that you have no idea how it works either. That’s a shame because the information is all over the Net and I have already submitted a link to that effect. Absolutely no response to it, except Norman haranguing me about having no idea what I’m talking about. He even offered his help, which is a scary thought.
If that’s the case, neither did Bohr know what he was talking about. That’s where I got my information, as of late, to clarify what I’d learned in electronics decades ago.
Gordon,
he was talking about EM
Well, yes, that’s clear from the title of the section.
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
As you say, heat and EM are not the same thing.
The 2nd Law applies to heat, not to EM.
That’s the point.
Clausius is merely saying that radiation is exchanged between 2 bodies of different temperature, with the overall result that warm body loses heat to the colder one.
What would be great is if you would supply a credible physics link that specifically states that radiation from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a warmer one.
Repeating the 2nd Law is not an answer, because that is about heat, and EM radiation and heat are different quantities.
Please corroborate your view here regarding RADIATION.
zero, cold cannot raise the temperature of hot.
But, your incessant, unrelenting, maniacal effort to discredit that fact is pure climate comedy.
Please continue.
Seems Gordon is unable to furnish credible source for his claim, too.
In the real world, if you can’t back up what you’re saying you lose the point. ‘Alternative facts is not actually a thing.
In the alternative reality of the g*e*r*a*ns and the Robertsons, being unable to provide a credible reference for their claims makes no difference. Welcome to fantasy land.
barry believes 2LoT is “fantasy land”.
He’ll wake up someday.
22, Nate. 22!
Halp can count to 22. Congrats, you’re ready for 1st grade. No one remembers or cares what you are counting.
You care so little, you chose to respond.
I admit it. I enjoy pointing out your stupidity.
And I enjoy counting your evasions. Up to 24 now!
Glad youve enjoyed your counting, while simultaneously ignoring several inconvenient facts provided by the internet.
Why do you make up your own alternative facts, when science has already provided them?
25.
Good Halp, do your own thing, make up your own definitions, ignore established facts, count shiny objects, then you will have accomplished nothing more than mental masturbation.
On the other hand, if you want to discuss science, have rational conversations, learn, convince people of anything at all, then you might want to change your approach.
26.
Tropical storm in northern Australia.
http://images.tinypic.pl/i/00956/mfstp75n9z4w.png
Clausius never managed to cook a turkey with ice.
He also believed in the existence of the luminiferous ether, that electrons were particles and a few other things that we would now consider wrong.
Nobody was aware of radioactivity during that period, and estimates of the age of the Earth by such luminaries as Lord Kelvin and others were woefully wide of the mark for that reason.
You can misinterpret what Clausius said all you like. It still wont give you a testable GHE hypothesis, nor explain how CO2 can cause thermometer to become hotter.
Foolish Warmist have no perception of physical reality, or the relationships between energy, temperature and heat.
A prime example of their Warmist foolishness is their energy budget stupidity. Ice can emit 300 W/m2. This is meaningless in terms of temperatures. Adding the wattage of 2 square meters of ice doubles the wattage, but the temperature remains the same.
The Watt is a clearly defined unit of power – nothing to do with temperature or heat per se.
It doesnt have a budget, there is no surplus or deficiency. Temperature is not easily definable, but it is not possible to increase the heat of an object by somehow extracting the radiant energy from a colder object and using it to raise the temperature of a warmer.
The natural consequences of such lunacy would result in ships extracting energy from the seas through which they sail, and leaving trails of ice blocks in their wakes.
A household would no doubt extract the heat from the refrigerator and freezer, and use the energy to cook dinner, or heat the house! Only a pack of deluded fools could believe fantasy of this nature.
Crackpots and dummies. There must be quite a few villages lacking their idiots. Sad.
Cheers.
M. Flinn said
“…Temperature is not easily definable, but it is not possible to increase the heat of an object by somehow extracting the radiant energy from a colder object and using it to raise the temperature of a warmer.”
Clearly you (and GR) don’t understand radiative heat transfer, as I’ve demonstrated…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282294
OMG swannie, are you going to use that nonsense, from now on, to promote your pseudoscience?
That will be hilarious.
Climate comedy, with props!
What a great year this is going to be.
Snape,
You wrote (maybe in a fit of silliness) –
“Heres some background: It was pointed out to g* and halpless that clothes (a colder object) can raise the temperature of a warmer one, disapproving their claim to the contrary.
Clothe a corpse. Does its temperature rise? Not enough heat provided by the clothes? Add more!
If you say that you need a source of energy before the clothes will heat anything, maybe the energy of life creates the heat, not the inanimate fabric.
In any case, you need to propose a hypothesis to explain a measured rise in temperature due solely to clothing. If your core temperature has risen, youre probably sick. If you cant demonstrate a rise in core temperature subsequent to the donning of clothing, youre just sprouting foolish Warmist rubbish. As any mountaineer short of some fingers or toes due to frostbite will tell you, the finest hand and foot clothing may not prevent your extremities dying due to lack of heat. Clothes, boots, socks, mittens, thermal gloves – they provide no heat at all.
Anybody who thinks so is dim-witted. They tend to say I think . . when that particular action is obviously beyond their ability!
Cheers.
mike…”If you say that you need a source of energy before the clothes will heat anything, maybe the energy of life creates the heat, not the inanimate fabric”.
Wo!!! There’s a revelation. Did the alarmists actually think the clothes provided heat?
Did it not occur to them how a body heated from within loses heat? It conducts it straight to air molecules, or whatever cooler surface contacts it, then the warmed air rises and is replaced by cooler air. Convection.
Then there’s radiation.
So what do clothes do? Most importantly, they prevent direct conduction to cooler air. If the air is hotter, you take clothes off, right? They also prevent the air from warming too quickly and rising, so they slow down convection.
Radiation? Clothes have absolutely no effect on radiation, it goes straight through. The spaces between threads appear as Grand Canyons to radiation. Mind you, they’ll let atoms of air through as well and that’s why you heap layer upon layer in cold weather to cut down the flow. The layers also trap air between them which is warmed by the body.
I have related how I wear a heart rate monitor while working out. It transmits EM from a device strapped over my heart on my chest through any number of layers of clothing to a wrist watch receiver. The very weak EM goes straight through layers of thermal undershirts, long-sleeved shirts, hoodies, and even a thick winter’s jacket. It goes straight through a very fine knit waterproof shield.
No problem at all.
The fact that we don’t get all that cold wearing heavy clothing in winter is a testament to the poor cooling quality of radiation. I think it’s the same with the Earth’s surface. Most cooling takes place by direct conduction and subsequent convection. I don’t think radiation is much of a factor at the surface.
Gordon
Are you able to help with the experiment? Someone needs to make sure BOTH test subjects are alive and producing “life energy”, with the only DIFFERENCE being one is wearing underwear and the other is not.
Remember, the experiment is designed to test the validity of the statement, “a cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.
If found to be false, the how and why can be examined in future experiments.
Gordon Robertson
It seems you are back to making up stuff again with zero support to your claims. First your heart monitor probably uses bluetooth or RF energy and not IR, also IR is a wide band. If a designer for a system is aware a person is going to be wearing clothes with their equipment they would choose bands that are transparent to clothes.
Besides all that you took a heart monitor and used this to come up with a make believe version of reality that IR goes right through clothes.
I will show you an image that will disprove your absurd and unscientific claims. You just can’t stop making up information. That is why you need to be more rigorous and scientific. If you think something may be true, spend some time and research it before you go declaring it a reality.
Here look at this link. It is a person in cold air with a coat on. The IR is not going through the coat, you can see the much greater IR emitted by the face.
https://structuretech1.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/E6-and-E8.jpg
Mike says, “In any case, you need to propose a hypothesis to explain a measured rise in temperature due solely to clothing.”
Hypothesis: Underwear will reduce the rate of heat loss from the surface area it covers, potentially causing the area’s temperature to increase.
The poor 12-year-old continues to confuse “insulation” with “heat source”.
The comedy continues.
Not confused at all, g*
Clothing is insulation, and will increase the temperature of a shivering, unclad human body.
I could come up with hundreds of experiments to prove your statement false. MikeR’s test adds a comic element.
poor confused child: Clothing is insulation, and will increase the temperature of a shivering, unclad human body.
He believes that is indicative that 2LoT is invalid.
Hilarious.
Only an idiot who misinterprets the 2LOT would make the claim: “a cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object”.
This is true in an isolated system and where the warmer object is not compensated by means of work.
Stated unconditionally, as the idiot does, a simple example of insulation proves the claim to be incorrect.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“The atmosphere is an insulator….”
June 18, 2017, 3:34 am
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
snake exhibits his lack of education: “Stated unconditionally, as the idiot does, a simple example of insulation proves the claim to be incorrect.”
snake, you continue to confuse “insulation” with “heat source”, demonstrating your ignorance of thermodynamics.
It’s fun to watch.
(BTW, you may have noticed I don’t call you “idiot”. I just let your own comments take care of that.)
You are 12, G? Wow, everything falls into place.
Yes, zero, everything is falling into place.
It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy.
(Someone predicted that?)
MF says:
“If you say that you need a source of energy before the clothes will heat anything, maybe the energy of life creates the heat, not the inanimate fabric.”
but addressed this point earlier:
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
Mike Flynn says:
“In any case, you need to propose a hypothesis to explain a measured rise in temperature due solely to clothing.”
Is this the bottom yet of the stupidity here?
Because there isn’t much further to go….
Note to all –
Most quote marks, apostrophes, and commas seem to be falling into some mysterious place.
Any solutions? Please excuse me if my comments appear odd due to lack of the abovementioned punctuation!
Cheers.
MIke, if you copy/paste WordPress tends to lose certain punctuation. If you copy/paste, you will have to go back and delete each quote mark, etc., and replace with new, once in WordPress.
PS Still no GHE!
☺
g,
Thanks. Even when Im not copying and pasting – its got me baffled. Oh well, it gives people a chance to mentally insert their own punctuation, if they prefer.
Still no GHE – not even a testable GHE hypothesis!
Cheers.
MF: what do you get by coming here and writing the same old things every time, while always refusing to engage in discussion?
I mean, how can that be in any way satisfying to you (unless you’re a bot)?
That is, you constantly say there is no GHE or GHE hypothesis — when your own replies say otherwise.
Why do you keep doing this? Is this really how you wish to spend your time?
Punctuation will not change that.
S,
Youre right of course. No matter how many sciency words, no matter how much punctuation or obfuscation you use, the GHE stubbornly refuses to make itself available for inspection.
Maybe you could indulge in a spot of deny, divert and confuse, if the non-existence of the GHE concerns you.
Or maybe hurling a few insults at random might be more scientific? Youre right again. Im having a laugh at your expense! Take as much offence as you like – I have plenty to spare.
Cheers.
The existence of the greenhouse effect is obvious:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
poor davie. He still believes that link means something. He still clings to it.
Hilarious.
It shows the GHE to everyone except the four amigos.
In pseudoscience, you see what you want to see.
That link is a “model” of the spectral flux leaving Earth. It “proves” nothing about the GHE. It’s analogous to have a copy of all the checks you wrote last month, and claiming your bank account contains billions more than it actually does.
Pseudoscience is based on illusions, imagination, and corrupted science.
It’s fun to watch.
I think you have a point there g*e*r*a*n.
How about this one:
https://tinyurl.com/ybct22bk
From IASI:
https://tinyurl.com/y7mm9exd
Yup, more examples.
You could produce a photo of a dead canary, and Warmists would believe it was “proof” of AGW.
It’s fun to watch.
Yes, ignore the facts and and stay in fantasy land.
Yes, they do.
And it’s fun to watch.
By the way Mike, do you mean the enhanced GHE, or the total GHE?
Don’t forget the “super-duper, biggie-sized, giant, stepped-up, escalated” GHE.
That’s the one to really fear!
Hilarious.
mike…”Most quote marks, apostrophes, and commas seem to be falling into some mysterious place”.
I think the secret is in HTML codes. The learning curve required might not make it worthwhile.
I am wondering why WordPress is so clueless to these goings on. I have written to them with no response.
barry…”Clausius is merely saying that radiation is exchanged between 2 bodies of different temperature, with the overall result that warm body loses heat to the colder one”.
I’ll try to find a decent link for you but I’m far too tired right now.
Clausius was wrong about heat transferring as EM. He did not know of the mechanism involved wherein electrons converted heat as kinetic energy to EM at a precise frequency and intensity. And he had no idea that electrons only absorb EM of an equally precise frequency and intensity. He thought, and so did Planck, that heat traveled through space.
It does not, it can’t. Heat is associated with matter, with atoms. No atoms, no heat…you have a vacuum. EM will happily go through the vacuum. Heat is converted to EM in the atom, then the EM travels through space. At the other end, it is converted back to heat.
I have pointed out several times that EM and thermal energy have nothing in common as standalone entities. The very fact that heat cannot travel through a vacuum should be adequate proof that it is associated with matter. A vacuum is defined as an absence of matter.
In a thermos flask, the vacuum between the inner flask and outer flask walls will keep a liquid warm for hours. I have put boiling water in a good thermos at 5AM and it has still been hot at noon. Although the radiation from the inner wall goes straight through the vacuum, it barely cools the liquid over 7 hours.
It was not till 1913 that Bohr presented the model of the electron/proton interaction that anyone knew about the interaction of EM and electrons, Clausius had been dead for more than 20 years. Even at that, there was great resistance in many circles to the Bohr model.
Bohr and Schrodinger treated electrons like harmonic oscillators and waves. If you take a particle with a circular trajectory on the x-y plane, starting at 0 degrees, where the circle, centred at 0,0, intersects the x axis, and allow the particle to travel counter-clockwise, it’s shadow on the x-axis traces harmonic motion along the x-axis as the particle revolves around 0,0.
If you now take that shadow and stretch it along the y axis and mark it as 0, pi/2, pi, 3pi/2, and 2pi, the shadow becomes a perfect sine wave. The frequency of the sine wave is equivalent to the number of times per second the particle revolves around 0,0.
With an electron in a circular orbit around the nucleus, the frequency of that sine wave is proportional to temperature. Don’t ask me why. That electron can gain energy by absorbing a photon equivalent to the frequency of the electron in its orbit and the intensity of the difference in energy in eV between it’s current energy level and the next one up. On occasion, the electron can jump two or more energy levels, so the absorbed energy can vary. The reverse causes emission.
It should be noted that Bohr and Schrodinger were concerned mainly with the electron and its properties. The proton is important but the electron defines the atom as far as EM is concerned.
If an electron in a cooler body is revolving in a similar fashion, it’s frequency will be lower and the intensity of the EM it can generate will be lower. Maybe if the temperatures of the two bodies were really close, like near equilibrium, the frequency and energies may be close enough so the emitted energy from the cooler body can be absorbed.
Electrons are claimed to have a wavelike action because the case is never that one is emitting alone. There are bazillions radiating at the same time. If the mean temperature is the same then the frequencies of emission should be the same or close. DA talked about spectral line broadening and that’s one cause, electrons close to the same frequency radiating together.
With a bazillion electrons emitting at close to the same frequency you get a wave rather than discrete bundles of photons. That’s why I could never understand the single slit experiment where electrons are claimed to behave like a full EM wave. How can you isolate one electron per unit time to hit the slit?
You can’t, you have a stream of them with a bazillion electrons in the stream. Somehow, within that stream, there is enough variation in frequency that the slit causes them to deviate enough to produce a diffraction pattern.
That’s why I don’t have a lot of faith in photon theory per se. It’s helpful in visualizing certain aspects of EM theory but just as visualizing a single electron is a bit goofy, the single photon theory is way off the mark as well.
Ok, Gordon, I can’t take it not responding anymore.
“And he had no idea that electrons only absorb EM of an equally precise frequency and intensity.”
I’ve never read or heard anyone but you have that idea; folks in the field know testing show atoms and molecules absorb the photons.
“(Clausius) thought, and so did Planck, that heat traveled through space.”
No. In fact Planck starts off his 1912 treatise explaining an experiment that demonstrates heat does NOT flow through space. Clausius defines heat in 1st memoir so that heat can NOT flow through space or even flow into another body, it is the amount of energy that flows, transits, conducts, convects, radiates into another body.
“Heat is converted to EM in the atom, then the EM travels through space.”
Radiated by the atom. Stick with that, to be correct quit trying to explain electrons absorb the EM when the whole atomic structure absorbs the EM momentum, energy, polarization.
“That electron can gain energy by absorbing a photon..”
No credibility in that! Correct yourself to what you wrote earlier: Tests show that atom can gain energy by absorbing a photon.. Also experimentally correct: that molecule can gain energy by absorbing a photon.
“..(T) may be close enough so the emitted energy from the cooler body can be absorbed.”
At ANY T, the emitted energy from the cooler body is absorbed, reflected and if not opaque, transmitted.
“With a bazillion electrons emitting..”
With a bazillion atoms and/or molecules emitting…
“where electrons are claimed to behave like a full EM wave. How can you isolate one electron per unit time to hit the slit?”
where photons are claimed to behave like a full EM wave. How can you isolate one photon per unit time to hit the slit?
Instrumentally and by observing the dot pattern on the opaque surface.
“the single photon theory is way off the mark as well.”
No, instruments can count photons one at a time.
Gordon, you dont appear to work from test results. You’d rather just write comments that agree with YOUR views so you lose credibility big time. You can improve credibility citing tests but you don’t seem to care.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Electrons are claimed to have a wavelike action because the case is never that one is emitting alone. There are bazillions radiating at the same time. If the mean temperature is the same then the frequencies of emission should be the same or close.”
Pure stupidity. (Of course.)
You’re confusing two notions — temperature and emission.
1) temperature is the mean kinetic energy of the molecules in a gas. It has nothing to do with electron levels.
2) Emissions come from changes in an electron’s or molecules quantum wave function. For GHGs this means vibrational and rotational states of molecules (not electrons!).
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“Thats why I dont have a lot of faith in photon theory per se. Its helpful in visualizing certain aspects of EM theory but just as visualizing a single electron is a bit goofy, the single photon theory is way off the mark as well.”
More dumb.
Gordon, someone as ignorant as you doesn’t get to question or reject basic, long-established physics.
Got that?
Nano Lett. 2006 Aug;6(8):1622-6.
Nanoscale paul trapping of a single electron.
Segal D1, Shapiro M.
Invited Review Article: Single-photon sources and detectors
Review of Scientific Instruments 82, 071101 (2011); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3610677
M. D. Eisamana), J. Fan, A. Migdall, and S. V. Polyakov
Gordon Robertson says:
“Heat is associated with matter, with atoms. No atoms, no heat…you have a vacuum.”
So how does the heat of the Sun get to the Earth?
“So how does the heat of the Sun get to the Earth?”
DA, Robertson’s already correctly answered a few times in this limited case, although wording can be improved a bit:
“Heat is converted to EM in the atom, then the EM travels through space. At the other end, it is converted back to heat.”
Why isn’t EM radiation “heat?” What fundamental property of “heat” does it lack?
Do you get warmer when you go out in the sunlight?
“Why isnt EM radiation heat?
Because experiments so demonstrate. The best one I’ve recall is Planck’s 1912 book p. 2 paragraph 2, tells you right up front where he stands on that notion.
“What fundamental property of heat does (EMR) lack?”
Rest mass.
When I go out in the sunlight, the KE of the sun’s constituent particles having been converted to EMR is converted from EMR back to the KE of the molecules of my skin and I feel their increased KE as the energy transferred.
Gordon,
I have pointed out several times that EM and thermal energy have nothing in common as standalone entities.
Excellent.
The 2nd Law applies to heat, correct?
Why do you apply radiation interchangeably with heat via the 2nd Law?
There is nothing in the second Law that says a warmer body cannot absorb radiation from a cooler body. Because the 2nd Law is about heat, not radiation. They are 2 different quantities.
While you mostly differentiate between these, you make them equivalent every time you use the 2nd Law to reject the fact that radiation from cooler bodies is easily absorbed by warmer ones.
When you are no longer tired, I hope to see a link to a credible physics text stating clearly and specifically that radiation from a cool body cannot be absorbed by a warmer body. I have found many stating the opposite.
zero, a cold body can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer body.
When are you going to get that through your head. (Notice I didn’t use the word “brain”.)
You are obsessed with trying to get around 2LoT. You are relentless. Your faith in your false religion is impressive.
If only you could apply your zealotry to something useful, huh?
“a cold body can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer body.”
Testing also disproves anger in this statement, but geez it is so entertaining to read anger hilarious! comments. Gordon is not so hilarious for some reason maybe because anger writes more compactly and Gordon writes paragraph after paragraph and is NOT always wrong like anger.
CH, put links to those “experiments” when you link to cabbages emitting visible light.
It’s a lot of comedy, but we can take it.
The links have not done you any good anger, the only ones you seem to follow are to climate sophistry. No experiments there I’m afraid. Try some experiments on your own, link then, whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger and anger is starting from a very weak science base. Except for comedy, anger’s strong suit, keep that going. More please.
No verifiable experiments, I understand.
Hilarious.
Plenty verifiable experiments anger doesn’t understand.
Hilarious! See the provided links. Try to puzzle them out anger, replicate the experiments, all the info. is provided in the links.
Sorry, I disappointed the LV odds makers that bet against me having the experiments and links.
Still no verifiable experiments. I see.
(Hilarious.)
The experimental links are being hidden by your Romulan cloaking device anger, others can see them & browse to them. If you want to switch your cloaking device off, that’s up to you.
ibid.
g*e*r*a*n
Bluffing again, this time with barry. He has a straight flush and you have an 8 high hand. You pretend you know all about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
barry lays out his hand: “There is nothing in the second Law that says a warmer body cannot absorb radiation from a cooler body. Because the 2nd Law is about heat, not radiation. They are 2 different quantities.”
He is confident he has a winning hand. His is supported by valid physics and can easily be supported by many sources.
You continue to bluff pretending you have a hand that can beat his but you will never put it down to show it. You can pretend forever that your hand is better as long as you don’t lay it down.
Your response to his excellent question was this weak bluff: “zero, a cold body can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer body.
When are you going to get that through your head. (Notice I didnt use the word brain.)
You are obsessed with trying to get around 2LoT. You are relentless. Your faith in your false religion is impressive.”
You post pretending you have something. So far to date you have nothing. Keeping the hand hidden is all you can do.
You are so wrong g*e*r*a*n and Roy Spencer did the test to prove your hand is lame.
Here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
This image shows you don’t have been dealt a poor hand. That would be your reasoning ability.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2nd-law-exp-fig-03.jpg
The image shows that the less cool shield consistently raises the temperature of the heated material.
The results of this test easily show your declaration is not correct. Will you man up and admit you were wrong.
“”zero, a cold body can NOT raise the temperature of a warmer body.”
You can see the temperature of the warmer body increase each time the colder (but not as cold as the ice) shield covers the ice.
Even empirical reality has no value to your mind. If Roy would do it in a vacuum you would have even sharper results showing that you don’t have a playing hand. Go on and bluff your way along. You will continue to do this indefinitely.
You post pretending you have something. So far to date you have nothing. Keeping the hand hidden is all you can do.
Exactly. He won’t show his hand because he has nothing to show. And his pretending that he has a hand (credible physics texts to back up specific assertions) is straightforward deceit.
That’s why he gets no apology for being called dishonest. It’s a matter of record.
barry, the reason you won’t offer an apology has to do with your lack of character. You’re just looking for a way out, by climbing in bed with the con-man, and making more false accusations.
It’s fun to watch.
That’s a long, rambling, non-sensical rant, con-man. And, it’s somewhat funny, being as it probably took you hours to prepare. But, I like the rabid yelping chihuahua ones.
Trying to hide under Dr Roy is funny, however. I like that.
Maybe do a theme of a rabid, yelping chihuahua hiding between Dr. Roy’s legs.
That might be hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
I now see you do have one skill. You are okay at bluffing.
How do you explain the data collected by Roy Spencer? Who is hiding under Dr. Roy? I am showing you data he collected. Explain the results. They contradict your declarations.
barry has finally realized you are an idiot. Soon he may also call you Stupid Troll.
You do seem to really amuse Ball4. I am glad you can make someone laugh on this blog, you try very hard to be funny but you just don’t have enough creativity to be a really good comedy act.
Norm, you can’t understand experiments. You can’t understand physics. It probably too years to train you to wash dishes, and you probably still require full time supervision. But, every time your supervisor leaves you alone, you start pounding on that (agency-provided) keyboard.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Bluffing again I see. Is that all you know how to do? Everyone on this blog knows you are a phony pretender. But you like to keep up the illusion that you are important and that you think you know some physics.
You do it all the time. Like Ball4 said, it is 100% odds you will bluff and act like you know something (pretend) then you NEVER deliver.
YOU: “Norm, you cant understand experiments. You cant understand physics.”
This is all you can muster. You are not smart enough to even attempt to answer my question. Hilarious. You are a true climate clown.
100% odds you will not answer the questions asked but will pretend like you have all this knowledge (which you don’t).
You are an easy phony to spot. I hope more people become aware of just how phony you really are. The more you post the more people can see you have nothing. The act is wearing off. Others will see the truth about you as regular posters already know. Bluffing can only get you so far, at some point you need to lay your hand down.
As I have indicated before, con-man, you don’t have the background to understand. That’s one of the reason you can’t see the flaws in this experiment. (Another reason is the “worms”.)
A main flaw in the experiment is the ice shield. With the ice shield in place, the temperature goes up. That should be a clue. Quite obviously the ice shield is affecting the results, and Dr. Roy was able to get the results he wanted.
You must remember, he believes “cold” can warm “hot”. That MUST be believed to then believe in the GHE. In his defense, he has been educated in “established science”. It will take a lot of work on his part, to clear such nonsense out of his head.
I prefer not to criticize Dr. Roy. I subscribe to the “..until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes” axiom. No one is shooting at my building.
g*e*r*a*n
More bluffs and pretend.
YOU: “A main flaw in the experiment is the ice shield. With the ice shield in place, the temperature goes up. That should be a clue.”
So what are you saying? Absolutely nothing. Bluffing!
Since you have no understanding of real physics you can’t make sense of it in your made up physics.
The shield is at room temperature, much warmer than the ice bath below. When the ice bath is exposed (no shield) it radiates less energy to the hot plate to be absorbed so the plate is cooler in this case. With the room temperature shield it radiates more energy to the plate than the ice did so the powered plate reaches a higher temperature. Really easy and very basic physics and it works in the real world and Roy was nice enough to show you the process.
That your made up understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (that you can’t even support from any source) can’t explain what you see is why you need to bluff and pretend you know something. If you lay down a hand it will be some stupid declaration that has no basis in the real world, just in your own twisted thoughts.
Con-man, you can not understand. You just don’t have the background, or ability to think. Sorry.
The purpose of the experiment was to “prove” that cold can warm hot. So, he compares ice cubes to an “ice shield”. He got the results he believed in. You believe in it. “Belief” is not science.
I know I can’t get through to you, but let me just offer one question. What was the radiative flux in each of the two situations (with the ice shield, and without it)? Kind of important to know that, huh?
Now you may go back to yelping like a rabid chihuahua, under the poker table.
“I hope to see a link to a credible physics text stating clearly and specifically that radiation from a cool body cannot be absorbed by a warmer body.”
Never going to happen, barry. 1st there isn’t one. If Gordon could do so, would already be done. Accept Gordon is wrong, has been disproved by test the first time he couldn’t and move on. Painful to read this attempt over and over….and OVER. Gordon just won’t do it. Ever.
And I bet Gordon keeps writing this test disproved hogwash, just chuckle and move on. Mostly I do, but above, well it just leaks out of me at times.
Ball4,
If you could actually usefully define radiation, you wouldnt sprout the nonsense you do.
Cheers.
MF, how do you define “radiation” when you use the word?
Mike Flynn:
May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
Sprout? MF wouldn’t understand radiation def so there is no incentive. Experimental evidence is not nonsense MF. Try some.
barry,
Deny, divert and confuse? More appeals to authority trying to obscure the fact that neither you nor anybody else can make an object hotter with energy from a colder object?
Is this nonsense supposedly the basis for the nonexistent GHE? Have you considered what happens when the colder body loses energy by radiation? Maybe in the world of the foolish Warmist, it gets hotter, but in reality, a body losing net energy continuously is cooling.
Now, foolish Warmists seem to believe that while one body is cooling, the radiation it emits is absorbed by a warmer body, which increases in temperature.
So two rocks, for example, one cooler, one warmer, would exchange radiation in such a way that one rock would heat up without cease – someone mentioned a figure of 800,000 degrees, still short Al Gores millions of degrees!
The other rock, losing energy, would presumably get colder and colder! Complete and utter nonsense!
You cant even come up with a testable GHE hypothesis. Is this manic obsession with irrelevant fantasies an ongoing attempt to avoid reality?
First the hypothesis, then the theory, all supported by reproducible experiments – the theory will hold sway until someone shows by experiment that it is wrong.
Wheres your hypothesis? Or are you just as delusional as people such as Hansen, Schmidt and Mann?
Cheers.
“neither you nor anybody else can make an object hotter with energy from a colder object?”
Yet another comment easily disproved by testing. MF avoids testing just like anger, Robertson, Halp-less. Watch, MF et. al. next comment: no proper replicable testing. 100% odds currently in LV.
No verifiable experiments, only rambling blather and cabbage that glow in the dark.
The imagination is a frightful thing.
Hilarious.
The LV odds makers are slapping hi fives, they win, anger presents no proper replicable testing supporting his 9:19pm comment. Hilarious! 2018 is getting funnier by the anger comment.
ibid.
Mike Flynn says:
You cant even come up with a testable GHE hypothesis.
What’s wrong with this one?
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
or this?
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
Maybe Gordon won’t dodge the questions as you have just done, yet again.
Ball,
Never going to happen, barry. 1st there isnt one. If Gordon could do so, would already be done.
I know.
Accept Gordon is wrong
It’s more interesting to see if Gordon will accept he is wrong.
The difficulty is getting him to realize that he has never provided the credible physics text asked for, and then to ponder why that is. He has a heavy filter on this.
Robertson has a perfect filter. anger has the Romulan cloaking device perfected, MF couldn’t find the GHE if it dropped in his lap, and many Halp-less comments link to a climate sophistry site.
This will continue despite your et. al. best efforts. Sit back and enjoy the comedy more, as anger writes 2018 promises to be topnotch in that regard and anger is currently leading the comedy pack but MF, Halp-less are close behind. Robertson is just unfunny at best. The mundane science experiments are not comedy. Tragedy is when Robertson stubs a toe, comedy is anything anger writes.
anger once thought wrote a comment wrongly, then admitted to having been mistaken.
Gordon seems to have a heavy filter on most of reality.
Ball,
This convo isn’t for self-satisfaction. Asking tough, on-point questions is all that is needed for these guys to expose their inanity. A neutral observer sees them repeatedly dodge, duck and weave. Challenging them helps prevent the spread of their delusion to drop-ins.
There’s also some small interest in observing the methods by which people lie to themselves.
zero, you left out the comedy.
Don’t leave out the comedy. That’s the best part.
anger agrees to keep up the comedic entertainment. Please continue post up no experiments anger, you have a better chance to stay top of the pack in 2018 climate comedy that way. Go for it.
I didn’t realize G was feeling insecure about his comic contribution. I shall try to remember to acknowledge it more often.
g* doesn’t spend so much time here — he’s here every time I check in — for comedy.
Here’s here to validate his viewpoints, but can’t even come close to doing that. So he *pretends* he’s here for “comedy” — it saves face.
Ball4
Thanks. I am wrong to call g*e*r*a*n a Stupid Troll. You have a more complete analysis of this poster. He would, more correctly, be considered Stupid almost funny Troll.
He did come up with the amusing Giant butterfly effect. I was amused with that one. Most of his comedy would be much better if he had some creativity and new material. He is like a kid who said something funny once, got some laughs and keeps repeating the same line over an over because it maybe someone laugh once.
I am glad anger makes you laugh. I think the world would be a better place if we could laugh more and cuss less. Maybe there is something in your anagram of g*e*r*a*n. Anger, if we could have less of this, some world problems may be solvable. Anger seems to prevent problem solutions. Like on Climate Science. I would much more like to get to the heart of the matter and really start to look deeply into the potential from increasing GHG in our atmosphere. Anger jumps into the adult conversations and some really good physics and bogs it down for thousands of posts over the same lines of thought. Basic established heat transfer physics.
Anger gets in the way of important conversation with his angry distractions and stupid physics. If I choose to ignore this idiot, others jump in to try and convince him of his stupidity. It goes on like this for thousands of posts on many threads.
It seems Anger, Zombie Flynn, and delusional Gordon Robertson do achieve the goal of diverting the discussion from valid good scientific debate into angry childish dirt clod fights. I guess that is what they want to do and are successful at it. Yes anger will keep the world immersed in turmoil. The poster lives up to the anagram you have developed for him. Good job Ball4!
“I would much more like to get to the heart of the matter and really start to look deeply into the potential from increasing GHG in our atmosphere.”
You are right, Norman, the comedy routines from discredited commenters are not a source to follow your interest herein. Blogs are not the way forward, just for entertainment. Your best bet Norman is reading the source material best connected to the founding experiments in anything that catches your interest. I have found the bulk of Dr. Bohren’s work is the best for me especially in his inexpensive books full of testing. Generally also in his texts, he provides the original source material so deep that the interested reader can spend a lot time following up.
When someone like anger posts up something you don’t think correct, the time is well spent finding out why from the source material not commenting on blogs. You only have to disprove anger, MF, Robertson et. al. once by test not over and over…and OVER.
Dang, I knew rabies was contagious, but I didn’t know “pounding on a keyboard” was also contagious!
It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy.
barry says:
“Asking tough, on-point questions is all that is needed for these guys to expose their inanity. A neutral observer sees them repeatedly dodge, duck and weave.”
You’re right, of course. By now I’m far more interested in why they’re doing this, as human beings, than in any fake science they offer. It’s fascinating in a way — why would anyone just repeat the same old points, robotically, without even trying to engage in the discussion? What does that get someone? What are their motives (GR, MF and g*)? What are they getting from this forum? It’s obviously not knowledge….
I would love for someone to challenge me on my scientific claims…. It’s why I’m here — to learn. Yet all of these guys refuse to do that and instead lie repeatedly, or have only insults, taking on the persona of clowns, always refusing to be seriouss. I really don’t understand the motives of such people….
I’d be up for a go-round on whether EM radiation *is* heat. To my understanding they are not interchangeable phenomena.
IE, ‘heat’ is a bulk (NET) transfer quantity in modern physics parlance. In the strictest terms (as in the 2nd Law), it only flows from hot to cold.
Whereas radiation can be described as both a NET transfer and a 2-way exchange.
I am aware that practising physicists use these terms, especially ‘heat’, a bit more loosely (less pedantically) in ordinary conversation (and sometimes in formal texts), but that the context will be clear in such discourse that it will not obscure understanding.
You have said, or implied, many times that heat and radiation are the same thing. Unless you are using the terms more loosely that classic definitions, I disagree with you on that. Perhaps a bit of context might clear this up.
“I’d be up for a go-round on whether EM radiation *is* heat.”
Planck dismisses that notion in the experiment he describes at the beginning of his 1912 book, see p. 2 paragraph 2.
“Heat” is transferred energy. It can do work. That’s what radiation is — energy in transfer.
But you’re not the people I was talking about in my comment above….
“Heat is transferred energy.”
Then drop the term heat, always just use transferred energy in heat term’s place. No need to wave the red flag, the bull will still charge you. I challenge you to find a use for heat that cannot be replaced with transferred energy. More precisely transferred KE.
“Heat” and “transferred energy” are the very same thing.
Call either what you want. But clearly EM radiation is heat. It’s ridiculous to deny this — just a meaningless semantics game, a difference without a distinction.
The problem with this nomenclature is that the 2nd Law expressly states that heat MUST flow from hot to cold, absent some external force.
Whereas the 2-way exchange of energy requires no external force.
Skeptics can take your equivalence of heat and energy and quote the second law to ‘prove’ that radiation cannot flow from cold to hot. This lack of distinction muddies the waters.
“But clearly EM radiation is heat.”
Again, NO, experimental evidence demonstrates otherwise.
“This lack of distinction muddies the waters.”
The best way to unmuddy your thinking water is to drop the heat term out of 2LOT. 2LOT properly expressed is about entropy not heat. In the real world every real process increases universe entropy. Once you make that change in thinking water, the muddiness will clear up upon application of 2LOT.
A good example is information tech. where there is no energy transfer but 2LOT still found applicable.
The best way to unmuddy your thinking water is to drop the heat term out of 2LOT
I don’t believe my thinking on this is muddy.
I don’t use the term ‘heat’ when describing radiative transfer, except to affirm the NET flow from hot to cold. I generally use the term energy when describing most thermal activity.
Deliberately divorcing the term ‘heat’ from the 2LoT will give ‘skeptics’ cause to complain of invented physics. I’ve quoted Clausius multiple times, for example.
Why give them such cheap ammunition?
It’s obvious to me that the 2LoT is not violated by 2-way energy transfer, just as it is obvious that the NET flow of heat between 2 bodies of different temperature must be from hot to cold absent some external force.
“IE, ‘heat’ is a bulk (NET) transfer quantity in modern physics parlance.”
“I dont use the term ‘heat’ when describing radiative transfer”
Muddy in that now you write you didn’t mean radiative transfer in writing the first line.
“Why give them such cheap ammunition?”
Avoid using the heat term and Kristian will not jump out of the dark at you, the muddy thinking waters get clear, and you take away ALL the ammo. These debates get whipped up over a thing that doesn’t even exist in nature other than as a measure of the amount of KE in an object.
…just as it is obvious that the NET flow of the amount of KE between 2 bodies of different temperature must be from hot to cold absent some external force.
Deliberately divorcing the term ‘heat’ from the 2LoT increases modern clarity ALL the time.
In Clausius’ day the caloric theory was alive and well. Heat was thought by most to exist in nature other than the measure of the amount of KE in a body. In his book on the Motion of Heat, Clausius starts out with a ref. to an earlier publication stating something like assume heat is motion. I’ll let barry look up the verbatim quote for exercise.
Avoid using the heat term and Kristian will not jump out of the dark at you
I’ve done exactly that. I also encouraged others to do so. Kristian still jumped out of the dark. He complained that I was talking about ‘heat’ even when I used only the term ‘energy’. Even when I rejected the word heat. His real problem is with the term ‘back radiation’, and a belief that people who use it think that the atmosphere is an energy source, and his ‘argument’ is that any temperature-changing activity (eg, insulation) is by definition a thermal process, and cannot be described other than by the classic definition of heat. You could say that the energy state of an object increases, or that its molecules vibrate faster, and Kristian would still say “Aha! You are talking about heat!” Whatever it takes for him to spank anyone with his overweaning pedantry who dares to say that radiation supplied by a cooler object reduces the cooling rate of a warmer object constantly supplied with energy, thereby raising its temperature. Kristian allows for a 2-way exchange of radiation as in the green plate exercise, but we’re not allowed to describe the effect of that radiation on the warmer object. It is verboten, even if you only use the term ‘energy’ throughout.
Ill let barry look up the verbatim quote for exercise.
Switching to the third person = speaking to the gallery. Your contribution is welcome, maestro, but don’t let it go to your head.
To anyone interested, a testable GHE hypothesis might start with an expression of the following type – The Greenhouse Effect is a phenomenon in which . . .
As you can see, statements pointing out that insulators insulate, that gases can both be heated and cooled, are completely pointless.
Without a testable GHE hypothesis (and no such exists, of course), theres obviously nothing to test! This might be delightful to foolish Warmists, but is certainly nothing to do with real science!
Maybe the foolish Warmists represented here could fund the other foolish Warmists playing ever more expensive computer games! Governments are losing interest.
Woe, woe, thrice woe! If nobody funds the GHE, does it really exist?
Cheers,
“…the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
Mike Flynn, May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
David,
What on Earth has my statement to do with the non-existent GHE hypothesis?
Maybe you are suffering from a mental deficit, or do not comprehend English.
Can you point out to anyone who does not inhabit Davidworld where GHE or hypothesis appears? If you have indeed lost some of your marbles, I feel sorry for you, but I have no sympathy whatever.
Keep it up, David. Einstein said that repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome was sign of insanity. Maybe you should try posting the irrelevant Schmidt graph for a change.
Either might help you to avoid admitting that you are completely clueless (at least regarding the location of the never-to-be-found testable GHE hypothesis)! Or you could falsely claim you are here to learn. What is it that you admit you dont know, and wish to learn? See? Rubbish piled on nonsense! Lies, lies, and more lies, I suppose. Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
See what I mean — you immediately back down from the scientific discussion and resort to juvenile insults.
You’re not here to learn and honestly debate, you’re here to evade and insult people.
Why do you do this? I’d really like to understand what that does for you…?
David,
You cant actually point to GHE or hypothesis in what you quoted. Maybe youre referring to the depths of your fantasy without realising it?
We cannot have a scientific discussion – foolish Warmists cannot even produce a testable GHE hypothesis! No science – no discussion, Im sure youll complain that I wont discuss other scientific matters with you. Why should I? You claim to be here to learn, on the one hand, but seem to be telling other people what they know, what they think, and what they have to do to satisfy you!
On the other hand, I need nothing from you, and Im not here to learn. Asking for instruction from a clueless foolish Warmist would seem to be a complete waste of time. Even the US Government has finally accepted the futility of such an approach.
Maybe you can get a real job. Then you wont have to waste your time here!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“The atmosphere is an insulator….”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
June 18, 2017, 3:34 am
David Appell,
Maybe you could point out where my statement contains either GHE or hypothesis.
Well, no you cant. Your clue is still missing. Maybe its hiding with the GHE hypothesis, Trenberths missing heat, and Michael Manns Nobel Prize.
Keep trying, David. Hows your plan to relocate to France with all the other world famous indispensable climatologists, proceeding? Not so well?
I’m not surprised. Foolish Warmist!
Cheers.
GHE = insulator. Just like you explained.
Now you’re trying to act stupid again.
David,
Are you really trying to say there is no GHE, but rather an insulating effect instead?
I see you are starting to learn something, David. Im pleased you are achieving your stated purpose here. Now youve abandoned the silliness of the pretend GHE, we can proceed.
What is it about insulators you wish to learn? We might start by pointing out that insulators provide no heat, and are commonly used to keep things hot, and also keep things cold, in simple terms. Firemen, for example, wear heavily insulating clothes to keep cool.
When you are ready, we can examine why the atmospheres insulating properties allow us to survive on Earth by reducing maximum temperatures. Let me know when you have absorbed the basic principles.
Cheers.
Are you really trying to say there is no GHE, but rather an insulating effect instead?
Describing the GHE as an insulating function is fine. It’s not even a novel idea, as the oft-used and decades-old blanket analogy demonstrates.
we can examine why the atmospheres insulating properties allow us to survive on Earth by reducing maximum temperatures. Let me know when you have absorbed the basic principles.
Basic principles – the Earth is an oblate spheroid. At any one time half of it is receiving solar radiation and the other half is not.
What is it about insulators you wish to learn?
Good on you for offering to help. I have a couple of questions.
Could you calculate the effective radiating temperature of the entire Earth’s surface?
Then do the same with the moon?
Then we can compare the effective radiating temperature for each body over the entire surface, and begin to draw conclusions about the insulative effect of Earth’s atmosphere.
barry,
Answers – no and no. Anyone who claims they can is a loony (or a foolish Warmist). Or maybe both.
I guess you are going to argue with me, showing you dont want to learn, but believe you already know the answer.
Bad luck for you. Youre wrong. Nobody has ever accurately measured the Earths surface temperature – you cant even define the surface unambiguously! You might start rambling on about air temperature, sea temperature, or anything else – except the surface!
Give it a try. You cant do it, any more than you can produce a testable GHE hypothesis. Not my problem – you choose to believe indefinable nonsense, not me.
Cheers.
Mike,
Are you saying you cannot work out the effective radiating temperature of the Earth from radiative principles and thermodynamics?
This has nothing to do with thermometers. It’s pure thermo and radiative transfer in the atmosphere.
I’ll ask again:
Could you calculate the effective radiating temperature of the entire Earths surface?
Then do the same with the moon?
Then we can compare the effective radiating temperature for each body over the entire surface (both night and day), and begin to draw conclusions about the insulative effect of Earths atmosphere.
I’m also interested to learn if the effective radiating temperature of the entire earth’s surface is different from its actual radiating temperature.
Do you happen to know the answer to that?
Poor barry. Now, he’s trying to go way back in time to the 288K-255K pseudoscience.
The Warmists claim the 33K difference is caused by the GHE. Of course, to them, EVERYTHING is caused by the GHE. That’s why we have “climate comedy”.
barry, the 33K diff is caused by the natural heat transfer of Earth’s atmosphere. It’s no secret that any medium produces a temperature gradient. In the case of the atmosphere, that gradient is about 33K. I say “about”, because the actual gradient varies depending on the heat transfer to space.
Now, you can delete, discard, deny the actual science.
It’s fun to watch.
Thanks for the numbers, G. Do you also know the average surface temperature of the moon?
Estimates are available online.
Miserly little G, same old same old.
The estimates I’ve seen put the average surface temperature of the moon as lower than that of the Earth’s.
I wonder if Mike is aware of that? He seems to think the atmosphere of the Earth makes the surface cooler than without an atmosphere.
But he’s incoherent, so I wanted to take it step by step.
Yes barry, the atmosphere does cool the planet. Believing otherwise is part of your continued confusion.
Keep researching the Moon. It does provide some important evidence of how Earth’s systems work together to control temperatures.
Also, the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. Recognition of that fact is a good indication that you can think logically.
Keep working, we’ll get you there.
Wrong; the Moon does rotate about its axis:
“Observers on Earth might notice that the moon essentially keeps the same side facing our planet as it passes through its orbit. This may lead to the question, does the moon rotate? The answer is yes, though it may seem contrary to what our eyes observe.”
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/44-our-solar-system/the-moon/general-questions/110-does-the-moon-rotate-are-there-other-moons-that-always-keep-one-face-toward-their-planet-intermediate
Yeah davie, I got you on the list of “rotators”.
g*e*r*a*n
I did not want to let this bad hand go past.
Above YOU: “What youre missing is that the high temperatures on the Moon reach the boiling point of water. The reason temperatures dont get so high on Earth is due to the cooling provided by the atmosphere. The atmosphere cools the planet, it doesnt heat it.”
Not exactly, the atmosphere does not cool the planet at all, it moves energy around, it will make cooler places warmer and move heat away from hot places and move it toward cooler places. The atmosphere does not cool the planet, it actually makes it a warmer place.
You are right, the atmosphere does not heat the planet. But the Downwelling IR will allow the planet surface to reach a higher average temperature with the same amount of solar input. In other words, Earth’s average (not peak) temperature would be colder without an atmosphere than with one and would be colder if the atmosphere had no GHG to send radiant energy back to the surface. All well established physics. You should read it sometime.
Norman,
One problem might be that the atmosphere prevents 30+% of the solar input from reaching the surface. Do you think the magical one way insulating effects of CO2 spring into action?
You say the atmosphere does not heat the planet, and of course I agree.
So what is heating thermometers on the ground – hottest year EVAH! – and all that?
Magic? Really?
Cheers.
Poor Norm, he has NO understanding of Earth science.
The atmosphere radiates energy to space, 24/7. In that capacity, it cools the planet. It does NOT, in toto, warm the planet.
(With poor Norm, I know that will not help.)
The atmosphere radiates energy to surface, 24/7. In that capacity, it warms the surface above planet brightness temperature. It does NOT, in toto, warm the planet.
There, fixed it for anger. Next?
cabbage head awaits his next fix.
(CH, my recommendation is “Just say NO”.)
When asked to supply a credible physics text asserting that radiation from a cooler (black) body cannot be absorbed by a warmer (black) body, the usual suspects cannot provide.
They refer immediately to the 2nd Law. But the 2nd Law is about heat, not radiation. Gordon Robertson has made it clear that radiation and heat are not the same. So why does he equate them on this?
Gathering together various physics texts confirming that radiation from cooler bodies is absorbed by warmer bodies (and vise versa), and that the NET flow of heat here is always hot to cold:
Clausius:
THE MECHANICAL THEORY OF HEAT
SECTION XII
The concentration of heat and light beams and the limits of their effect.
1. Subject of the investigation.
Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog
P 295.
Pretty clear that Clausius is saying that ‘heat’ (we’d call it radiative energy) is mutually exchanged between objects of different temperature, and that the NET result is that the heat flows from the hotter to the colder object.
He says similar things elsewhere:
In the first place, the principle [2nd Law of thermodynamics] implies that in the immediate interchange of heat between two bodies by conduction and radiation, the warmer body never receives more heat from the colder one than it imparts to it.
4th Memoir
http://www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html
‘Heat'(radiative energy) is mutually interchanged between two objects of different temperature, but the flow of heat is always from hot to cold.
This is consistent.
Do we have any modern texts on the same principle? Yep. This is a physics text from an ENGINEERING website:
“The sun and the Earth both radiate heat towards each other. This seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot flow from a cold body to a hot body. The paradox is resolved by the fact that each body must be in direct line of sight of the other to receive the radiation from it. Therefore, whenever the cool body is radiating heat to the hot body, the hot body must be radiating heat to the cool body. Since the hot body radiates more heat (due to its higher temperature) than the cold body, the NET flow of heat is from hot to cols and the second law is still satisfied.”
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/black_body_radiation.htm
Perfectly in accord with what Clausius has said.
Do we have some maths pertaining to the 2-way flow of energy from a credible physics source? Yes, we do, from MIT, for example.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
Do we have some maths from a credible physics source accounting for 2-way exchanges of energy from bodies at different temperature, and summing them to get the NET heat transfer? Yes, we do.
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
From Clausius to the present day, we have clear statements and equations of 2-way energy transfer leading to a NET heat transfer in one direction (hot to cold).
These are just a few of the links to credible physics sources corroborating the notion that radiative exchange is a 2-way phenomenon, and that warmer bodies do indeed absorb radiation energy from cooler bodies.
When asked for credible physics texts corroborating that:
1) A black body cannot absorb radiation from a cooler black body (g*e*r*a*n)
2) Warm objects cannot absorb radiation from cooler objects (Gordon)
None are supplied. Ever. And that’s after several months of asking.
The above physics texts are clear. Proponents of 1) and 2) can either pony up some credible physics texts corroborating, or admit that none such exist, and that these claims are spurious.
That is what someone with intellectual integrity would do. Behold…
Norman,
For someone who can’t even produce any hypothesis relating to what they blather on about at such length, you have the ability to deny , divert, and confuse developed to a level of utter stupidity!
Next thing you will be trying to say that a reduction in the rate of cooling is the same thing as warming (that is, a rise in temperature).
Nope. Maybe your clue is keeping David Appells missing clue company. That makes two clueless foolish Warmists!
Are you really so dim, or are you just pretending?
There is no GHE – not even a GHE hypothesis.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“There is no GHE not even a GHE hypothesis.”
Here again — Flynn repeats the same old dumb thing, even though he himself has already admitted there is a GHE.
Why do you do this? What is the fun is simply negation, without explanation of the science?
What is the fun is repeating the same old sentences, without caring about the answers? What does that accomplish for you?
David,
I wont accuse you of lying. I assume that your delusional condition means that you cannot distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality.
Trying to tell others what you think I think might make you look quite demented, but others can decide as they wish.
There is no GHE. Such a thing only exists in your fantasy, unless you can actually produce it, and of course you cant. Neither can anyone else.
Your clue remains missing in action. Maybe it has been stolen by another similarly clueless foolish Warmist.
Keep at it. Remember Im here to help.
Cheers.
MF: You’ve already written what you think, so no one has to guess:
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
Next thing you will be trying to say that a reduction in the rate of cooling is the same thing as warming (that is, a rise in temperature).
When the rate of cooling is reduced from a body receiving constant energy input, that body warms.
In this context, yes, reduction in rate of cooling = warming.
No barry, a “reduction in the rate of cooling” is NOT “warming”. “Warming” requires an increase in temperature.
Sheesh, next the Warmists will be calling “cooling”, “warming”.
Oh, I guess they’ve already attempted that
Silly quibble. A reduction in the rate of cooling of a body that receives a continuous energy input causes the temperature of that body to rise = warming.
Now you’re getting it.
Same position I’ve maintained all along, with you too blinded by ideology to see. I just can’t figure out if you’re lying to the board (despicable) or to yourself (sad).
You would really go rabid if you ever found out that I’m not lying. (You’re being lied to, but those voices in your head are not mine.)
Honesty is not proved by claim but by demonstration.
Your failure to demonstrate honesty is your problem, G.
But barry, what if you can’t recognize honesty?
Behold…
Mike steps up to the plate and… calls me Norman.
It’s all downhill from there.
barry,
How do you know I was referring to you? On the other hand, maybe I was – one clueless foolish Warmist is generally indistinguishable from another clueless foolish Warmist.
Unfortunately for your fantasy, the Earth does not have a constant internal energy input. This is why it has cooled for billions of years, whether you want to believe it or not!
Even the Earths surface does not have a constant energy input, contrary to the brightly coloured NASA graphics! The seasons illustrate the variability of energy input during one orbit around the Sun.
In any particular location, the temperature varies during the day, which is why clueless foolish Warmists start blathering about the miracle of averages – they cant face facts and cant even specify what they are actually trying to say!
Foolish Warmist – no testable GHE hypothesis, all you have is faith and fantasy!
Cheers.
The constant energy input for the Earth is the Sun. Small fluctuations, but it shines continuously. Have you seen it there in the sky?
barry,
I see it alright.
The sun shines continuously, Unfortunately for you, the Earth orbits the Sun in a less than circular orbit.
Still no GHE, is there? Maybe you can complain about overcoats, or cancer or some similar nonsense.
What you can’t actually dig up, is a testable GHE hypothesis. You might not appreciate how foolish this make you appear, but my care factor about your silliness is approximately zero.
Try something else? Maybe deny , divert, and confuse might work. Anything to avoid addressing the fact fact that a testable GHE hypothesis is nowhere to be found!
So sad, too bad – no more dollars for the climate clowns.
Cheers.
MF-er, OK, when you get finished destroying the EPA Dragon, you can zero out funding to NASA, as every satellite is designed based on IR transmission theories. We won’t need the Energy Department either, since those coal and NG powered electric generating plants are also designed using IR theory. And, NOAA won’t be needed to predict weather, as their work is also based on forecast models using IR theory. Then, we won’t need the Air Force, as their missiles are designed using IR theory, especially those heat seeking missiles for attacking other aircraft and the instruments for finding ground targets to obliterate.
It looks like Drs. Spencer and Christy would be out of business too, since their instruments are also based on long wave length microwave EM energy emitted thermally by the atmosphere using the same theories as those IR emissions for the GHE. Besides, without NOAA, NASA and other government customers, who would need all those monthly temperature updates?
swannie, you must have missed “no more dollars for climate clowns”.
“Climate clowns” would be referring to those that put out nonsense, often in an attempt to mislead people.
It’s very similar to your comment…
E. Swanson,
Just because you cant produce a testable GHE hypothesis, you lurch off into a perfect lather of deny, divert, and confuse!
Maybe you could be courteous enough to quote what I actually wrote, instead of attempting to destroy an army of strawmen which you ludicrously constructed.
Im not sure what the EPA Dragon is – some secret climatological mythical beast? As to much of the rest of what you said, I make two points.
The first is that the interaction between light and matter (including the infrared spectrum) is obviously beyond your understanding.
The second is that the US Government seems to be ridding itself of absurdities such as climate change due to GHGs, and the parts of NASA making delusional and completely useless computer games at great cost, will probably be discarded in favour of something useful. Even the US Defence department has apparently taken climate change off their list of threats.
Indeed, who needs all the monthly temperature updates? A completely pointless waste of time, unless you are the type of loony who believes they can predict the future by detailed examination of the past!
Still no GHE. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. Just ever more strident nonsensical declarations and assertions!
Cheers.
The sun shines continuously, Unfortunately for you, the Earth orbits the Sun in a less than circular orbit.
Still no GHE, is there?
There are seasons, therefore no GHG?
Lord, you are incoherent…
What you cant actually dig up, is a testable GHE hypothesis.
… and blind. I provided numerous hypotheses upthread, all tested, for the GHE and the enhanced GHE.
Not through any cleverness of my own – most of these hypotheses were minted by researchers well before the observations to test them arrived and verified them.
How do you know I was referring to you?
Your reply was directly beneath my post that began this sub-thread. Norman hasn’t commented in this sub-thread. I can accept you simply posted in the wrong place. Would saying so kill you?
Barry
You might want to add this to the list of unsupported, idiotic assertions:
1a) A black body that receives energy from a heat source cannot absorb radiation from another black body with the same temperature if it comes from the opposite direction as the energy from the heat source (g*e*r*a*n)
That was his explanation for why rhe blue plate could not absorb energy from the green plate, even if they were the same temperature (as seen in his diagram).
Faced with no other way to attempt to discredit me, the 12-year-old resorts to misrepresenting my example and words.
Pure desperation.
It’s fun to watch.
His confusing heat with radiation is at least consistent in its wrongness.
barry,
I take your response to mean that you didnt actually mean what you wrote. You were guessing, but presenting your guess as fact.
Typical foolish Warmist stuff.
Then you go on to imply that I should apologise because you are stupid.
No. You make a mistake, your choice if you feel like admitting. Maybe you will be more precise with your language next time.
Foolish Warmists treat guesses, assumptions and predictions as fact. I dont.
Cheers.
Into clear waters you pour buckets of mud. You can wade through that muck by yourself.
barry,
Deny, divert and confuse, much?
Cheers.
Yes. You do.
barry, in his confusion, continues to evade: “When asked to supply a credible physics text asserting that radiation from a cooler (black) body cannot be absorbed by a warmer (black) body, the usual suspects cannot provide.”
barry, you lack the basics to understand. You would have to be able to process both facts, and logic. There is no evidence you can do that.
For interested readers, there are two parts to understanding: 1) A black body is an imaginary concept; and 2) A black body is NOT a license to violate 2LoT.
barry, and his ilk, desire to use an imaginary concept, and violate 2LoT, to support their failed GHE pseudoscience.
It’s fun to watch.
“barry, and his ilk, desire to use an imaginary concept, and violate 2LoT, to support their failed GHE pseudoscience.”
Faced with no other way to attempt to discredit the science such as an experiment, anger resorts to misrepresenting the examples and words. Pure desperation. But its fun to watch.
CH, your cabbages still don’t glow in the dark, a race care still doesn’t complete a lap while it is in “spinout”, and there still is no GHE.
Sorry.
But your non-sensical comments, while banal and unoriginal, add a touch of revealing silliness.
Keep it up, please.
g*e*r*a*n_a_mo, Ever heard of a solar oven? Place chopped cabbage in a bowl within a solar oven, set it out into the sunlight for an appropriate time, and the cabbage will be cooked.
Enjoy!
swannie, ever heard of a “tangent”?
g*e*r*a*n_a_mo, My solar oven analogy is a heck of a lot closer to reality than your rotten cabbage sitting in a Black Hole…
swannie demonstrates what worms can do to a person’s head.
E Swanson,
What has a solar oven to do with the non-existent GHE? Precisely nothing, which is why you throw it into the discussion, I assume.
Maybe you could blather about the tobacco industry, the plight of the homeless, the reasons why Hillary Clinton should have become President, or any number of things which have nothing to do with the fact that the GHE doesnt actually exist.
On the other, maybe producing a few irrelevant and pointless analogies in an attempt to disguise the fact that you cant even produce a testable GHE hypothesis might work.
Or maybe not. What do you think?
Cheers.
For interested readers, there are two parts to understanding: 1) A black body is an imaginary concept; and 2) A black body is NOT a license to violate 2LoT.
For interested readers, g*e*r*a*n has stated that a warm black body cannot absorb any radiation from a cooler black body.
When pressed to corroborate this notion – against the fact that black bodies are contrived as perfect absorbers of all radiation incident on them – he reminds the world that they are theoretical constructs.
Demonstrating that he doesn’t understand the theoretical construct he himself uses.
And that he’s dodgy af.
He also doesn’t seem to realize that radiation and heat (in the classic sense) are not equivalent, and treats them as if they are the same quantity when drawing a line from them both to the 2nd Law – which applies to the classic definition of heat only.
He also never troubles himself to answer these challenges.
barry,
You obviously know precisely zero about what Richard Feynman (who actually received a real Noble Prize, unlike the fake one which Michael Mann aware himself) described as quantum electrodynamics.
If you did, you wouldnt say some of the silly things you do.
Many supposedly well educated scientists know little about quantum physics generally, preferring to avoid the difficulty of accepting some of the stranger aspects of the quantum world. Particles being waves and vice versa, photons having precisely no rest mass, but having finitely variable momentum.
You cant define radiation or heat in any unambiguous fashion – give it a try you like. You might choose to be careful, because theres always a faint possibility that youll wind up looking foolish!
Once youve managed to cope with odd things such as Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle, or the Pauli Exclusion Principle, you might move onto chaos theory. Even the IPCC grudgingly accepts chaos, and acknowledge that this make the prediction of future climate states impossible – the IPCCs words.
So carry on about green plates, blue plates and all the rest of the nonsense. Maybe you can find evidence of Schmidts Rule, or the Mann principle, but I doubt it. The whole climatological edifice is form without substance, based on nothing but delusional thinking.
All you need to consider, I suppose, is whether people take more notice of you or me. What do you think?
Cheers.
Again, none of what you said responds to anything I said.
Do you spin a wheel of skeptic talking points when you post? That would explain the list of random topics you float in response to anything.
Try responding to what is actually said. It is the usual way people have conversations.
Better yet, provide a credible physics text that specifically states that black bodies absorb no radiation from cooler black bodies.
That’s what I was talking about. That’s g*e*r*a*n’s claim. Does Feynman corroborate this specific point? Pauli? Heisenberg?
No, they do not. Because they all know how black bodies are contrived to operate.
Poor barry. He doesn’t understand the purpose of an imaginary concept, a “black body”.
Such imaginary concepts are often used in physics/engineering classes to make understanding easier. For example, in early circuit analysis, a component is often considered perfect. No such component exists in reality, but it makes learning easier.
That’s not a problem.
The problem begins when people, with no background in physics, take the imaginary concept and try to apply it to the real world.
And, it gets worse when they try to use the imaginary concept to violate the laws of science.
But, it’s fun to watch.
If you cannot understand how a simple theoretical construct works –
when every definition on the net is available to to you – you have no hope with reality.
The definition of a black body:
“Blackbody, in physics, a surface that absorbs all radiant energy falling on it”
https://www.britannica.com/science/blackbody
“A black body is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
Exactly the same definition is given by various university physics courses:
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~paz.beniamini/TA1quant_mech.pdf
https://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/273/Resources/lec05.pdf
http://www.lehman.edu/faculty/anchordoqui/300_7.pdf
g*e*r*a*n’s definition:
Black bodies absorb radiant energy – unless the energy source is a colder black body
G believes that theoretical black bodies cannot absorb radiation if the frequency is higher than the rate at which the black body emits radiation.
G simply makes up physics to suit his view. When challenged, he lamely contests that a black body is a theoretical construct – as if this excuses his ignorance on how they operate.
Hilarious.
barry, you remind me of some others on this blog. You go find links that you believe support your beliefs, then you “rearrange” my comments, and you call that “science”.
You’re hilariously desperate.
You believed your blue/green plate example would prove your pseudoscience. It made you mad when it blew up in your face. You still haven’t settled down. You are lashing out, snipping and snapping, trying to save your failed beliefs.
Don’t worry, we here to help you.
Boisterous barry bombards us with more hilarious climate comedy.
He doesn’t get to use his imaginary concept, and violate 2LoT, to prove his imaginary GHE!
And, he flails wildly, desperately throwing slurs in every direction
It’s fun to watch.
Jabbering g*e*r*a*n’s juvenile gesticulations generate enjoyment.
Reckless realization of radiation realities wrecks rational replies.
63, by the way.
He doesnt get to use his imaginary concept
‘Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to decieve’
Kirchov invented black bodies, not me. The problem is not with how they work, but with you not knowing how they work.
Let’s up the count.
Please provide a credible physics text corroborating your claim that black bodies cannot absorb radiation from cooler black bodies.
Or be honest and admit you can’t.
It’s “Kirchhoff”. But, maybe the spelling is different in pseudoscience.
(And please keep me updated on the “count”. I plan to celebrate on every multiple of 10.)
64
64 refusals to corroborate your ‘alternative fact’.
6 more sleeps till you can pop your fantasy bubbly in fantasy land.
“Please provide a credible physics text corroborating your claim that black bodies cannot absorb radiation from cooler black bodies.”
Typically ideal black bodies would absorb sunlight and emit
IR.
Can a black body absorb IR and emit sunlight?
Perfect, gbaikie!
“Can a black body absorb IR and emit sunlight?”
A black body absorbs everything by definition, including IR.
It emits “sunlight” it has the temperature of the sun.
The sun spectrum is close to a 5800 K black body.
Svante, where can I purchase one of those?
Charcoal from your supermarket is about 97% of a BB.
On the other hand, adding emissivity does not change the plate argument.
Svante, I don’t want any real-world charcoal. I want a black body, as used in pseudoscience. You know, one of those perfect emitter/absorber/insulator/heat source gizmos, capable of violating 2LoT.
Where can I get one?
Svante svfails us svAGAIN!
Svhilarous.
“one of those perfect emitter/absorber/insulator/heat source gizmos, capable of violating 2LoT.”
Ask the artist that made this:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
Note how there is net energy flowing between plates of the same temperature dodging the 2LoT.
Note how the left plate is a perfect emitter and still absorbs nothing dodging Kirchoff’s law.
Note that there is no difference in temperature between sun and shade, so you can throw away your sun parasol.
Wow, that is a great graphic. I should probably use it for more T-shirts.
Ka-ching.
But you’re confused in your interpretation of the graphic. There is no violation of 2LoT. The temperatures of the plates is caused by the energy flow. The plate temperatures are not causing the energy flow. The energy flow causes the temperatures.
It can be confusing, if you don’t understand thermo.
Now, if you want to see violations of the laws, go to the incorrect solution.
“There is no violation of 2LoT.”
Incorrect anger. A blue plate surface albedo of 1.0 as shown in 6c3 violates 2LOT since universe entropy does not increase in such a process. See the correct solution for no violations where universe entropy is shown to increase in steady state per 2LOT & no energy is created nor destroyed per 1LOT.
The correct solution is also supported by reasonable experiment unlike 6c3.
Great pseudoscience!
Cabbages will be impressed.
6c3 is climate comedy that keeps you at the top of the list for 2018 anger, more hilarious! comments and arrows please. There is no hope for your 6c3 solution after obviously violating 2LOT, keep it up, your incorrect science is entertainment at a level that can be award winning year after year.
tricky, you might want to look up the word “incoherent”.
If you have time, “dysfunctional” would be another good word to learn.
Glad to help.
No need, anger, I’ve learned those terms from your antics around here. Keep working hard for that 2018 climate comedy nomination anger, you are deserving enough.
Care to comment Dr. Spencer?
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/01/my-climate-forecast-from-three-years-ago/
“Here were Dr. Spencers predictions from January, 2017.
I expect there will soon be a revised TLT product from RSS which shows enhanced warming, too.
Heres what Im predicting:
1) neither John Christy nor I will be asked to review the paper
2) it will quickly sail through peer review (our UAH V6 paper is still not in print nearly 1 year after submission)
3) it will have many authors, including climate model people and the usual model pundits (e.g. Santer), which will supposedly lend legitimacy to the new data adjustments.
Lets see how many of my 3 predictions come true.
-Roy
Mr. Heller can’t understand/accept the possibility that the UAH data is the source of the problem. My analysis shows that most of the difference between UAH, RSS and NOAA STAR is due to a secular cooling in the UAH data relative to the others which appears during the MSU instrument period. The new UAH v6 processing treats the MSU data differently than that from the later AMSU data. Why did they do that and why does a similar difference appear between the UAH v6 and the previous UAH v5.6?
E. Swanson,
Your analysis is a completely pointless waste of time, unless you can show otherwise.
Secular cooling might sound oh-so-sciency, but secular means not connected with religious or spiritual matters. Maybe you are referring to cooling as a fact, rather than temperature nonsense emanating form members of the Climate Cult?
The Earth seems to have cooled for four and a half billion years. This fact may have escaped your rigorous examination of past temperatures.
Still no GHE is there? Just a figment of the imagination of a ragtag collection of people suffering from a shared delusion.
Cheers.
The Earth was quite a bit warmer until around 3.3 MA, after which the present period of mostly Ice Age conditions began. It’s thought that this change was the result of the closure of the Isthmus of Panama, which resulted in the accumulation of salt in the North Atlantic and a stronger AMOC/Thermohaline circulation. As a result, it’s likely that the earlier periods of warmth may not be a good analog for a warmer future. The present Holocene is rather like the previous interglacial, the Eemian, which dates roughly to between 130,000 BP and 119,000 BP. Studies have pointed to a possible return to Ice Age conditions as the result of increased melt waters added to the subpolar North Atlantic, which could cause a shutdown of the TMC in the area. Several model studies have shown that a shutdown of the THC would be the result of increasing additions of greenhouse gases. The so-called Great Salinity Anomaly may have been an early warning of our future, indeed the recent cooling observed in the Western high latitude North Atlantic is consistent with these projections.
E Swanson,
Many sciency words providing zero utility. What are you trying to say?
When the Earths surface was molten, it was certainly hotter than now. When the first liquid water was formed, it was certainly hotter. It is not as hot now, which would be obvious to anyone except a deluded foolish Warmist.
Facts are facts. Results of climatological models are not. Nor are unsubstantiated foolish Warmist assumptions.
Saying It is thought . . ., or Its likely . . ., or Several model studies . . . merely show that you really havent a clue, in my view. Maybe you are just trying to deny, divert and confuse.
Have you a testable GHE hypothesis? Do you really believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter? Yay! Perpetual motion!
I have heard of Simple Simon – are you perhaps related? – Simple Swanson?
If you think I am having a laugh at your expense, you would be right!
Cheers.
RAH,
On 3), the paper took 9 months from the day it was received to be published.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1
Oops, that refers to 2).
It didn’t pass first peer review, and its final form was submitted 7 months after the first submission.
3) it will have many authors, including climate model people and the usual model pundits (e.g. Santer), which will supposedly lend legitimacy to the new data adjustments.
It has 2 authors, Wentz and Mears from RSS.
At best, 1 out of 3 predictions may have come to pass. Dr Spencer can answer number 1).
barry,
Just goes to show how hard it is to make accurate predictions – particularly where the future is concerned.
Climatological predictions so far have precisely zero utility. I can make useless predictions for far less cost. So can you. Even Ben Santer is claiming that climate science is being devalued and dismissed at the highest levels. And a jolly reasonable course to take. Santer and his ilk have been milking the taxpayers for all they are worth for years!
Good luck to them, but sometimes your run of luck comes to an end, when funders realise you have provided precisely nothing of benefit to man or beast. Scientific research is more than endlessly averaging historical figures, and calling it climate science. What tosh!
Keep up with the ad hominems – maybe you can convince the US Govt to grovel at the feet of self styled climatologists afflicted with delusional psychosis again. I wouldnt bet on it , though.
Cheers.
What have climatology, taxes, averaged historical figures and the US govt to do with the timing and authorship of RSS version 4?
Nothing.
Keep spinning that wheel. Maybe by chance one day it will come to rest on a talking point that has something to do with the conversation.
Alternatively, reply to the points as they are stated. It’s how normal people converse.
barry,
What are the points to which you seek answers?
You intimate you wish me to reply to something unstated, as is the usual foolish Warmist practice.
Foolish Warmists cannot state the basis on which they claim their pseudo-science is based, so are reduced to complaint about the failed predictions of others! It is a bit rich, don’t you think?
Maybe you could rebut some of Dr Spencers points in his article, or even discuss why there is no testable GHE hypothesis. Or you could attempt to deny, divert, and confuse by complaining about someones inability to peer into the unknown future!
Do you still believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises the temperature of thermometers on the ground? Or are claims of Hottest year EVAH really based on delusional thinking?
Cheers.
What are the points to which you seek answers?
I wasn’t here asking any questions. Learn to read.
I provided information. None of which you responded to.
Go back and read my posts (Post 1, Post 2 and see if you have anything to add to the information provided.
But what you will actually do if you reply is to keep changing the topic to whatever is whirling around in your solipsistic head.
barry,
Im not sure what you think I should respond to. Are you demanding I reply to you? Why should I add anything to anything you might post?
Too many questions, I know.
As to your demand that I learn to read, Ill ignore it. I seem to manage.
How are you going with the mad idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere raises the temperatures of thermometers? Or is global warming nothing to do with either heat, CO2 or thermometers?
You cant actually clearly state what it is you believe in, it would seem.
Do you think you could provide a copy of the testable GHE hypothesis which you claim to have. Maybe you could give one to NASA, and another to the IPCC. Both organisations appear to have lost theirs.
They seem to think they dont need no stinkin science – climatology is too special.
With supporters such as yourself, theyll keep thinking so, until the money runs out.
Cheers.
Idiot.
More “advanced climate science” from barry.
I had to double-check that you name was on the top of the article. It is really unprofessional considering you are climate scientist.
From time to time I review articles and blog comments concerning the polemic caused by Gerlich and Tscheuchner 10 years ago, especially due to Gerhard Kramm’s ridiculous trials to defend their position on the base of a mathematical detail probably he didn’t understand even until today.
And exactly in such a Kramm comment I discovered one more time a spicy hint concerning our Moon’s rotation:
Anonymous said…
…
let me quote you: ‘Kramm neglects to point out that this pretty well is what happens on the moon and cannot happen on a rotating earth.’
Are you kidding? The earth’s moon is rotating, too. The moon’s angular velocity is slower than that of the earth (roughly a factor of 28).
…
Gerhard Kramm
6/5/09 9:28 PM
Is that not pretty good: a pure denialist like this Kramm guy telling g*e*r*a*n that the Moon very well rotates?
B,
And this relates to the non-existent GHE in what manner?
I might point out that you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer on the surface, makes the thermometer hotter!
Peak stupidity, or what?
Ah, perpetual motion as result of free energy in our lifetime – not!
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
Open a bottle of some good red wine, Flynn, and drink, drink, drink, till you get unable to write your cranky nonsense.
That’s the best you can do for all of us.
B,
And yet, you still cant even describe the GHE in unambiguous scientific term, can you? No wonder you can’t find a testable GHE anywhere! It doesnt exist!
Its not my fault that youre so gullible that you believe in fantasy. It wont help blaming me for your inability to distinguish fact from fantasy, will it?
So explain what the GHE is, how it works, how it may be tested by reproducible experiment, and maybe someone can develop an appropriate theory.
Only joking. You can’t, and neither can anyone else. Give it a try if you wish – you might be the first. You might even get a real Nobel Prize, not the imaginary one which Michael Mann awarded himself!
Foolish Warmist – attacking me wont help. Attempting to deny, divert and confuse only works for a limited period. Even Governments are slowly seeing the light, and steadily reintroducing fact in place of fiction. Possibly sad for you, but true nevertheless.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“So explain what the GHE is….”
You answered that months ago:
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
Barry,
You wrote –
“Mike,
Are you saying you cannot work out the effective radiating temperature of the Earth from radiative principles and thermodynamics?
This has nothing to do with thermometers. Its pure thermo and radiative transfer in the atmosphere.
Ill ask again:
Could you calculate the effective radiating temperature of the entire Earths surface?
Then do the same with the moon?
Then we can compare the effective radiating temperature for each body over the entire surface (both night and day), and begin to draw conclusions about the insulative effect of Earths atmosphere.
You must be cloth eared. I told you neither I nor anybody else could perform such a task (and in all likelihood will never be able to).
You seem horribly confused, You mention pure thermo and radiative transfer, but of course you can’t actually explain what your sciency folderol means.
You may draw as many conclusions as you like based on fantasy claims of people claiming to perform impossible tasks! Self styled climatologists cannot even agree on the supposed average temperature of the Earths surface, which is supremely nonsensical anyway, considering that more than 99% of the Earths volume consists of molten rock.
Foolish Warmists figure that this is irrelevant. Yeah, right! About as stupid as claiming when the Earths surface was molten, the temperature could be calculated by your pure thermo and radiative transfer. Mind you youd have to recalculate after the surface cooled enough fo the first water to for, and so on. Damned inconvenient – youd need a new model, wouldnt you?
Foolish Warmist – you havent a clue, have you? Your clue has gone missing – probably hiding with the other missing foolish Warmist clues, Trenberths missing heat, and Mike Manns Noble Prize! Keep trying – maybe the missing testable GHE hypothesis will be found at the same time you eventually get a clue.
Have you tried wishin and ahopin’?
Cheers.
A simple, “No, I can’t,” would have sufficed.
You win the prize for irrelevancy. It’s a competitive field on this blog, so congratulations.
barry,
You may have noticed I don’t care what you think. You may tell what would have sufficed or not, and I will ignore your sage advice if I feel like it. Fair enough?
Thank you for your congratulations. Ill treasure them forever.
And if you believe that, you are even more gullible than I thought.
Still no GHE to be found. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis – I suppose foolish Warmists consider actual science to be a supreme irrelevancy!
Keep giving advice, if you wish. I will keep ignoring it, if I feel so inclined.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“You may have noticed I dont care what you think.”
Yet he keeps coming back to see what you’ve said.
MF isn’t known for his depth.
You may have noticed I dont care what you think
I’ve noticed that you don’t understand what I write.
Your answers are solipsistic – it’s all about you and your list of ‘thoughts’.
I do not know if there is a cure for that.
barry,
Maybe you could supply my list of thoughts, as you put it. Others might find it enlightening.
You are really clueless, arent you? Do you really believe you can read minds?
Cheers
Your mantras?
“Still no GHE”
“CO2 can’t warm a thermometer”
“A cold object cannot heat a warmer object.”
Just to name a few.
None of these have anything to do with the posts I’ve been making recently, to which you’ve been replying.
When in reply to my posts you don’t address them, I’m not interested in addressing your red herrings. And I can see from your interactions upthread that when your points are addressed you duck and weave and repeat the mantras.
Your going to have to do much better than this if you want a conversation with me.
8 hypotheses on the GHE and enhanced GHE.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/?replytocom=282300#respond
Tested and corroborated.
Eight of them. All tested/measured and corroborated, consistent with enhanced GHE.
See if you can handle more than 2.
barry,
You cant even provide one, can you?
You could always give it a try, just in case anybody might agree with me that you havent got a clue. Foolish Warmist pseudo-science writ large, so to speak.
Just look, you say, we are so clever that we have multiple hypotheses! Super scientific! But they are all in use at the moment, so we cant actually show you one.
You cant even find one, just one, testable GHE hypothesis, so you immediately try to deny, divert and confuse by leaping to another bizarre level – the enhanced GHE! Not just any old GHE, but the new advanced model enhanced GHE.
You dont even know what the GHE is supposed to be. You cant define it, and neither can anybody else. Not surprising, because there is no such effect. CO2 cannot make thermometers hotter, regardless of how much you might think that a ragtag collection of delusional foolish Warmists might agree.
Dont you think it odd that none of these self appointed climate scientists can say what it is they are claiming needs research? Have a look at NASA for example. NASA is totally confused – at one time talking about a blanket round the Earth, at another time just saying that it is warming (not even heating, youll note) that results from heat trapping (whatever that is supposed to mean. Oh well, thats what happens when governments get sucked into believing delusional hucksters!
So, out of your plethora of hypotheses – and Im unsure why you would need more than one – would it be too much trouble for you to copy and paste just one?
Cheers.
MF wrote:
“You dont even know what the GHE is supposed to be. You cant define it, and neither can anybody else”
I’ve done this for you several times.
But like a bot you ignore them all.
You’re boring.
You really are dense. The link to 8 hypotheses is just above.
Self styled climatologists cannot even agree on the supposed average temperature of the Earths surface, which is supremely nonsensical anyway, considering that more than 99% of the Earths volume consists of molten rock.
What incoherent rambling.
Firstly, the upper quarter of the mantle is mostly solid rock, so your figure is wrong. 99% of the Earth’s volume is from the top of the mantle inwards.
Secondly, while this contributes very little to the surface temperature, one can also calculate the effective radiating temp of the surface by thermodynamics and radiative transfer (no thermometers) while incorporating heat generated from the Earth’s interior.
A question for you: what is the temperature of Earth’s core?
Another question: what is the temperature of the sun, whether surface or total?
Assuming you know the answers, how do you imagine these values arise when there are no thermometers to record them?
barry,
Would I be right in assuming you are not seeking knowledge, but rather seeking an argument?
Have you attempted to find the answers to your questions, or are you just posing gotchas, trying to catch me out?
I notice you havent challenged my assumption that more than 99% of the Earths volume is molten rock, so Im not sure what you are objecting to. The crust is the non molten part, the outermost layer. Far less than 99% by volume.
You cant calculate the temperature of the surface, be it effective radiating temperature (whatever you imagine that to be – why not use the word temperature?) or any sort of temperature with your magical use of thermodynamics and radiative transfer (whatever you imagine that to mean).
Just a whole lot of sciency sounding words that you cant actually define.
So. are you really admitting that you cant find out whether the interior of the Earth is molten based on available geophysical knowledge, and that you are really interested in finding out what the bizarre total temperature of the Sun is.
Possibly its Al Gores millions of degrees (his estimation of the Earths core temperature) multiplied by your inability to find a testable GHE hypothesis?
in any case, I assume you are trying for a pathetic sort of gotcha, and will lambaste me for not complying with your demands. Lambaste away – I think I can take it.
Cheers.
barry,
Your link is to nothing of use, is it? Just more nonsense. You cant bring yourself to actually provide assistance when asked. Such as one, just one, valid testable GHE hypothesis!
Just more obfuscation and unhelpfulness. Go on – hide your eight testable GHE hypotheses. Dont imagine I will burst into tears at your brilliance, foolish Warmist. You have nothing. No GHE. No science. No answers. Just the delusion that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter!
A quite mad assertion, but the sort of nonsense that foolish Warmists apparently believe.
Cheers
Here’s the link to 8 hypotheses, tested an corroborated.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-282302
Mistakenly copied the comment link beneath the post before.
Oh, that? I thought maybe you had some new pseudoscience.
Of the “8”, the ones about CO2 absorbing and emitting could all be one. But still doesn’t imply any surface warming. The rest could all be explained by ocean oscillations.
So, nothing of value, if you are wanting CO2 to boil the planet.
Next?
barry, your link does not work for me. And. I want to see your 8 hypotheses of the GHE.
As you know, I love climate comedy!
barry…”Can you explain Clausius phrase simultaneous double heat exchange between hot and cold bodies?”
I have explained it several times using the words of Clausius.
He stated that heat cannot BY IT’S OWN MEANS be transferred from a colder body to a warmer body. Later he claimed it can NEVER be transferred cold to hot BY IT”S OWN MEANS.
Then he went on to explain how it is possible to transfer heat IN A TWO WAY EXCHANGE provided compensation is provided, as in a refrigerator or air conditioner. Your reference to a two way exchange is a reference to the compensated form of heat transfer as in a refrigerator.
Yes, heat can be transferred two ways provided you supply an external compensation. In a refrigerator that is done by means of electrical power, a compressor, a condenser, and an evaporator.
In the atmosphere, where none of that is available, heat can NEVER be transferred from a cooler region to a warmer surface. With the two-way radiation you have offered, radiation in one direction, cold to hot is not allowed.
Gordon,
Clausius expressly states that this is regarding the “ordinary radiation of heat.”
Read the beginning of the chapter and see for yourself.
https://archive.org/details/mechanicaltheor03claugoog – page 295
“Again as regards the ordinary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only do hot bodies radiate to cold but also cold bodies conversely to hot; nevertheless, the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter.”
Clausius is in fact qualifying that the NET transfer of energy is hot to cold, even though energy is transferred both ways. It’s not about heat engines reversing the effects at all. Which is obvious because he affirms the NET result is hot to cold, not the other way around.
If you can’t see this, you are incapable of reading properly. Simple as that.
barry,
I suppose thats why microwave radiation goes through cardboard or many other things without being absorbed at all.
It should explain why IR goes through IR lenses of totally opaque germanium which may be either hotter or colder than the bodies emitting IR.
Or maybe why the interaction between light and matter has been explored a little more thoroughly since Clausius. Foolish Warmists cling to pronouncements made before many things were known.
Clausius believed in the luminiferous ether, and was unaware of radioactive radiation. For all I know, he believed in the indivisibility of the atom, and other such oddities.
Still no GHE for all your blathering. Not even a testable GHE hypothesis. It seems far to difficult to cut and paste a few lines, apparently. The fact that such a hypothesis doesnt actually exist might prove to be a problem.
Press on. Maybe you could use your concept of pure thermo and the total temperature of a body to support your mad contention that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
MF wrote:
“Not even a testable GHE hypothesis.”
I’ve given you this several times, but you ignore all of them and keep writing the same thing like a robot.
Why do you do this?
barry…”the general result of this simultaneous double heat exchange always consists, as is established, in an increase of the heat in the colder body at the expense of the hotter”
Read it again….’this simultaneous double heat exchange’. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE RADIATION OF HEAT, or the physical exchange of heat via radiation. Heat cannot be radiated. I told you, Clausius made a very honest mistake based on what he knew of heat and radiation at the time.
He might have said the APPARENT simultaneous double heat exchange, but he did not know heat was not flowing between the bodies. He did not know about electrons and how they operate in an atom with regard to emitting and absorbing atoms. Had he known that, I am sure he would have stuck to his 2nd law as for conduction.
When an electron in an atom on a hotter body radiates EM, the moment the EM is created the heat is gone. It disappear, being converted to EM and upholding conservation of energy. If that EM reaches an electron in a cooler body, the electron will absorb it and jump to a higher energy level. In doing so, it converts EM back to heat. Energy is conserved.
THE PROCESS CANNOT BE REVERSED.
As that EM travels through the space between bodies, IT IS NOT HEAT. Clausius thought it was heat, as did Kircheoff, Planck, and likely Boltzmann. They were all wrong. It was not till Bohr revealed the truth of the matter in 2013 that anyone understood the process.
Clausius died in 1889, just before electron theory was developed. His expertise was in heat engines and the transfer of heat therein. He had no knowledge of the truth, that heat is converted to EM by electrons then converted back to heat at the other end when electrons absorb EM and convert it back to heat.
Heat can only be transported through space by atoms of air or gas as convection. Until you get that you will go on making statements based on a misunderstanding of heat and EM.
Read Bohr, or read about his theories, particularly about spectral lines and the stringent requirements for EM absorp-tion by an electron. He developed them first in 2013, some 25 years after Clausius died. Clausius was wrong about heat being transferred as rays or by radiation in general. And if Kircheoff, who was of the same era as Clausius claimed a two way transfer of heat by radiation then he was wrong too.
Kircheoff talked about emission and absorp-tion but I don’t see anything in his equation to indicate they were occurring at the same time. Stefan-Boltzmann certainly has no provisions for a two way transfer and the direction is well indicated by the temperatures. Besides, the work of Kircheoff applied at thermal equilibrium where it is possible for two bodies to exchange heat to a degree.
In the article from which you quote Clausius said the same thing…bottom of page 297..”Let s1 and s2 be the surfaces of two perfect blackbodies of the same temperature…”. He is quoting from Kircheoff’s law of mutual radiation. The bodies are in thermal equilibrium.
Someone has already pointed out that during equilibrium there are likely to be atoms in each body above and below the average temperature.
Furthermore, Kircheoff was into blackbody theory, a highly idealized concept. There is no such thing.
After-thought….imagine lying in a tanning bed under ultraviolet lamps. You can touch the lamps and they are not hot yet after some time they will burn your skin till it is blistering.
How does that work…no heat but the overall effect through time is skin blistered as if heated?
Well, it is heated, from within!!! The UV is absorbed by the skin and converted to heat. It’s the same with any EM energy. If you go right down to the microwave range, look what it does to water, it boils it. No heat transferred from the microwave magnetron to the water, just EM.
In a microwave oven you can sit a non-metallic device like a piece of plastic beside a cup of water and the water will boil while the plastic doesn’t heat. Go figure. That proves, however, that no heat is coming from the microwaves. Sat beside a 1500 watt electric stove top it sure would.
If you stand in front of a radar sail transmitting at 10,000 watts it can kill you. No heat, just EM. The radiation produces heat in your body when it absorbs the EM.
It’s the same with EM in the infrared range. Heat is not transferred from the infrared radiating device it’s the EM itself that is absorbed by your skin and warms it.
The only difference is that EM radiated by your body to the infrared device has no effect on it. Study Bohr’s atomic model theory to understand why.
barry…quoting from page 330 under Summary, he states:
“(1) In order to bring the action of ordinary radiation without concentration, into accordance with the fundamental principle, that heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body, it is necessary to assume that the intensity of emission from a body depends not only on its own composition and temperature, but also on the nature of the surrounding medium…”
Today, we know this is not true. In those days it was assumed there was an aether carrying electromagnetic radiation and heat, that has since been disproved, at least for now. It seems Clausius presumed there was an interaction between this medium and the EM, affecting heat transfer one way.
He had it nailed for heat in atomic structure but I think he was trying to figure out how it worked in space.
I am only saying this to shed light on how EM was regarded in the day of Clausius. He mentioned elsewhere in his memoirs that he thought EM traveled through a medium like an aether, that would be present even in a vacuum.
That theory may not be that far off. They have discovered that so-called empty space seems to be teaming with neutrinos.
We know today that none of what he presumed about radiation heat transfer is correct. He cannot be blamed for that and the crux of his work on proving heat can only be transferred hot to cold by ordinary means was done relating P,V,T is a heat engine. If you follow his diagrams carefully you can see that. There are processes in a heat engine that cannot be reversed to enable heat transfer from cold to hot.
I think it’s the same with EM, I just don’t have the in-depth understanding of atomic theory to present it eloquently.
I did read today that the atomic energy levels in which electrons reside expand with temperature. Not only that, energy levels tend to get stacked around each quantum level. An electron cannot exist between energy levels and that should reveal the non-reality of quantum theory.
It’s not quite clear to me yet why frequency increases with energy. If the electron generates the frequency it seems to suggest it is orbiting faster, or vibrating somehow. It’s very difficult to extract that kind of info from the net.
If that interests you or anyone else I’d appreciate some research and input.
One revelation I had is related to the EM spectrum. Frequency is related to energy by E = hf. Therefore, as frequency rises, the energy should rise but it does not. You can see on the EM curve that it peaks around the frequency of blue-green light then drops right off toward the higher end.
Apparently that plot as created by Planck does not represent energy vs. frequency, it represent the probability of finding an EM photon of energy at such and such a frequency. He reasoned the likelihood of finding real energetic particles diminished as f increased beyond a certain frequency. That’s why you see an exponential function in his equation.
You don’t see it in the Stefan-Boltzman equation and I am wondering if S-B applies to only the rising portion of the EM curve from the low frequency side. If so, that opens a real can of worms for blackbody theory.
I realize that I need to be careful talking about electrons as if they are actually physically orbiting a nucleus like a planet around the Sun. It’s just a model. However, the math presented by Bohr works for hydrogen and it has been verified. Other atoms can be described using a modified form of the Bohr model where orbits are elongated rather than circular.
So, GR, with all your pondering and appealing to rather old authorities, have you arrived at a logical explanation for the warming shown by my Green Plate demonstration?
Gordon Robertson says:
“I did read today that the atomic energy levels in which electrons reside expand with temperature.”
Citation?
Did you get a job this week, davie?
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“However, the math presented by Bohr works for hydrogen and it has been verified.”
Wrong.
The Bohr model gets the wrong value for the ground state electron’s angular momentum.
It does not include spin, so does not get any fine-structure to the energy state transitions.
It does not predict the Lamb shift.
Gordon Robertson says:
“That theory may not be that far off. They have discovered that so-called empty space seems to be teaming with neutrinos.”
There is aether. This was proved long ago, and neutrinos have done nothing to change that.
“We know today that none of what he presumed about radiation heat transfer is correct.”
I will quote you on this in the future.
“I did read today that the atomic energy levels in which electrons reside expand with temperature.”
Citation?
“Its not quite clear to me yet why frequency increases with energy.”
Because it does. This is fundamental, and not derivable from another physics.
related to energy by E = hf. Therefore, as frequency rises, the energy should rise but it does not. You can see on the EM curve that it peaks around the frequency of blue-green light then drops right off toward the higher end.
“Apparently that plot as created by Planck does not represent energy vs. frequency, it represent the probability of finding an EM photon of energy at such and such a frequency.”
A lie.
“You dont see it in the Stefan-Boltzman equation and I am wondering if S-B applies to only the rising portion of the EM curve from the low frequency side. If so, that opens a real can of worms for blackbody theory.”
Another lie. This was all figured out 100 years ago. Get off your butt and go study.
e. swansom…”have you arrived at a logical explanation for the warming shown by my Green Plate demonstration?”
I’ve already told you, you are dealing with a convection/heat dissipation problem, not a reverse heat transfer issue. Use a larger fan and watch that alleged reverse heat transfer, you claim as coming from the cookie sheet, disappear.
Your experiments are a good idea, and I applaud your efforts. You just don’t have enough control in place to isolate the effect of convection. You need much tighter control.
DA…”It does not include spin, so does not get any fine-structure to the energy state transitions”.
That’s encouraging, you now admit there are transitions. Have you reached the part where Bohr talks about those transitions being responsible for EM emission, both in atoms and in molecules?
GR, if you think the warming is due to convection, please explain how the cold air from the room is increasing the already high temperature of the plate. Also, if you really think convection is the problem, what about similar situation in the vacuum of space where the back radiation from highly reflective multi-layer insulation causes a ssatellite to be warmer than it would otherwise be if it were exposed to direct loss to deep space.
S: “if you think the warming is due to convection, please explain how the cold air from the room is increasing the already high temperature of the plate.”
Put a plate of glass over the hot plate. (Glass doesn’t pass IR very well.) After a few minutes, put your hand on the glass. That might help you to understand.
S: “Also, if you really think convection is the problem, what about similar situation in the vacuum of space where the back radiation from highly reflective multi-layer insulation causes a satellite to be warmer than it would otherwise be if it were exposed to direct loss to deep space.”
Space blankets are designed with the emissivity to reflect IR. Such a device is NOT found in the atmosphere. But, nice try with the “bait-and-switch”.
You know, g*e*r*a*n-a-moe, when I began to study the problem of AGW about 40 years back, I quickly found that a greenhouse wasn’t a good description of the actual physics of AGW. I have no clue why denialist such as you keep cherry picking that poor choice of wording to claim there’s no AGW, but it gets a little tiresome seeing the same old BS over and over again, such as that paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner. You aren’t really interested in the physics, are you?
Right, anger demonstrates no interest in understanding the mundane physics. anger is only interested in staying on top of the climate comedy list for 2018 which takes some effort. I predict anger is quite capable of beating out much more repetitive Flynn for the top climate comedy spot in 2018.
Swannie, I never used the word “greenhouse” in my comment.
tricky trick, is whatever you’re on legal?
Haha, anger, great comedy. Keep it up. Keep avoiding actual experiments too. Actual science will cost you votes in the 2018 climate comedy nominations. And Flynn is so close behind you.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Read it again.this simultaneous double heat exchange. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE RADIATION OF HEAT, or the physical exchange of heat via radiation.”
You are wrong.
And now even your “hero” Clausius says so.
But your need for denial is deep.
I predict you will keep lying about this.
DA…”THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE RADIATION OF HEAT, or the physical exchange of heat via radiation.
You are wrong.
And now even your hero Clausius says so.”
**********
I wonder if you have a vitamin deficiency, your comprehension is all but non-existent.
If you read that chapter Barry linked to, Clausius admits the heat rays are fictitious.
Did you read the part where I pointed out Clausius died in 1889 and the theory of electrons related to EM emissions was not put forward by Bohr till 1913? Kind of tough to know about that stuff some 25 years before it’s discovered.
I hope you’re not stealing all my stuff and offering it as science writer stuff. Of course, it would make you appear far more intelligent.
Gordon Robertson wrote:
“When an electron in an atom on a hotter body radiates EM, the moment the EM is created the heat is gone.”
So you’re saying that heat just disappears.
That’s a violation of energy conservation.
DA…”So youre saying that heat just disappears.
Thats a violation of energy conservation”.
Already covered that, I pointed out the heat is converted to EM. Ergo, energy conserved.
Heat also disappears when it is converted to work. In atoms, some is consumed by the inter-atomic vibrations.
nice find, barry.
DA…”nice find, barry”.
Still wrong and/or misleading.
Bindidon found it first in the German version and translated it a few months ago. He was quite accurate.
The Robertson troll on January 27, 2018 at 5:58 AM
One revelation I had is related to the EM spectrum. Frequency is related to energy by E = hf. Therefore, as frequency rises, the energy should rise but it does not. You can see on the EM curve that it peaks around the frequency of blue-green light then drops right off toward the higher end.
*
Incredible. Confuse, divert, fantasize, deny, lie.
That is the world (not only) of the Robertson troll.
From Wikipedia (a source accepted by denialists if and only if by accident it matches their narrative):
Photon energy is the energy carried by a single photon. The amount of energy is directly proportional to the photon’s electromagnetic frequency and inversely proportional to the wavelength. The higher the photon’s frequency, the higher its energy. Equivalently, the longer the photon’s wavelength, the lower its energy.
Photon energy is solely a function of the photon’s wavelength. Other factors, such as the intensity of the radiation, do not affect photon energy. In other words, two photons of light with the same color and therefore, same frequency, will have the same photon energy, even if one was emitted from a wax candle and the other from the Sun.
The same you may read everywhere, e.g. in
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module%201/photons.htm
Of course it cannot be excluded that within the output of e.g.
https://tinyurl.com/y83bk9em
something different was inserted that fits into a troll’s narrative, so s/he picks it up and propagates it as the truth even if it is the one and only counterexample among 10,000.
Thus for the dumbest trolls this might be a helpful tool:
http://www.photonics.byu.edu/fwnomograph.phtml
Bin, your agenda is readily apparent.
But, your science, not so much.
You appear to be trying to find fault with something you took out of context. Apparently you did not realize Gordon was referring to the “ultraviolet catastrophe”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe
That’s okay, we’re here to help.
As usual: bare nonsense. Let me help you to get out of your self-constructed blind-alley:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe#Solution
There you evidently read:
Albert Einstein solved the problem by postulating that Planck’s quanta were real physical particles – what we now call photons, not just a mathematical fiction.
He modified statistical mechanics in the style of Boltzmann to an ensemble of photons.
Einstein’s photon had an energy proportional to its frequency and also explained an unpublished law of Stokes and the photoelectric effect.
This published postulate was specifically cited by the Nobel Prize in Physics committee in their decision to award the prize for 1921 to Einstein.
*
Thanks for your childish 10-year blah blah!
+1
Bin, obviously you lost something in the translation.
No problem.
But, I’m concerned that you believe a horse is rotating on its axis as he runs an oval track. Haven’t you ever been to a horse race?
binny…”The Robertson troll on January 27, 2018 at 5:58 AM”
Are you still sore because I called you an idiot? You Teutons sure have long memories.
“Photon energy is the energy carried by a single photon. The amount of energy is directly proportional to the photons electromagnetic frequency…”
What’s your point, I agree with you. E = hf (can’t print those Greek v characters).
However, as frequency increases, E should increase and it does not. Initially, that was called the ultraviolet catastrophe since E should approach infinity as f approaches infinity.
Look at an EM spectrum curve and E increases till the mid-visible light portion of the spectrum then drops off as f increases.
Why?
Well, Planck explained that he used probability theory on the spectrum, a la Boltzmann, to calculate the probability related to EM energy distribution. They calculated the probability of finding higher energies as f increased and that probability distribution is revealed in the current EM spectrum.
Planck produced that distribution by building an exponential function into his equation. The exponential represent probability.
Bit of fudging I’d say, but hey, if it works, it works. Problem is, you have people today using that fudged math liberally, especially in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which has no exponential built into it.
According to Boltzmann E increases with T^4. That means the hotter something gets the more energy it produces, WITHOUT bounds. Fortunately there seems to be a natural limit on temperature as related to matter. Hydrogen only burns so hot, and that seems to have bailed out the S-B equation.
“HUMANS NOW ACCUSED OF MAKING EARTH COOLER”
http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/humans-now-accused-of-making-earth-cooler/
Anyone who buys what wnd.com is selling has not critical thinking skills. And not just about climate change — about everything they publish.
Poor davie. He probably didn’t understand the sarcastic humor.
Hilarious.
Excellent.
Typical!
Lewis, I’m curious, why do you believe wnd.com?
BTW, it’s well known that traditional air pollution — aerosols — cool the planet, and their radiative forcing is about -1/2 that of anthropogenic GHGs.
This has been known for decades. Which shows you how ignorant the wnd.com writer is.
davie, go back and look at all of the Alarmist nonsense. Look at the IPCC model projections.
Then, look at the actual observations.
In your worm-infested head, the actual observations are wrong, right?
jimc…comment from your link:
“Theyre now saying, My models, which I said were OK, on which we were supposed to base economic policy were actually wrong. Thats what theyre saying here. Theyre just saying, My models are wrong and this is my excuse,’ Horner told WND and Radio America”.
It’s also caused ‘moving the goalposts’. They have been using that technique for over 30 years in the HIV/AIDS propaganda. When the pandemics they had predicted did not occur they’d change the theory to fit. Now they too have run out of fabrications.
Meanwhile snow in Saudi Arabia 🙂
https://www.thenational.ae/world/gcc/winter-storm-brings-snow-to-saudi-arabia-and-lebanon-in-pictures-1.699079
Definitely another proof for a global warming, caused by locals burning too much oil…
Is this unusual? Is its frequency decreasing? Those are the questions you should be asking.
davie, relax. You can always just claim CO2 causes more snow.
That’s the advantage of pseudoscience. Everything you see is proof of what you believe.
You are too much of a baby to admit you were wrong about the Moon’s rotation.
There is no reason to take you seriously and every reason to dismiss you.
But davie, I wasn’t wrong.
Now what do you do?
Get a job?
Before you wrote this, millions of people confounded (by lack of knowledge or by intention) local weather with global climate.
And be sure that further millions will do after you did.
Bin, you wouldn’t be one of the “millions” would you?
binny…”Before you wrote this, millions of people confounded (by lack of knowledge or by intention) local weather with global climate”.
What’s global climate, binny?
It suggests the entire planet’s land surface could be one huge desert or one huge rainforest. Not likely, local weather prevents it.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/life-style/2013/12/14/Mideast-storm-settles-snow-on-Saudi-Arabia-.html
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/30/snow-in-riyadh-saudi-arabia/
More of it?
g*e*r*a*n says:
January 27, 2018 at 4:30 AM
“Also, the Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. Recognition of that fact is a good indication that you can think logically.”
Wrong.
The Moon does, of course, rotate on its axis.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/44-our-solar-system/the-moon/general-questions/110-does-the-moon-rotate-are-there-other-moons-that-always-keep-one-face-toward-their-planet-intermediate
Thanks for clearly stating your position, davie. There are some that have not.
Here are the admitted “rotators” at this time (not in any order):
davie
Skeptic Gone Wild
Norman
Ball4
barry
Binindon
Brad
snape
Kristian
Nate
Yet to commit:
mikeR
Tim Folkerts
gammacrux
Des
Entropic man
Svante
E. Swanson
The definitions of “rotating on an axis” and “orbiting” are very clear. So no one will be able to claim they were confused by the definition.
{grin}
davie, “grin” is all you got?
That horse ain’t rotating on his axis, as he runs the track. That CO2 ain’t heating the planet. You ain’t got no job. And, you ain’t got no life.
Maybe you could write a country tear-jerker song?
{grin} is all I need here.
That’s good, cause that’s all you got.
You’re wrong about the Moon’s rotation. But clearly you’re not man enough to admit it.
{grin}
David,
Deny, divert, and confuse.
You still cannot even define the so-called Greenhouse Effect, can you?
Probably because it doesnt exist! Or do you keep it a closely guarded secret, available only to foolish Warmists?
Maybe it is written on the back of the Nobel Prize that Michael Mann awarded to himself?
Cheers.
MF: I have defined the GHE for you many times.
Why do you keep lying and pretending I haven’t?
davie, the only “GHE” is in your head, along with the worms.
It’s getting crowded in there.
Note how, again, g* is incapable of addressing the science.
Sorry davie, I always present my science. You just reject truth.
But, I enjoy clowns.
Still afraid to admit you were wrong about the moon’s rotation.
Your character has been revealed.
Grasping at straws again, davie?
G*, put me down as a definite rotator.
It would be simply astounding that the the earth’s moon, unlike any other body in the solar system including planets, asteroids, other moons and comets , would have zero rotational angular momentum.
I would be particularly pleased if you could fit me in at number one in the above list.
It is believed that several moons also have zero axial rotation. Videos from Curiosity of Phobos appear to confirm this.
But thanks for owning up to your lack of understanding of orbital motions.
G*, can you please provide any link to where it is claimed that Phobos has zero rotational angular momentum.
All I can find are references showing that it is tidally locked to Mars and it rotates on its axis accordingly.
For anger, being tidally locked means non-rotating which is wrong by simple inspection. Yes, anger can point to tidally locked stuff. That just means the moon rotates on its axis once per orbit a phenomenon hilariously! dismissed by anger. That just keeps anger’s climate comedy going in other app.s.
Whenever you find “tidally-locked”, that indicates the moon is NOT “rotating on its axis”. It is only orbiting. It can NOT “rotate on its axis” because it is “locked”.
It’s hilarious, because it is so easy to figure out. But to the pseudoscience types, they see the race car orbiting the track and they believe it is “rotating on its axis”. Some folks just can NOT think for themselves.
It’s fun to watch.
Tidal locking is explained here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking.
To quote “A tidally locked body in synchronous rotation takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner”.
G* you may want to edit the wiki yourself but I suggest you might want read the 29 references at the end of the Wiki first.
miker, there are many more references than the 29 you found on your quick trip to wiki. You can probably find that many just at NASA sites. Then, go to universities that have astronomy departments. It’s called “institutionalized pseudoscience”.
Few people understand the laws of motion, especially orbital motion. Of the few that do, even fewer can think for themselves. That’s why this is such a great topic. It can quickly identify those that are infested with pseudoscience.
It’s a perfect analogy to the GHE nonsense, besides being fun to watch.
Another difficult choice:
g*e*r*a*n vs. NASA and university astronomy departments.
Yes Svante it is a difficult choice.
The following should actually be here as it maybe worth repeating (g* may not think so).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284046
Yes, concluded here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284057
boys and girls, when you get over yourselves, learn some history about NASA management.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/28/464744781/30-years-after-disaster-challenger-engineer-still-blames-himself
Now, take your naps, like good little kids.
That was a sad story, I hope he will come to peace with himself.
This is the problem with alternative facts, sooner or later they will come back and bite you. You really have to understand reality. Those managers did not.
It’s lucky that managers (or politicians) can not change the laws of physics.
Well, Svante, the problem is even bigger.
It is the ongoing battle between “science” and “pseudoscience”.
“Pseudoscience” wastes money. “Pseudoscience” kills. If not directly killing, it wastes money that could be used to help humanity and save lives.
But, “pseudoscience” is fueled by the lust for money, and the lust to “feel good”. Some commenters here probably do not receive one penny, but they “feel good” because they believe they are “saving the planet”. It’s a cheap way to “feel good”–cheaper than drugs.
It is actually the ongoing battle between experimental “science” and non-experimental “pseudoscience”.
For the shuttle accident investigation, Dr. Feynman did a simple experiment to separate experimental “science” from the non-experimental “pseudoscience”. On this blog, Dr. Spencer et. al. have performed the confirming simple “science” experiments thereby separating out anger’s et. al. “pseudoscience”.
Show us your experimental “science”, anger, or remain immersed in your own form of “pseudoscience” along with Halp-less and Flynn.
tricky trick, you have just completed another experiment for me.
Thanks.
I was verifying that you would try to trick/twist/distort/spin any reality to fit your corrupt, perverted view of the world.
QED
(Now back to the lab for more experiments.)
anger, only non-experimental “pseudoscience” is a corrupt, perverted view of the world.
tricky trick, do you “feel good” now?
I feel like only anger’s non-experimental pseudoscience untruth is a corrupt, perverted view of the world.
g*e*r*a*n,
I thought it was a bit too silly to discuss, but please put me down as a rotator.
Thanks for owning up, Svante. I guessed as much but I don’t like to falsely accuse.
G*, I think it would be more useful to make a list of those who agree with your lunacy. It appears to be a very short list.
You might find some additional support by contacting the following at
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society/contact us.
However they might find your views just too absurd. There are limits.
miker, the con-man likes to link to silly stuff like that also.
You two have a great deal in common…
And g*, where is your list of those who agree with you? I can think of one other but I am not sure if there are any others that are dumb enough.
However if there are others lurking in the background, I urge them to come forward to support their comrade.
Are you wanting a “consensus” to go with your pseudoscience, miker?
Does that sound familiar?
Hilarious.
G* the consensus is not always true. However the consensus view that you are sad and pathetic is difficult to refute because you provide so little evidence to the contrary.
miker, if you want to believe a horse is “rotating on its axis” as it runs an oval track, go for it. I’m not stopping you.
Just don’t try to stop me if I prefer reality.
I think I might have worked out where g*’s lunacy obsession originates. Like some here, he might be a fundamentalist who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
As in Joshua 10:13 –
“So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped till the nation avenged itself on its enemies”
G* may think that Joshua stopped the earth spinning temporarily but simultaneously stopped the moon spinning permanently.
Maybe g* is also a great fan of Velikovsky’s crackpot theories of orbital dynamics as presented in Worlds in Collision. The Joshua episode is described in terms of a cataclysmic collision involving the earth/ moon system and Venus.
Accordingly I think g* deserves his very own entry at
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank.
miker, you expend so much effort to go in the wrong direction.
It’s fun to watch.
I am glad that g* appreciates my humour and I have a lot more material in my arsenal.
G* is a such great fall guy and his rich motherlode of nonsense is the gift that keeps on giving. A bit like a never ending gob stopper.
Gee.
So much deny, divert and confuse.
These lunatics would have you believe that by surrounding yourself by immersion with icy water, (which emits at least 300W/m2), youll absorb the IR and heat up!
Similar deluded thinking would have you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 surrounding a thermometer will raise the temperature of the thermometer.
No wonder they cant even produce one testable GHE hypothesis! A ragtag motley collection of climate clowns, pretending to be scientists, hoping nobody will discover the truth.
Ben Santer seems to be importuning the Canadian Government for handouts. Apparently the US Government is demanding things like testable hypotheses, and expressing disbelief that climatologists dont need to explain anything – the science is settled, doncha know!
Aint life grand!
Cheers.
Mike Flyn says:
“No wonder they cant even produce one testable GHE hypothesis!”
It’s been presented to you many times.
You are too timid to even acknowledge it.
—
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
David,
Deny, divert and confuse – maybe you are losing your already tenuous grip on reality?
What has my factual statement to do with your complete inability to produce a testable GHE hypothesis?
Next hing, youll be claiming that insulating a thermometer from the rays of the Sun will make its temperature increase! No wonder neither you nor any of the other delusionalists can actually come up with a scientific definition of the GHE, let a lone a testable hypothesis!
I know its hard to justify something you cannot even define, but thats the nature of foolish Warmists. So, David, are you going to offer your journalistic services for free, to assist Ben Santer and the rest of the loonies to bend the Canadian Government to their will? Are there enough gullible politicians to make it worthwhile?
I feel sorry for foolish Warmists, thrashing about in their despair, but I have no sympathy whatever. You brought it upon yourselves. Now is the time to pay the piper.
Cheers.
What did you mean when you wrote
“The atmosphere is an insulator?”
David,
What part of the atmosphere is an insulator, do you not understand?
It is a fairly short statement of fact. It is not my fault if you cannot comprehend plain English.
I am a little surprised that a person with a PhD and 16 hours of journalism training cannot understand a five word sentence. It might help if you look up the definitions of atmosphere and insulator in a dictionary.
If you are still confused, and consider me more knowledgeable than the total resources available to all dictionary publishers, and those available on the internet, I bask in your belief in my effulgent intelligence. It means so much to me!
Foolish Warmists are a dour lot, so you may not appreciate I am poking fun at you.
Seriously, what is it that you dont understand?
Cheers.
What are the consequences of the atmosphere being an “insulator?”
What are the consequences of you running out of distracting questions, davie?
David,
Are you really so thick you dont know what an insulator is ? Really?
Or are you just trying for some idiotic gotcha?
I find it hard to believe that you could possibly be as dim as you pretend to be. Next youll be asking me what the atmosphere is!, and what the the consequences of the atmosphere are.
Really, David, your efforts to avoid stating what you believe the GHE to be are quite comical.
Tell me again, what part of the atmosphere is an insulator do you not understand? Maybe you really do understand, but are just pretending to be stupid in a misguided effort to appear clever.
Typical foolish Warmist behaviour. Still no GHE is there? You cant even say what you think it is, can you?
Thats because it is a figment of foolish Warmist imagination.
Cheers.
I’ll ask again: what are the consequences of the atmosphere being an insulator?
davie, what are the consequences if you can’t get a job?
David,
Maybe you are slow learner. Show me that you have made the slightest effort to find out for yourself, acknowledge you still dont know, and that you are asking me as an authority to further your knowledge, and Ill gladly help, of course.
Otherwise, I have to assume you are just trying the usual tired Witless Warmist tactic of pretending stupidity for some bizarre reason known only to yourself.
You have provided no reason to convince me that I should accede to your request. Would you care to try? Bear in mind that I dont care much for the opinions of foolish Warmists, so attempted emotional blackmail in that regard wont work.
Presumably, you have formulated an answer to your pathetic attempt at a gotcha – maybe you could let us know what it is?
Cheers.
MF: What are the consequences of the atmosphere being an “insulator?”
How does that manifest physically?
David,
I hope that potential employers are noticing your inability to comprehend Palin English.
Im sure they will appreciate the level of intellectual acuity you demonstrate. I cant help it if you dont know what an insulator is. I cannot work out why you are unable to look at a dictionary, or other publication.
Obsessional delusion, perhaps?
Maybe you could keep asking the same question again and again. Rocking backwards and forwards, banging your head against a wall, while muttering a sacred Manntra, might help. Or probably not.
You cant actually define the so-called GHE. That doesnt seem to be doing your cause much good, does it/? it might even make you look a little thick, in some quarters. No GHE? How can that be? Governments might think the mad utterances of self appointed climate scientists are no longer worth donating taxpayer dollars (or other currencies) to maintain.
Ask your question, David. Look in mirror while doing so – apparently you think youre a bit dim, so youll be asking your intellectual equal.
Cheers
Look at you, MF, avoiding even the most basic of questions about something you wrote.
You are a pathetic and laughable person.
I win.
David,
You said that you win. Good for you. What sort of prize do you intend to award yourself?
Michael Mann awarded himself a Nobel Prize. What is your idea of a suitable prize?
I hope you get much pleasure from your winnings. You deserve every bit of it.
Cheers.
Yes, I win, because you’re too cowardly to explain what your claims mean. Too afraid to answer basic followup questions.
A tough pill to swallow, I’m sure.
But dumb deniers like you always get such pills down, don’t you?
davie plans to give himself the “Appelly Award” (rhymes with “jelly”). It’s not well known outside of pseudoscience.
Hilarious.
Here again g* cannot discuss any science.
All he has are insults.
Poor davie, he doesn’t understand science. He believes bird cage liners are “science”. He has a whole collection of “science”, but not enough bird cages.
Hilarious.
See how, again, g* flakes out of discussing any science, and instead goes to insults.
That’s his go to move.
Yes, it’s pretty sad.
No davie, I didn’t “flake out”. It was time to call it a night.
And, when you believe I am insulting you, in reality, I am just presenting the truth. You hate truth. That’s not my problem.
‘Poor davie, he doesnt understand science.”
G*, the evidence is pretty clear that David understands science, and especially physics, and has the credentials.
So the fact that you say things like this shows that you are not very good at drawing correct conclusions from available data.
The incessant need to say things like this is a sign of deep insecurity.
Nate, neither you nor davie knows squat about physics. I’m not sure you even know the pseudoscience you believe in. Once, I had to explain to davie where the IPCC got the infamous CO2 forcing equation. Do you know?
Whoops. I forgot to turn off the HTML emphasis. Bad Michael!
Cheers.
g*e*r*a*n
I will go back to the Moon’s rotation line. By demonstrating you can’t comprehend this simple physics, how in the world do you somehow feel qualified to comment on heat transfer?
I know your feeble mind is unable to comprehend reality but your eyes still work, don’t they? You can see for yourself that you have been completely conned. (side note, you seem to be the backward man. You call me a conman when I tell you the truth but people that con you like Joe Postma, you think are honest and truthful, just the opposite of reality).
Here is the video that probably conned you. I will explain it so even you are able to understand it. But better yet watch the video.
When the person on the video moves the spool around the center (orbit) keeping the same face to the center you can see him rotating the spool on its axis. I know you do not understand what rotate on axis means so I will give you the definition again as you watch the video.
“Definition of axis of rotation
: the straight line through all fixed points of a rotating rigid body around which all other points of the body move in circles”
So maybe the definition of the term is too far advanced for you. Most people can easily understand what the term means. Sorry you can’t comprehend it. Maybe if you drink a 5th you might almost get it.
He is rotating the spool as he moves it in an orbit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JsOHA4bmgY
Also this individual might be almost as stupid as you. He thinks the only thing that proves a body rotates if string wraps around something. NO he is wrong. You can have the spool stationary and still wrap the string around the spool by holding out the string and moving it around the stationary spool, it will wrap around the stationary spool. Don’t be an idiot, I know you can’t help it, you are really a stupid human.
What is going on is when he does not rotate the spool around string, the string is moving around the spool and it wraps up. If you have eyes you can see the spool does not rotate when he keeps the same face pointed in one direction.
Norman, please don’t stoop to their level and insult them back.
It accomplishes absolutely nothing, except soiling your hard-earned reputation here.
And yet, still no definition of what you believe the GHE to be. No wonder you cant find a testable GHE hypothesis.
I can appreciate your need to deny, divert, and confuse, by talking about spools and string.
Maybe you can help David to understand what an insulator is, with a movie of string being used inventively. How about multicoloured plates, overcoats, or medical advice?
Anything at all to avoid having to admit that you cant even define the GHE. That way, you dont need to come up with a testable GHE hypothesis, do you? Maybe nobody will notice that the GHE cannot actually be defined – NASA, NOAA, IPCC – none can actually define the amazing missing GHE, can they?
What a pity for the foolish Warmist clods.
Cheers.
MF is afraid to explain the physical manifestations of his claim that the atmosphere is an “insulator.”
You should wonder why not.
Maybe he is waiting for you to explain how the Sun can radiatively heat the Earth to 800,00K.
dT = dQ/mc
Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
=> dT = 760,000 K
Q.E.D.
You use the same old trick every time, davie.
Sun radiating at 5800K can NOT heat the Earth beyond the S/B of inverse-square maximum.
You’re such a physics klutz!
(But the chihuahua adores you.)
Hilarious.
dT = dQ/mc
Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
=> dT = 760,000 K
QED
con-man, the rabies vaccine appears to be working. At least you are not yelping as much.
Unfortunately, that just gets you back to your norm, which is below norm, Norm.
But, I can help.
One of your decadent heroes is “Cabbage Head”. He presented the scenario of a race car in “spinout”. A race car in spinout exemplifies “rotating on an axis”.
A race car in “spinout” would present all sides, to a viewer on the inside of the track.
If you didn’t have so many worms in your head, that should indicate that a race car is NOT rotating on its axis.
But we know you will not be able to figure it out.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Okay so you are back to bluffing with a bad hand.
I sent a video link to you to watch. In it you can clearly see that the spool is not spinning on its axis as the string wraps around the spool.
Also when he is keeping the same face of his spool pointed at the center, the string does not wrap but he is rotating the spool with his fingers. Watch the video and quit bluffing.
In the case where the string wraps around the nonrotating spool, the string is rotating around the spool, the spool is not spinning and wrapping the string. It is the one motion he neglected in his video.
When the string does not rotate around the spool it is because the spool is rotating at the same rate the string is rotating around the spool so the string does not wrap around
Again, use your eyes and watch and ignore what you think is happening. Just watch. Will you bluff your way out again or see the light? Las Vegas odds are currently 99.9% that you will bluff and ignore you own eyes.
David Appell
Good advice. Insults do not work. Sometimes you hope you might shock someone into a changed mental state. It does not work in reality. I took your advice and just kept with discussing the ideas and telling g*e*r*a*n not to bluff and pretend he knows the topic, give some real information.
He does his best to annoy you with his attacks on you. But to be honest, it is nearly impossible for me to read Mike Flynn’s posts and not think his is a lunatic. About the only way to not insult this poster is to steer clear. Keep some distance.
Right Norman,
GR, MF and g* are all highly disingenuous. Dishonest.
All they seek is attention.
Attempt to engage them in a scientific discussion, and they will run away as fast as they can.
Try to ask them explain what they mean by X or Y, and they will whine and bitch about how they’re treated.
They avoid scientific discussions at all costs.
None of these three how the courage of their convictions.
Which gets to the real question: why are they here?
It’s about time to leave them them to their sh!thole.
And this blog’s owner has absolutely no interest in policing comments for scientific relevance.
Which is too bad.
WHich means there is no reason to deal with these jokers.
davie confesses to his excesses:
All he seeks is attention.
Attempt to engage him in a scientific discussion, and he will run away as fast as he can.
He avoids scientific discussions at all costs.
David,
If you choose to leave, you will have my full support, of course.
When might this occurrence take place? Im not sure whether the world will care much, but you never know.
Gavin Schmidt (undistinguished mathematician, self styled climate scientist) threatened to resign from NASA if his funding was threatened. Im not sure if his was an empty threat, or not.
What about you? Are serious or just playing silly games?
I look forward to your departure, if that is your sincere desire.
Cheers.
MF, aren’t you ashamed to lie like you do?
Most people are ashamed to lie — they learn that early on.
How is it you missed those lessons?
Norman,
I am pleased to hear that you think its only nearly impossible for you to read my posts and not think Im a lunatic.
Are you even more fearsome than David Appell? Should I be even more afraid of you?
Only joking. I really dont care what you think, at all. Take offence , if you wish. My pleasure.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Don’t you think you have stated your point enough? Where are you going with it?
Norman,
What point do you think Im making? That I dont care what you think?
Or maybe that you cant actually define the GHE the you apparently claim exists!
Ill keep pointing out inconvenient facts as long as Dr Spencer allows. Maybe he can think for himself – its his blog, I believe.
Do you have a problem with freedom of speech? Or is only foolish Warmists who are allowed to put their bizarre ideas?
And no, I dont intend to provide answers to your pointless questions, unless you provide adequate reasons. Ask away – its your time.
You are obviously a slow learner.
Cheers.
GHE = a planet’s average global surface temperature (minus) its brightness temperature.
If you didn’t have so many worms in your head, that should indicate that a race car is NOT rotating on its axis.
But we know you will not be able to figure it out.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Again the bluff. Is this all you can do?
Here is the video link again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JsOHA4bmgY
You can discuss race cars and horses later. I want you to tell me what you see in this video.
He claims the cork is spinning when he does not rotate it at all because string wraps around. You can clearly see the cork is not spinning on its axis. I am asking you to tell me what you see. David Appell is correct about you. You ignore what you can’t answer. The bluff fails. You change topic and hope we don’t notice.
Also when the face of the cork is always pointed toward the center, watch his fingers. He is rotating the cork on its axis.
I know you can’t do it but what do you see in the video?
Con-man, you do not understand physics. You do not understand orbital motions. You do not understand the basic physics that you can observe on your kitchen table.
The worms have you.
Hilarious.
(I don’t mean to laugh at you, but you must understand what is right in front of your nose. That’s your responsibility, like it or not.)
g*e*r*a*n
Still bluffing I see. So rather than watch the video and see for yourself, you go off on a tangent (of course totally untrue, about my knowledge and thought process).
YOU: “Con-man, you do not understand physics. You do not understand orbital motions. You do not understand the basic physics that you can observe on your kitchen table”
So rather than watch a simple video (I think it might be 4 minutes long) you ignore the reality of your eyes and bluff hoping to win with your losing hand. Sorry it does not work that way.
Back to reality. Watch the video, it is really in front of your nose. The person is rotating the cork as they keep the same face pointing toward the center. Likewise the cord does not rotate at all when he keeps the face pointing the same direction and he moves the cork around the center.
Will you bluff again or lay down your hand. I know the answer. Ball4 knows it as well, you will continue to pretend you know things and ignore a reality which clearly shows that is not the case. Sorry you are beyond help.
A race car in “spinout” would present all sides, to a viewer on the inside of the track.
If you didn’t have so many worms in your head, that should indicate that a race car is NOT rotating on its axis.
But we know you will not be able to figure it out.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
This person has done your simple kitchen table setup. He goes very slow for anyone to follow. Watch and learn. Forget the strings an watch what it really going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKTQx8IySBk
As a bonus this person made this video to counter the Brad Blue and his corks and strings.
This one is a computer animation that has a rotating moon in the center and at the same time a moon orbiting around the center with exactly the same rotation. You will really have to dig deep into sicence denial to not accept what you can easily see by taking a look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaskACEMwgg
Norm, you can find all kinds of videos to support nonsense. You have to learn to think for yourself.
That’s your problem.
If you believe that a horse running around a race track is also rotating on his axis, then you probably need help.
The Moon presents real problems for Purveyors of Pseudoscience.
Norm finds videos, or links, to support his beliefs, and then closes his mind to facts and logic.
It’s fun to watch.
g*e*r*a*n
Still bluffing I see. You don’t have a hand to lay down? Is it that bad?
Your latest post answers nothing, provides not a shred of evidence.
YOU: “Norm finds videos, or links, to support his beliefs, and then closes his mind to facts and logic.”
The best you could do was make a false claim about my abilities. In what way does that address the actual evidence of the videos? In one a man has a face pained on a ball and shows you must rotate it to keep the face pointing toward the center. Pretty clear logic, rational thought. I do not know what you can’t see.
What facts have I closed my mind to specifically that you know about that no one else in the scientific community knows? What logic do you use. None. You make these bluffs because you have nothing.
You make claims that a car does not rotate on its axis around a track but you also have the clear evidence that the front of the car faces the opposite direction half way around the track. How is this accomplished. That is why I want you to ignore race tracks and horses. You do not acknowledge that they need to rotate (wheels with a car causing the rotation, horse planting its feet to rotate its body in the other case).
That is why I ask you to walk around a table. You can do it in two ways. One you rotate on your axis (which will keep your same side to the table) or you can not rotate. Walk to one edge of the table and move sideways keeping your face always to the same wall. You are not rotating on your axis in this case but a person sitting on the table will see one side, then your back, then the other side, then your front. You are not rotating as you move around the table but the observer on the table will see all sides of you as you move around it not rotating.
If you quit bluffing and provide this logic and facts maybe you might convince people. As of now you have provided zero evidence to support your case, zero logic, zero reason for anyone to think you have a valid point. At least some Brad Blue made a video trying to support his point. You have done absolutely nothing. Why keep bluffing. What do you have?
Norm, this sub-thread started with my comment:
“If you didn’t have so many worms in your head, that should indicate that a race car is NOT rotating on its axis.
But we know you will not be able to figure it out.”
Once again, you prove me right.
g*e*r*a*n
The race car rotates one time in the time it takes to drive around the track. The rotation is caused by the tires when turning. If the car did not rotate it would just move straight off the track.
Based upon the established definition of axis of rotation (a center point running vertically through the car’s center that the other parts of the car rotate around).
I think I have one that can infiltrate your stubborn mind. Put a compass on a car dash. The car starts facing North and the needle of the compass is aligned in that direction. Now drive around a circle and watch the compass, the needle remains facing North the whole time but the letter “N” moves around in a circle showing you the car is rotating as you drive in a circle. Not sure if I can get you a more simple test to demonstrate this. You should do this and tell me what happens. The car rotates around a fixed axis, it is the same if it spins in a circle or drives around in a circle. In both cases the car will rotate around a fixed axis.
You are STILL confusing “orbiting” with “rotating on an axis”.
TRY to get it in your head that there are TWO DIFFERENT, DISTINCT, INDEPENDENT motions being discussed. A car driving an oval track is only doing ONE of the two motions. From outside the track, you see all sides of the car during one lap. That is because it is turning around the center of the track (orbiting). It is NOT rotating on its axis.
Consider the race car on a straight track. Is it “rotating on its axis”. Consider the track is 10 miles long, and you are in a helicopter following the race car. Is it “rotating on its axis”? Not unless it gets in a “spinout”.
Now, consider bending the 10 mile race track into a perfect circle. If the helicopter holds steady, the car APPEARS to be rotating on its axis, but it is not. It is still only doing the one motion of racing down the track which is now an orbit.
“From outside the track, you see all sides of the car during one lap.”
Only in anger’s pseudoscience mind; the actual spectators at the Indy500 see only the right side of each Indy car as it rotates on its axis once each orbit of the infield. Of course, anger will never admit this while providing top of the pseudoscience list entertainment. More please.
tricky trick tricks himself again. trick’s ticket at Indy 500 not accepted, explosive detection devices alert, cops called, cabbages impounded. trick charged with flagrant violation of 2LoT. Sentenced to life, pounding on his keyboard. No parole.
Hilarious! anger, it is obvious you are competing hard for 2018 climate comedy nomination and an eventual win. I think you can edge out Flynn who is falling behind, that commenter needs some new stuff, some originality in the incompetence race.
You mentioning “incompetence” is hilarious, tricky trick.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-283485
Great comedy link anger, another point for you in the race to the top comedian for 2018. Keep the entertainment points coming, you will not fail. No experiments please.
g*e*r*a*n
It is not as clear cut as you would think. Science minded claim the distinction is not so clear.
Here is one exchange on the topic.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/201953/difference-between-circular-motion-and-rotational-motion
There are two things a car could potentially do around the track. One is the front always faces the same direction as it moves around the track or the other the front changes its orientation.
Question. You drive your car to an intersection and turn. Would you consider that your car rotated on its axis by a quarter turn or not?
Or you want to go the opposite direction you are going. You could make a U-turn. Does your car rotate on its axis? Is a U-turn different than if your car was equipped with a turn device, say a circular body that pushed your car off the pavement and rotated your car to face the opposite direction. I think it could be a semantic debate here.
What is rotation?
Here is how Wiki defines it: “All rigid body movements are rotations, translations, or combinations of the two.
A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That common point lies within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the motion. If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. There is no fundamental difference between a rotation and an orbit and or “spin”. The key distinction is simply where the axis of the rotation lies, either within or outside of a body in question. This distinction can be demonstrated for both rigid and non rigid bodies.”
Norm, it is simple. You’re just making it hard. You don’t have an appreciation for truth. You are quite content to support nonsense. Your problems are not my problems.
I’ve given you enough examples that you should be able to understand, unless there is something wrong with your thinking ability.
Now, pound on that keyboard, sounding like a rabid, yelping chihuahua. That’s funny.
g,
Foolish Warmists go to amazing lengths to avoid admitting they cant even define their wondrous GHE in any acceptable fashion. That would explain the complete absence of a testable GHE hypothesis within the known universe.
Im not sure whether it also explains the absence of unicorns, the ether, phlogiston or N rays. You never know, because foolish Warmists seem to believe that CO2 (that most desirable and essential plant food) causes droughts, floods, heat waves, cold snaps. mountains rising and falling, land subsidence, volcanoes, tectonic plate movement, halitosis and haemorrhoids.
Not too sure about volcanoes, but I think Im right.
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
“All part of the rich tapestry of life”.
Yup, you got it right, Mike Flynn.
But, we get to enjoy the humor they provide.
MF, what are the measurable consequences of your claim that the atmosphere is an insulator?
If anything spins it will have axis. And if has an axis, the axis will have angle relative some other point of reference,
or with the Moon spinning in relation to earth it would have axis angle relative to the plane of the Moon orbit around Earth.
With the Moon it also rotates relative to the sun and if the Moon spins relative to the Sun, it would axis angle relative to plane of the Moon’s orbit around the sun.
The Earth axis angle is relative to the plane of Earth’s orbit around the sun is about 23.5 degrees:
“Earth has seasons because our planets axis of rotation is tilted at an angle of 23.5 degrees relative to our orbital plane the plane of Earths orbit around the sun.
The tilt in the axis of the Earth is called its obliquity by scientists”
http://earthsky.org/earth/can-you-explain-why-earth-has-four-seasons
Since we like to pretend we are scientists, what the obliquity of the Moon?
Moon’s “axis” is defined by its orbit around Earth. Using that definition, it is believed the Moon “tilts” about 7 degrees. It does not really “rotate on its axis”. Earth both “orbits” and “rotates on its axis”. The Moon only “orbits”.
Yes.
But got to start with angle of axis.
Next, Earth has cycle in which the axis points away from the Sun, and then points to toward sun, and then back to pointing away from Sun: winter, Summer, and winter again.
And this cycle is time the earth orbits the Sun.
And the the Moon would also have seasons: Winter, spring, summer, fall, and back to winter.
So if at the lunar north pole. And on top of pretty tall pole, you see the sun circling you and you will see that the Earth will go up and down over time.
And Moon orbits the Earth about every earth month and orbits the sun about every earth year.
Every month the earth goes from highest height down to lowest
and back to highest.
This is because the Lunar orbit has orbital angle of 5.145 degrees.
So Earth goes up and down by 5.145 degrees every month.
And the Moon’s obliquity to orbit is 6.68 degree.
And lunar axis degree is about 1.5 degree.
Or 6.68 – 5.145 is about 1.5 degrees.
So is axis tilted in relationship to the Earth or the Sun.
Does the motion as seen from the lunar north pole as seen
from on top of tall pole travel down and up again, within a month’s time or a years time.
If were a month time period it’s angle of axis is relative to Earth and if it’s a year time period it’s relative to the Moon’s orbit around the Sun.
It has to be one or the other- unless you imagine the Moon has two axis of rotation.
My answer is the Sun circle the sky every month and dips higher and lower as arc around the horizon and it dips higher and lower over year period of time, as circles the horizon.
The Earth in comparison is fixed but goes up and down and this cycle of up and down is monthly and yearly.
And on Earth it’s arctic circle is about 23.5 degrees latitude and axis tilt is 23.5. And Moon’s arctic circle is
1.5 degrees latitude. Or the Moon’s axis tilt is about 1.5 degrees.
It should be noted that the Moon orbits the sun, but in terms of semantics or way we use words, lunar orbit refers to the Moon’s orbit around Earth. Or the Moon has orbital velocity of
about 1 km/sec in the larger gravity well of Earth, but the Moon is traveling about 30 km/sec within the much larger gravity well of the Sun.
We say this because we live on Earth, or when we live on the Moon we will not say this.
Lunatics might say the Moon travels both faster and slower around the Sun because of Earth’s gravity well.
They will say it, because it seems important.
Or from Moon it requires less velocity to get to Venus or Mars.
Or from Earth/Moon system one needs to slow down to go to Venus and speed up to go to Mars- and the Moon is partially doing this. Or it’s a small advantage of the Moon- or one could view it that way.
Or we live in a twin planetary system, but choose not to call the Moon a planet, as we consider it too small to count it as a planet- and because it’s a habit to call it the Moon.
And choose to call anything orbiting a planet, a moon [or a satellite].
Mike Flynn said the atmosphere is an insulator, but won’t say what the means.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.
Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
He is a dishonorable person.
David,
Gee. Im cut to the quick. Maybe you could quote me a few more times, if it makes you feel better. Or maybe you could provide some physical basis to say that the atmosphere is not an insulator, or maybe you believe that the atmosphere doesnt actually exist.
Otherwise, you seem to be complaining that I have stated a fact – but your foolish Warmist mind doesnt like such inconvenient facts!
So sad. Too bad. Maybe other foolish Warmists can understand what I said. What do you think?
The foolish Warmist Raymond Pierrehumbert certainly agreed with me at one time. He even did calculations assigning an insulating value in terms of a certain thickness of polystyrene.
I could suggest you might read his book, but if you cannot grasp the meaning of my statement that the atmosphere is an insulator, you might not able to comprehend a whole physics book. He didnt manage to define the GHE, either. Just in case you are curious.
Im here to help.
Cheers.
MF: You’re full of insults, but lack the integrity to explain the claims you yourself have made.
David,
Are you really a little thick, or just pretending?
I merely stated that the atmosphere is an insulator. I you dont agree, maybe you could provide some facts in support of your position.
If you choose to feel insulted, that is your affair, not mine.
I cannot understand why you would choose to feel insulted, unless you enjoy the feeling. For myself, I generally decline to feel insulted, or to take offence. To each his own, I suppose. If you derive pleasure from feeling insulted, let me know – Ill see what I can dream up.
Im here to help you as much as I feel like.
Cheers.
Flynn, afraid of the simplest questions, even those based on his own claims.
Clown….
David,
Why would you think I would be afraid of you? Do you really intend to beat me up if I dont want to play your silly game?
Ooooh – Im so afraid!
How are you going with a GHE definition? Not so well? Youre right – Im only clowning around. Even your oh-so-fearful self cant achieve the impossible. Maybe you should keep trying.
Im sure any potential employers will be impressed with your one word unsubstantiated assertions, particularly if you demand payment by the word.
A bit self defeating, wouldnt you think? This might explain whats happening if you notice a drop in your income. Maybe you should charge by the hour – you could claim it takes several hours to write a single word!
Cheers.
MF, there’s no reason at all to be afraid of me.
Do a few questions based on what you’ve already written frighten you?
If so, you should be looking inward, not outward.
What are the consequences of your claim that the “atmosphere is an insulator?”
davie, what are the consequences if you can never get a job again?
Apply now, Walmart is hiring.
If you need a reference, let us know.
I come to this site every 2-3 days, mostly in late afternoon. And every time I do, you are here at the same time, responding almost immediately.
Is this really all you have to do with your life?
davie, I know job searching can be frustrating.
You don’t have much talent, but most times they are just looking for bodies. Just smile and appear compliant.
If they hire you, try to learn the job. The fuzzy head of the mop goes down.
Let us know if you need anymore help.
Look how g* is envious of my career and lifestyle. That’s all he can write about.
{grin}
Live in your dream world, davie.
No job, no property, no family, no purpose, no future.
Enjoy.
Jealousy.
It’s an ugly emotion to see in action.
David Appell
That was a good example of how to interact with g*e*r*a*n (not sure why anyone would want to).
He does his best to provoke you to lash out in anger. You hold your cool and he gets more desperate since you are not reacting the way he wants.
I guess it is a Dopamine high for him. This poster gets excited to get some type of hostile reactionary response. Even barry had enough of this one. G*e*r*a*n gets a dopamine high (neural reward network) every time his provokes a reaction. You did not give him his high so he gets more desperate and tries to attack at more deeper levels.
So by depriving him of his dopamine addiction we can see him move on to other blogs to torment others until they realize what he needs. Then intentionally deprive him of what he craves.
You’re probably right, Norman. G* clearly hangs out here essentially all the time, just waiting to insult people.
No interest in discussing science, just rather juvenile insults. Imagine such a life!
Norman, since I’ve know you you’re clearly learned a lot of physics and science. Don’t waste your knowledge on this clown. Treat him a he deserves (and wants & needs) — just make fun of him.
davie and con-man confer.
Hilarious.
Maybe con-man can give davie tips on how to land a state job where all you have to do is wash dishes a few hours a day.
(This is going to be a great year in climate comedy.)
Again, no science at all, just more meaningless insults.
It’s clear who knows the science here.
“No job, no property, no family, no purpose, no future.”
We all remember the type from our early school years.
“Bullying: A bully may project his/her own feelings of vulnerability onto the target(s) of the bullying activity. Despite the fact that a bully’s typically denigrating activities are aimed at the bully’s targets, the true source of such negativity is ultimately almost always found in the bully’s own sense of personal insecurity and/or vulnerability.”
Svante,
What is wrong with bullying?
Foolish Warmists seem to enjoy inflicting a good bullying, as an alternative to scientific endeavour.
Calling opponents deniers, liars, trying to bully journals into not accepting papers, initiating SLAPP suits to silence dissent are all part of the foolish warmest repertoire.
You can see why foolish Warmists feel insecure and vulnerable. No useful definition of the non-existent GHE, and therefore no testable GHE hypothesis.
Taking offence, feeling insulted, falsely claiming to be scientists, awarding themselves unearned Nobel Prizes – the list goes on. One minute the science is settled, the next minute not.
Foolish Warmists cant stand being required to follow the scientific method, because they dont actually practice science of any sort. Just issuing more mad prophecies of doom, which are always worse than they thought, and wont occur for another 5 years at least.
Is it any wonder that Governments are starting to wonder at the benefit of funding this garbage?
Maybe they are getting sick of being bullied by foolish Warmists, and standing up for themselves! Just a thought.
Cheers.
“Calling opponents deniers, liars, trying to bully journals into not accepting papers”
The lesson there is not to become defensive when you are subject to a smear campaign.
“What is wrong with bullying?”
It destroys the ability of groups and people function optimally, for example us on this blog.
Now who would benefit from that?
S,
You wrote amongst other things, that bullying –
. . .destroys the ability of groups and people function optimally, for example us on this blog.
More foolish Warmist nonsense, of course.
Maybe you could provide some evidence, about how the unspecified ability of unspecified groups is somehow affected in some unspecified manner which is sub-optimal (whatever that means to a foolish Warmist)!
Can you could provide examples? As you say, there is no point becoming defensive, just ignore the bully, subject them to ridicule, or wait for them to turn their backs – give them a good kicking if you wish.
I just refuse to be bullied – I point out to the bullies the likely effect of their actions if they appear likely to do something which might affect my quiet enjoyment of life.
A couple have chosen to exercise their freedom to bully, and have subsequently chosen to practise their craft elsewhere. I remain content.
I happen to believe in absolute freedom of speech. Almost nobody else shares my view – what a surprise! Bullying is fine, if you dont mind being bullied back – possibly by someone better equipped than you.
Aint life grand?
Cheers.
“We all remember the type from our early school years.”
Svante. I don’t think of davie as a “bully”. He’s a devout follower of a corrupt and perverted religion. He’s over-zealous, as evidenced by his constant questions meant to distract and confuse.
He doesn’t bring “science” or “truth” to the discussion. He brings nonsense.
From your list of commenters, the only one that really tries to bully is Norm. But, he’s so ineffective, his attempts to bully just come across as hilarious. He believes he is a ferocious pit bull, but he’s a yelping, toothless, impotent chihuahua.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n says:
“hes a yelping, toothless, impotent chihuahua.”
Recognize bullying behaviors:
– Name-calling.
– Teasing.
– Taunting.
– Insulting.
– Verbal abuse.
– Belittling or disrespectful comments.
– Excessive monitoring, criticizing, or nitpicking someone’s work.
– Deliberately overloading someone with work.
– Undermining someone’s work by setting them up to fail.
– Making someone feel unwelcome.
– Picks out your mistakes and constantly brings them up.
– A bully gains enjoyment from tormenting others.
Svante, remember “shining the light” is not “bullying”. It’s an important distinction.
For example, I never use the word “liar”. But, those that commonly use that word to insult, are trying to bully.
g*e*r*a*n
You are clueless about what I do. I don’t know what your purpose is to guess at the type of work I do and then get it totally wrong. That is one thing, but then to think you have it nailed is quite another. Just another example of your make believe world that you think is real because you have declared it to be the case.
By the way I do not work in a restaurant, which might fit your “dishes” comments. The term used where I work is glassware. It is not something most people would want to eat from.
Norm, I just make scientific deductions about your job, based on available evidence. “Washing dishes” is pretty close.
(See what science can do? You should try some.)
Tja, Herr Dr. Spencer…
Hier war einmal ein sehr interessanter Ort, den jedoch einige offensichtlich an paranoider Schizophrenie erkrankte Menschen dabei sind, buchstaeblich zu vernichten.
Es ist Zeit zu gehen.
B,
Bye bye, then.
Cheers.
Bin, maybe you’re looking for a place for phony intellectuals.
Hmmm, let me think.
How about davie’s blog.
He needs supporters. He can’t get a job.
Bin, see how g* always reverts to playing the clown?
davie, do you know the difference between an “intellectual” and a “phony intellectual”?
*
(Insert music here.)
*
(More music.)
*
Answer–There is NO difference!
Are you incapable of discussing the science?
Seems so.
David,
What science would that be? Relating to the non-existent GHE, no doubt?
Foolish Warmist.
Cheers.
What are the measurable consequences of your conclusion that the atmosphere is an insulator?
davie, perhaps you could explain how the Sun can radiatively warm the Earth to 800,000K.
But, you don’t really want science. You want your “belief systems” promoted as science.
Hilarious.
Idiot.
dT = dQ/mc
Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
=> dT = 760,000 K
Q.E.D.
David,
Does your foolish Warmist pseudo-science really make you disagree with my statement that the atmosphere is an insulator?
As to consequences and conclusions, I dont understand what you are getting at. Have you read Raymond Pierrehumberts book? As I mentioned before, you may not be able to understand it, but youll never know unless you try.
As much as I appreciate you preferring me as an authority on quantum electrodynamics, and the interactions between light and matter, I have to admit I think you are just being lazy and stupid. Unless you make some effort to help yourself, why should I bother?
Get back to me if you cant understand Pierrehumberts book.
Cheers.
MF: What are the measurable consequences of your conclusion that the atmosphere is an insulator?
David,
You might find the answer in Raymond Pierrehumberts book Dont blame me if youre not happy with the answer. I believe Pierrehumbert is a foolish Warmist, just like you.
Cheers.
Tut mir leid, auf wiedersehen.
Thanks / Merci / Danke, Svante
David accuses me of lying.
Desperate accusations from a desperate foolish Warmist, without evidence in support.
Unfortunately, the framework of Davids fantasy is luckily not evidence, anymore than his mad claims that a testable GHE hypothesis exists!
But even so, if I choose to lie, whos to know, or stop me? Foolish Warmists cannot distinguish fact from fantasy, so how would they know the difference?
I would never accuse David of lying, as the concept involves being able to distinguish truth from fiction. He well may well believe his delusions to be facts, just as other foolish Warmists – Schmidt, Mann and the like.
Cheers.
What are the measurable consequences of your conclusion that “the atmosphere is an insulator?”
David,
I understand you want to avoid actually making any effort to help yourself. Until you provide some evidence that you dont suffer from chronic mental laziness, I see no reason to answer your silly gotchas.
Feel free to keep asking the same question, if you wish. I might take pity on your mental condition, but its unlikely. Ask the same question 100 times, and Ill think about it.
Cheers.
MF: What are the measurable consequences of your claim that the atmosphere is an insulator?
David,
Thats one. Only 99 to go. Mind you, no guarantee Ill change my mind. Your choice.
Cheers.
GHE = a planet’s average global surface temperature (minus) its brightness temperature.
You can’t even tell us the consequences of your own claim.
What a coward.
David,
What has happened? Arent you going to repeat your gotcha another 99 times? Wheres the obsessive compulsive behaviour weve come to know and love?
Just in case others are watching, Ill point out that theres a difference between cant and wont – although to a foolish Warmist, such distinctions are irrelevant.
Id discuss the science behind the explanation of the GHE, except there isnt an – not outside a foolish Warmist fantasy, anyway.
Sad for foolish Warmists. Maybe you could pose another foolish Warmist gotcha in a lame attempt to deny, divert, and confuse. Im guessing it wont create a testable GHE hypothesis. No science, just Cargo Cult Scientism. Sound sciency, and people might think youre a scientist – although it doesnt seem to have worked out too well for Gavin Schmidt recently.
I wonder how his threat to resign is going? Do you know, being such an authority on foolish Warmism?
Cheers.
MF: What are the measurable consequences of your conclusion that the atmosphere is an insulator?
GHE = a planets average global surface temperature (minus) its brightness temperature.
Watch Flynn run. {grin}
David,
You only need to repeat the gotcha another 98 times.
Glad to see you have regained your obsessive compulsive behaviour. I was bit worried there, for a bit.
Cheers.
David,
I dont understand at all. Are you saying the Greenhouse Effect doesnt actually exist, but is actually some sort of number?
What is the value of this GHE number? 7? Do you think that is high enough?
I am surprised that you have calculated such a wondrous number. Do you intend to share it around, or keep it safely tucked away?
At least the GHE is now well defined as a number, nothing else – and if anyone believes that, they are more foolish than you!
Oh well, you can repeat that particular piece of nonsense another 99 times as well, if it makes you feel better.
Cheers.
See Flynn avoid the question.
He’s a coward.
Top contributors so far:
David Appell : 611
g*e*r*a*n : 431
Gordon Robertson : 330
barry : 175
Mike Flynn : 133
ren : 96
Norman : 75
Svante : 75
Snape : 74
Ball4 : 54
Nate : 51
Entropic man : 49
Bart : 48
J Halp-less : 48
E. Swanson : 43
gammacrux : 35
professorP : 32
tonyM : 29
Dan Pangburn : 28
Des : 28
lewis : 22
Bindidon : 20
Svante, it’s too bad you couldn’t do the same survey based on “word count”.
Yes, good idea, I can try that next month.
Requires a bit of programming though …
Why is it a good idea? Isn’t the quality of commentary what matters?
Let me guess, barry. You would like to define “quality”.
Would your “definition” put you high on the list?
Hilarious.
That’s more interesting barry.
I have noticed that the same thing is sometimes mentioned more than once (by mistake no doubt).
Perhaps I could calculate lexical richness across posts.
g*e*r*a*n, here’s the word count you suggested.
For the ‘UAH global temperature update for December’:
– No. of messages.
– No. of words.
– Average message length.
– Unique words as percentage of the total.
Words with non-letters are filtered out, but quoted text is not. The cut-off point was set to ten messages.
David had the most posts, but g*e*r*a*n produced more words. Gordon contributed more words than the two of them together. On average, gbaikie had the longest messages, followed by Norman. Ren had the shortest.
There is a strong correlation between word count and percentage of unique words. You need to plot words against unique words to see who is over or below the trend line. I should add better lexical richness measures (Yule K), and some quality measures as barry suggested.
I’m using Python NLTK. All bugs will be mine.
Total: 3125 , new: 0 , latest: 2018-02-03 04:02:00
Name Posts Words Avg Unique%
David Appell 604 19329 32 14.40
g*e*r*a*n 552 20612 37 12.86
Gordon Robertson 362 52916 146 8.90
barry 204 15779 77 13.83
Mike Flynn 152 18982 124 14.20
Ball4 134 8492 63 18.89
J Halp-less 103 4578 44 22.32
Norman 98 17298 176 11.61
ren 96 1943 20 33.45
Svante 78 3958 50 28.60
Snape 75 2805 37 27.84
Nate 70 2998 42 27.25
E. Swanson 49 5204 106 24.71
Entropic man 49 3713 75 26.66
Bart 48 2290 47 34.45
MikeR 37 2769 74 34.56
gammacrux 35 3331 95 27.20
tonyM 34 5128 150 24.84
Dan Pangburn 33 2589 78 25.88
professorP 32 1100 34 45.00
gbaikie 23 4416 192 23.55
Bindidon 22 1391 63 41.19
lewis 22 1152 52 43.58
Des 21 771 36 45.53
Stevek 13 589 45 50.25
Chris Morris 11 948 86 39.14
Carbon500 11 1406 127 41.61
Christopher Hanley 11 365 33 53.97
DavidAppell 10 355 35 63.38
Better format for Excel maybe:
2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change
Total: 3128 , new: 3 , latest: 2018-02-04 01:37:00
Posts Words Avg Unique% Name
604 19329 32 14.40 David Appell
553 20636 37 12.86 g*e*r*a*n
362 52916 146 8.90 Gordon Robertson
204 15779 77 13.83 barry
152 18982 124 14.20 Mike Flynn
134 8492 63 18.89 Ball4
103 4578 44 22.32 J Halp-less
98 17298 176 11.61 Norman
96 1943 20 33.45 ren
79 4137 52 28.35 Svante
75 2805 37 27.84 Snape
70 2998 42 27.25 Nate
49 5204 106 24.71 E. Swanson
49 3713 75 26.66 Entropic man
48 2290 47 34.45 Bart
38 2998 78 33.76 MikeR
35 3331 95 27.20 gammacrux
34 5128 150 24.84 tonyM
33 2589 78 25.88 Dan Pangburn
32 1100 34 45.00 professorP
23 4416 192 23.55 gbaikie
22 1152 52 43.58 lewis
22 1391 63 41.19 Bindidon
21 771 36 45.53 Des
13 589 45 50.25 Stevek
11 1406 127 41.61 Carbon500
11 365 33 53.97 Christopher Hanley
11 948 86 39.14 Chris Morris
10 355 35 63.38 DavidAppell
Svante,
Can you calculate an Idiot Index, based on the repetitive use of a single word (not including pronouns, conjunctions etc.)?
A good starting point would be the use of the word “hilarious”.
Let’s just say I want to implement some standard quality metrics. Did you notice you had 1/3 unique words, that was pretty high for 3000 words.
Thanks Svante for the work you have put in.
I have used Excel to have a close look at the data. Yes, there is as striking power law relationship between the number of words and the number of unique words , see
https://s20.postimg.org/db2liaayl/Power_Law_Words.jpg
This is just another beautiful example of the power laws that seem to pervade nature (see Mandelbrot etc.).
Performing a linear fit to the log-log data and calculating residuals gave my personal residual as being 2 standard deviations above trend which was very gratifying. Svante your residual was the second highest at 1.5 standard deviations above the trend.
I won’t embarrass those who had large negative standard deviations. Some were unexpected but those who tend to use repetitive catch phrases, of course, featured prominently.
According to David Appell his calculations show that the Earths temperature is 760,000 K.
Hes so sure of it, he repeated it twice. To ensure it becomes true, hell probably paste it third or fourth time.
Ill help him out – he pasted :
dT = dQ/mc
Given: dQ/dt = 1.22e17 J/s => dQ = 3.85e33 J over 1 Gyrs.
m = mass of Earth = 6.0e24 kg
c = specific heat of Earth = about 850 J/kgK (Table 2.6, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-34023-9_2) for both mantle and outer core (together they comprise over 99% of the Earths volume).
=> dT = 760,000 K
QED”
Dang. Thats hot. David said that the GHE was 7, so theres a bit to account for. Must be CO2.
Cheers.
mike…”Ill help him out he pasted :
dT = dQ/mc”
I pointed out to DA that the equation he is using does not apply to the Sun-Earth interface. It applies to heat flowing through a solid. Furthermore, it’s in differential form therefore it represents an infinitesimal slice of the cross section of heat flowing through the solid.
I seriously doubt that DA has studied physics, or even math. Anyone who had would recognize that immediately.
Junk science can work both ways.
Ban on Fracking is Causing Californias Earthquakes
Keeping with the spirit of climate alarmist fake news, Ive decided to apply their best practices to the recent earthquakes in California. Best Practice #1: Start with a conclusion that supports your political agenda and work backward. I want to expose the Sophistry used by the Climate Alarmists. Best Practice #2: Identify a completely natural phenomenon, Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/27/ban-on-fracking-is-causing-californias-earthquakes/
Norman:
RE: CO2 candle experiment
I take your point but this is no excuse for what the BBC presented in the Climate Wars video where it gave no such explanation. The relevant You Tube clip cited by Appell is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
This is designed to deceive the ordinary public. A scientist won’t be fooled; such an experiment could not work in the general way suggested. Your original reference to a different site revealed how it was done and only confirms the deception. It serves to support the oft stated notion that the BBC is a propaganda tool for warmistas. Appell doubles down by stating that pressure broadening is the explanation for the deception that all the infra red is absorbed.
Listen to the actual words used on the BBC clip (with a lit candle) to show how CO2 affects climate :
Its sensor is a
HEAT sensitive or infra red camera.
camera picks up the flame perfectly ..
HOT spots are glowing white
Watch what happens when I turn on the CO2 keep your eye on flame…
introduce CO2 you should see the flame disappear
(flame does disappear)
CO2 is effectively TRAPPING THE heat
candles WARMTH NO LONGER reaches the camera.
INSTEAD it is absorb-ed by the CO2.
That is EXACTLY how CO2 works in the atmosphere.
It traps heat preventing it from escaping to space.
The deception is that this comes across as general infra red sensitive camera and THE candle’s “heat” is being so called “trapped” by this CO2. So the candle heat has gone, the warmth has gone, vanished, obliterated. Such a cute pea and thimble trick.
The deception is that the experiment did not work even for the limited range of 1 to 5 microns (this IR camera’s sctual range limitation). They then had to use CO2 filters to make it work (around 4 microns).
None of this was disclosed in the clip or in any attached explanation on the You Tube clip.
1) Where did you get this info? Why no link to corroborate?
2) Unsurprising anyway that they would use a filter based on CO2s actual optical range. Why should they not?
Barry:
Listen to what was said in the clip. Total deception which is the hallmark of the BS world of climastrology!
You are endorsing this BS!
Norman:
Re your Q: GHE hypothesis makes the prediction that a planet surrounded with GHG that are transparent to visible light, but opaque to IR band will have a warmer surface, on average, than a planet without such gases.
The hypothesis as you state it seems to me to to fall short in that any atmosphere which heats up and does not quickly release that energy to space will show an increase in “avg” T irrespective of whether it has GHGs. Conduction/convection will yield that in any rotating, variably heated planet.
In the case of water in our atmosphere its latent heat transport through phase changes just exaggerates this and certainly affects the distribution of energy (lapse rate). GHGs provide the minor proportion of heat into our atmosphere.
Further the Average T itself is problematic in that none of these bodies are ever in equilibrium so that an average has a tenuous meaning. There are further complications including topography. If you are serious about studying this, and I know you like to investigate thoroughly, might I suggest you read the Nikolov and Zeller paper as they delve into this. They see a much greater GHE from the whole atmosphere on a surface than is commonly attributed to GHGs (of about 33C).
That would be a good start point and may give ideas on quantifying your hypothesis. Perhaps they could be a good point for collaboration or at least answer questions about their thinking which could prove useful.
Norman:
My thoughts have been a bit disjointed with an interesting weekend:
Fri Australia Day, Sat Aust Tennis Open Finals Women followed by Sun he Men’s final. Federer!! What a champion.
Meanwhile I refer to a practical experiment. Take two identical polystyrene cooler containers. At the bottom place some high heat absorp-tion flat layers. Suspend an electronic temperature sensor say 2.5 cm above each surface and shield this from a heat ray lamp placed identically above each container (say 250W)
Now switch both lamps on until they reach steady state say it is about 5C higher than ambient.
Now fill one container with CO2 and the other with Argon (both are at the same T as the steady state T when adding).
Plot the T reading for each container. The CO2 one will increase and reach a max until the gas slowly starts to dissipate.
How will the two plots differ?
tonyM
Your experiment would have to include the heat capacity of each gas and its mass.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
It takes less energy to heat argon gas than carbon dioxide.
With the same mass of gas it will take 844 joules to warm 1 kg of CO2 by one K. It will take only 520 joules to raise Argon one K.
I am thinking about you posts. I will try to come up with some answer. I think the Earth and Moon do have steady enough average temperatures to determine the difference between the two.
Norman,
You have avoided addressing tonyMs question.
It was How will the two plots differ?
He proposed an experiment. Your comments about the specific heats of the two gases are completely irrelevant in the proposed experiment.
He asked a simple question. I know you dont have the faintest idea, because foolish Warmists have little ability to accept reality.
There is no GHE. Foolish Warmists cant even describe the GHE in unambiguous terms – using the description of say, the Seebeck effect, as a guide.
Maybe if your come up with something remotely scientific to consider, people might pay some credence.
Cheers.
UAH global for January (coffee grounds prediction):
+0.23C
Has g* turned into a warmist? La Nina plus low solar, and still he predicts an above average anomaly.
I agree, of course. My guess is + 0.28
It may take several more months for the atmosphere to move the extra heat to space.
Be patient.
I have sacked the oracle. I am now relying on my personal astrologer who is going low and is predicting +0.14 +/- 0.05 C.
Yes Snape, I suspect g*, like Mike Flynn, is a closet warmist whose role is to sabotage the climate change denial movement. He does a wonderful job with his arrant nonsense and incessant repitition of moronic catch phrases.
Yes, it may be a false flag operation to put skeptics in a bad light, or a Russian operation to create social division.
Despite this, since you sacked your oracle, I will put my money on g*e*r*a*ns horse.
I may lose a bit running sideways round the corners, and backwards on the other side, but it could have a great finish.
I say +0.24.
I may => It may.
Mike Flynn
I have not seen anything remotely scientific coming from you ever. You make a lot of declarations. Attack people who accept the reality of the GHE. Talk about the Earth’s molten past as if this means something. I don’t know what science you bring to the table. I have seen nothing of value. There is nothing one could learn from any of your posts. They contain no actual science. Some posters have asked you to support some of your claims and you tell them you don’t care what they think and you will not respect their requests.
Yes if you ever have any real science in any of your posts, that would be a welcome treat. I have little hope you are able to provide any. As it stands your only contribution is trying to use endless repetition of nothing to try and see if you can get some type of reaction. Other than that I don’t have a clue why you are here. You certainly do not bring any science here, that is for sure.
Is it something the way you and g*e*r*a*n are wired that if you repeat something enough times it becomes true and real even without any evidence or support? g*e*r*a*n is convinced the Moon does not rotate on its axis. He provides zero supporting evidence of any type to demonstrate his case, he just repeats it over and over. It you and him are using science it is a form I have never learned.
You repeat endlessly that no one has given a testable hypothesis of the GHE. The reality is several people have given you such in many different ways, up above Dave Appell gave you one based upon empirical data.
David Appell: “GHE = a planets average global surface temperature (minus) its brightness temperature.”
This is definitely testable. You can get temperatures and brightness temperature. You may not accept the data but it is certainly testable
YOUR claim is “There is no GHE. Foolish Warmists cant even describe the GHE in unambiguous terms ”
David Appell did describe it in clear terms. The two terms he uses are not ambiguous. Average temperature is a very clear term. You take a number of measurements add them together and divide by the number of measurements. You could debate about the accuracy of a given average temperature but the term is clear.
I would like to see if you are capable of any science. Repeating things over and over is not science, it is not even religion. It is the realm of cult mentality. Endless repetition of a thought until it becomes real. You might check in at the door, this is a science blog. Science requires proof, evidence, logical thought. Your posts are the least scientific ones on this blog.
Norman,
You are just being silly now.
Davids insistence that his number is a testable GHE hypothesis is, quite simply, as pointless as any other foolish Warmist blather.
A number is a testable hypothesis? Maybe in the fantasy of foolish Warmists, but nowhere else.
Only a foolish Warmist would devise a number purporting to relate CO2 concentration to temperature by omitting any mention of CO2 (or any other purported GHG, for that matter).
As to what you would like to see or not see, it matters nought to me. My care factor remains stuck at zero.
You are free to think what you like – maybe you think that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. That would be completely erroneous, and even foolish Warmist might laugh at such a ludicrous notion. I believe President Trump mentioned that what is now termed climate change, used to be referred to as global warming, apparently as a result of increasing CO2 levels, but maybe foolish Warmists have realised what a stupid idea this was.
Your enthusiasm for the non-existent GHE is obvious. Your lack of ability to describe the GHE is also obvious. Just like NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and all the rest of the foolish Warmist infested organisations, you cant actually say what it is that you are promoting. According to NASA, the GHE is not a greenhouse at all – its a blanket! Maybe tomorrow, it will be a pot lid, or an umbrella, or a magical one way insulator!
Press on, Norman. No GHE. Not even a testable hypothesis. Claiming that the GHE is a number is just silly. Meaningless nonsense.
Cheers.
Norm, your lack of technical background drags you into pseudoscience, AGAIN.
“GHE = a planets average global surface temperature (minus) its brightness temperature.”
You believe that is a “testable hypothesis”?
Comparing a supposed average surface temperature with an estimated, assumed calculation?
Hilarious pseudoscience.
Dang, I always forget the punchline: “Still no GHE”!
Much better now.
☺
“Comparing a supposed average surface temperature with an estimated, assumed calculation?”
anger misses the planet brightness temperature is measured. No worries, anger has to work hard getting to the top of the pseudoscience hilarious! list for all of 2018 – we can count on more entertainment from anger who never fails to get the science wrong. More please.
Poor tricky trick believes a planet’s brightness temperature is measured. He believes that Santa measures the brightness temperature, when he’s not delivering toys to all the good little boys and girls. (Santa never visited poor tricky trick.)
Poor tricky trick does not understand reality. tricky trick does not even understand what “brightness temperature” means. It is NOT measured, it is calculated.
Poor tricky trick, too much time sniffing cabbage fumes, while pounding on his keyboard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightness_temperature
(2018 is going to be a fantastic year in climate comedy!)
Ball4,
More deny, divert and confuse?
If you believe a number is a testable hypothesis, youre a science free nutter, to put it mildly.
You cant even say what the GHE effect is supposed to be, or do, in terms understandable by real (as opposed to self styled climate) scientists.
You could give it a try, if you feet like it. One acceptable way could be to start with The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon . . ., and then describe it precisely enough that other real scientists could quantify it in a reproducible fashion.
After defining the GHE phenomenon properly, you could then move on to proposing a testable hypothesis to explain what you claim normal physics is unable to achieve. Good luck!
All this GHE is delusional nonsense. As President Trump alluded to, the pseudo-scientists seemed to believe that their greenhouse effect was associated with the operation of real greenhouses, but discovered they didnt really have clue about the real world. They then tried weather extremes, weather weirding, and finally settled on climate change, totally oblivious to the obvious question as to what might happen if you could actually stop the climate from changing.
But keep going – it should help to keep you from causing actual physical harm. Feel free to let me know when somebody manages to state what the GHE is actually supposed to do, in a reproducible fashion. If it cant be reproduced, it isnt science of course. Its speculation until you can figure out a way to set up experiments capable of disproving your idea. Not proving, disproving. Youll notice the theory of evolution remains a theory – nobody has managed to disprove it yet. It may not be the full story, just as Newtons Laws of Motion are correct as far as they go, but do not account for relativistic effects.
The General Theory of Relativity still holds, as it has not been disproven either.
Its all part of the scientific method. GHE supporters prefer declarations of faith. Fine, but dont expect me to pay to participate in your religion.
Cheers.
“More deny, divert and confuse?”
No, none at all, just more mundane experimental science.
“The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon . . ., and then describe it precisely enough that other real scientists could quantify it in a reproducible fashion.”
No need for me to build on the GHE phenomenon which Mike Flynn has described well enough in past threads that other real scientists have already quantified such GHE in a reproducible fashion.
The internet never forgets Mike.
Ball4,
Others might see that youre doing the usual deny, divert, and confuse thing.
You cant actually find this amazing Mike Flynn GHE description which you claim exists, because it doesnt.
I f you could, youd no doubt paste it.
You just say there is no need for you to back up your mad claim that GHE exists. Indeed, you have no need for fact – that much is obvious.
If such a bizarre thing exists, it doesnt matter that I say that I have never seen it. Like unicorns or the luminiferous ether, figments of the imagination may be real to you.
Go for it. Find a research grant based on what you imagine I said. Bear in mind, the people dealing out the funds might ask me what I actually said. They might even believe me more than you, particularly if you tell them you dont need to back up anything you say.
It doesnt matter. It seems the funds are drying up. Ben Santer has failed to bully the US Government into funding his delusional ideas, so now is demanding that the Canadian Government provide funds!
I wonder why he didnt relocate to France? Apparently the French President has a large amount of French taxpayers funds to hand out to self styled climate scientists who produce precisely nothing of use. Gavin Schmidt threatened to resign if his funding was affected. Maybe he and Ben should ask for some crowd funding – Im sure theyd raise billions. Or maybe not.
Cheers.
“You can’t actually find this amazing Mike Flynn GHE description which you claim exists, because it doesn’t. If you could, you’d no doubt paste it.”
Mike, your past description of the GHE wasn’t amazing, that’s just your embellishment. Your various mundane GHE descriptions are simply accurate agreeing with the experimental science both in the lab and observed out in the field.
Mike Flynn
Predictably you had a long post without the slightest bit of science and lots of repetition. The cult of Mike Flynn continues, too bad you don’t have any followers.
A question to you is what are you exactly asking that people produce for you?
Norman,
Nothing at all. Which is, of course, what delusional GHE enthusiasts have produced to date. Nothing at all of the slightest utility to anyone except themselves!
You dont even have a testable GHE hypothesis, or even a useful description of the GHE in reproducible scientific terms.
If you feel like appearing scientific, thats up to you.
If you want to keep pretending that the GHE exists by denying, diverting, and confusing the issue whenever someone tries to find out whether you have the faintest idea what you are talking about, good for you.
When the funding to the self styled climatologists dries up, who will care? Not me, thats for sure! You may keep throwing your money to any delusional psychotic you wish. I hope it brings deep feelings of contentment.
Cheers
David Appell wrote –
There is aether. This was proved long ago, and neutrinos have done nothing to change that.
I assume that David didnt really mean to profess belief in the aether.
Modern physics seems to accept that Michelson and Morley tested the hypothesis that the aether existed by experiment and showed the hypothesis to be false.
Maybe its just Davids well known journalistic sloppiness at work. However, maybe belief in the luminiferous aether is part of foolish Warmist Scientism.
Would you mind clarifying your professed belief in aether, David? Your decision, of course.
Cheers.
mike…”There is aether. This was proved long ago, and neutrinos have done nothing to change that.
I assume that David didnt really mean to profess belief in the aether.
Modern physics seems to accept that Michelson and Morley tested the hypothesis”
********
Mike…I did not bother replying to DA on that one. Michelson and Morley, as you say, put the boots to that theory, at least temporarily.
There was an interesting character/scientist, Dayton Miller, who did a lot of work in the opposite direction. Einstein claimed, based on the work of Miller:
“I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.”
I don’t know what happened to Miller’s work, maybe the quantum theory stuff of the day over-shadowed it. I am curious as to whether the recent discovery that neutrinos permeate apparent empty space will rekindle Miller’s theory.
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
Gordon,
Im happy for the moment with the non-existence of the aether. Nobody has managed to reliably replicate Millers results as far as I know, and quantum physics amongst other things removes the need for a transmission medium.
The basic problem Ive always seen has been the conflicting properties of an aether. On the one hand, it must be nearly infinitely rigid, in order to transmit information at the speed of light, and on the other hand have so little viscosity that it doesnt measurably impede anything travelling through it.
If you dont need it, why insist it exists? As to neutrinos, photons in their infinite energy levels occupy supposedly empty space, as well as the space you occupy right now. Just for example, how many photons in the form of all the different TV, radio, and mobile phone frequencies are occupying precisely the same volume as you, as they pass through you? An infinite number?
Why dont they collide with each other? And so it goes.
I think it was Feynman who said that anyone who claims to understand quantum physics is mistaken – or something like that. I dont claim to understand quantum physics more than I do.
Have fun.
Cheers.
mike…”If you dont need it, why insist it exists?”
DA was just being his normal persnickety self. It’s interesting what Einstein admitted, however, if there is an aether as described by Miller, his theory of relativity collapses.
A lot of the theories like relativity cannot be adequately tested. I mean, how does on test it? You’d need to travel at the speed of light with a meter of some kind.
They can apply it to the apparent retrograde motion of Mercury in it’s orbit. Viewed from Earth, at one point of it’s orbital path, Mercury appears to circle back on itself as if it’s doing a small loop in its orbit. It’s an illusion that requires special relativity to explain it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_retrograde_motion
I am concerned about space-time theory related to Einstein’s theory. Many wannabee scientists have run with Einstein’s theory, attaching meaning to it the theory does not have. They have proposed space-time as a reality and it has reached the absurdity of gravity not being considered a force but a warp in space-time.
What absolute nonsense. How can you take a dimension that does not exist, like time, and present it as a 4th dimension with physical properties? Now they are relating black holes to space-time whereas the THEORY was at one time related to collapsing stars going past the neutron star phase.
One might ask how solid particles like neutrons collapse beyond the particle phase into an immense nothingness with a super gravitational effect? I presume one may ask all they want, the math says it can be done even though no one has ever directly witnessed the reality, or the effects of the reality.
Robbo,
Is your aversion to post 1930s quantum mechanics and all varieties of relativity based on an admiration for Deutsche Physik?
You probably aren’t a great fan of decadent art either but i like your taste in music.
mike r…”You probably arent a great fan of decadent art either but i like your taste in music”.
Hopefully based on the acid test. ☺
Glad we agree on something. ☺
An ex-g/f became annoyed with me when she took me to an art gallery. I liked all the portrait style paintings. When she showed me the famous Canadian Group of Seven paintings and those of Emily Carr, I claimed they looked as if they’d been done by a paint-by-number set. Awfully primitive.
Of course, I paid for it with a lack of a certain activity enjoyed by males and females.
Sorry Gordon, I should have referred to “degenerate art”. Do you have an opinion on this as well?
Anyway I am still very puzzled regarding your rejection of modern physics. Do you regard modern quantum mechanics and relativity as “verboten” due to the disregard of Deutsche Physik by Einstein and other pioneers of a similar background?
DA…”GHE = a planets average global surface temperature (minus) its brightness temperature.
Watch Flynn run. {grin}”
You’re the one who should be running, brightness temperature is not a real temperature. It’s an ‘equivalent’ temperature in that it’s the radiation that would be expected to be given off by a heated body.
I suppose you’re referring to the calculated temperature of the Earth with no atmosphere or oceans.
There’s no proof anyway that such is the case. If you had a planet with no atmosphere or oceans and gradually added an atmosphere and oceans, the planet would gradually warm. Whose to say it would not warm to the +15C from -19C calculated naturally?
It depends on the natural heating provided by gravity as it compresses the atmosphere. As gas pressure increases, temperature increases.
“I suppose you’re referring to the calculated temperature of the Earth with no atmosphere or oceans.”
You suppose wrong Gordon. This is nothing new.
Ball4,
Deny, divert, and confuse.
You pretend to be able to read David Appells alleged mind. That would be a neat trick, except you cant actually do it, can you?
Just more foolish Warmist nonsense. Maybe if you could actually find out what this alleged GHE is supposed to do, then you could propose a testable GHE hypothesis.
So far it seems to have defeated NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, and anybody who wishes it actually existed!
Give it a try, if you wish. How hard can it be? Does it have anything at all to do with greenhouses, perhaps?
Cheers.
“except you can’t actually do (read Appell’s mind), can you?”
True enough Mike, you do get that right.
“Maybe if you could actually find out what this alleged GHE is supposed to do..”
I already found out from Mike Flynn what the GHE is supposed to do. Replicable tests proved Mike was right. The internet never forgets.
“How hard can it be?”
Not very hard, even Mike Flynn has adequately stated the GHE.
Ball4,
Deny, divert, and confuse.
Just like the testable GHE hypothesis, you cant actually get your hands on what you are so sure must exist, it seems. Its always somewhere else – like Rumsfelds WMDs!
I appreciate your faith in my god like powers, creating something out of nothing, and then making it invisible! Do you think I could raise the temperature of a thermometer with my awesome mental powers? Im surprised youre not terrified I might strike you down with a lightning bolt for taking my name in vain!
Ah well, the truly delusional create their own reality. Michael Mann really deserved (and was awarded) a Nobel Prize in his version of reality. I guess there are others who believe that thermometers can be heated with CO2.
Think as you wish. Enjoy life, if you wish. Tell me what I think, if you want to. I dont mind – nor do I care.
Cheers.
“Do you think I could raise the temperature of a thermometer with my awesome mental powers?”
No. Not at all. Your mental powers being adequate to correctly describe the GHE in past written comments here is all that matters for this blog.
ball4…”I suppose youre referring to the calculated temperature of the Earth with no atmosphere or oceans.
You suppose wrong Gordon. This is nothing new”
*********
It appears either you or DA are wrong, likely both. Brightness temperature is not a temperature, it’s an equivalent temperature.
Then again, you believe heat does not exist.
Only the KE of an object’s constituent particles exists in nature Gordon. True enough, the brightness temperature is NOT a thermometer temperature. In a few days Dr. Spencer will publish the next dot on the monthly curve of brightness temperatures – a process verified and in part calibrated by thermometer temperatures. You know, the UAH data you seem to trust more than thermometer temperatures.
Ball4,
I dont believe you understand what you are saying.
Does an object at rest possess kinetic energy? If two objects in space are apace are becoming closer to each other, might one be stationary? Or maybe the other one? Or maybe one is moving so much faster than the other that its overtaking it!
Your statement that only the KE of an objects constituent particles exists in Nature is is a sciency sounding collection of words without useful meaning.
Just like the nonsense jargon of self styled climate scientists.
If you dont care to respond, I understand.
Cheers.
ball 4…”Only the KE of an objects constituent particles exists in nature…”
Kinetic energy is energy in motion, it is generic energy. KE applies to all forms of energy.
The KE of atoms is heat. In electrical theory, the KE in a circuit is the electrons in motion in a conductor that is due to the applied potential energy in a battery or power supply. Therefore, KE = current.
In gases, the average KE is proportional to the temperature. Temperature is a relative measure of heat. We all seem to know that except you. A rise in temperature means a body gets hotter. Get it, more heat?
When you heat a solid body with a flame, the atoms in the body gain KE. That is, KE is transferred from the flame to the body. Is it a coincidence the process is called heating, and the outcome is a hotter body?
Heat is transferred from the flame to the body, it flows. Then it flows throughout the body. Yes, it is KE but we have to call it something to distinguish it from the KE in an electric circuit or the KE of a rock falling off a cliff through a gravitational field.
We call it heat.
An egregious error has been made by those who define heat as energy in motion. Heat TRANSFER is energy in motion, the energy being thermal energy. Someone left out the TRANSFER, leading to a generation being taught incorrectly.
“Does an object at rest possess kinetic energy?”
Since the object at rest has a temperature, its constituent particles possess KE even in the inertial frame of ref. in which the object is at rest. Heat is a measure of the constituent particle KE. Gordon usually gets this right.
I understand to Mike this is without meaning but at least Mike has written down a meaningful description of the GHE correctly in past comments around here.
“KE applies to all forms of energy.”
Not potential. Not chemical. Not f x d, so forth. KE is only one form of energy.
“Get it, more heat?”
More heat means more measure of the KE of the constituents, only the KE exists, heat is only a measure thereof.
A decrease in temperature means a body gets colder. Get it, more cold? Does cold also flow?
“That is, KE is transferred from the flame to the body.”
Someone named Gordon always writes EMR not the KE transfers the energy (example sun to earth), the KE stays in the object, changes in measure. EMR is not heat. Are you another Gordon?
“Heat is transferred from the flame to the body, it flows.”
“An egregious error has been made by those who define heat as energy in motion.”
Then this Gordon keeps making egregious errors. Can never keep his stories straight.
Flynn: “Ball4, I don’t believe you understand what you are saying.”
Flynn pretends to be able to read my mind. Flynn can’t actually do so, but at least he’s able to describe the GHE consistent with experiment in comments around here. The internet does not forget.
Ball4,
Are you saying that a stationary object at absolute zero possesses kinetic energy? How will you measure it?
What would be the kinetic energy of a stationary object of 1 kg mass at absolute zero? At 273 K?
Are you talking about climatological kinetic energy, perhaps? Thats the sciency sounding, but meaningless, rubbish uttered by foolish Warmists trying to sound intelligent.
Have you considered finding the testable GHE hypothesis which you also claim exists? Maybe its over here, or over there? Or in your delusion, have I created that as well? Pity that Im not a foolish Warmist then, isnt it?
Ah, ill no doubt appreciate the feeling of superiority when NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and all the rest come begging at my feet for a testable GHE hypothesis. How much do you think I should charge?
Are you quite mad, or just pretending for some bizarre foolish Warmist reason?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
“Are you saying that a stationary object at absolute zero possesses kinetic energy? How will you measure it?”
An object at absolute zero does not exist, in any ref. frame.
“What would be the kinetic energy of a stationary object of 1 kg mass at absolute zero?”
An object of any mass at absolute zero does not exist, in any ref. frame.
“Have you considered finding the testable GHE hypothesis which you also claim exists?”
It is Mike Flynn that has claimed the testable GHE hypothesis exists, experiments and observations agree with him.
“How much do you think I should charge?”
Nothing. Mike Flynn gave away the testable GHE hypothesis for free, in written comments right on this blog.
Ball4,
Are you saying that an object cannot exist at absolute zero?
This might come as a shock to the physicists at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Dang. You shot them down in flames. Have you checked the definition of absolute zero lately?
Still no GHE. All you can do is claim someone has stated one – you cant actually produce it – just make the usual foolish Warmist unsubstantiated assertions.
Keep going Ball4. Im enjoying your twisting and evasion. Maybe you could let me know how putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer raises the temperature of the thermometer? Not even the US Government believes that piece of delusional thinking!
Cheers.
“Are you saying that an object cannot exist at absolute zero?”
Yes, here Mike actually gets my drift.
“You shot them down in flames. Have you checked the definition of absolute zero lately?”
Yes. And it is Mike Flynn shot down in flames as an object at absolute zero does not exist, in any ref. frame.
“Still no GHE. All you can do is claim someone has stated one you can’t actually produce it.”
Not just someone, Mike Flynn has correctly stated the testable GHE hypothesis immortally right here on this blog. His GHE exists statements backed by experiment and observation & it does no good for Mike to deny, divert and confuse as the internet never forgets his comments.
“Maybe you could let me know how putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer raises the temperature of the thermometer?”
No need for me to repeat Mike Flynn’s past robust explanation for how this process works in nature, Mike has correctly recorded the facts in past comments.
Denying these facts is Mike’s attempt to confuse and divert. Won’t work Mike, your comments are immortal.
ball4…”KE applies to all forms of energy.
Not potential. Not chemical. Not f x d, so forth. KE is only one form of energy”.
Come on, man, you’re sounding like Barry. I defined KE as energy in motion. You are being obtuse by diverting it into a non sequitur argument involving PE.
KE is not a ‘form’ of energy, it’s a description of energy in motion, any energy. It’s partner, potential energy, applies to all forms of energy as well. Yes, even chemical.
f x d is work. If you raise a weight against a gravitational field you are doing work. While that body is moving upward, it represents kinetic energy. When the weight stops at a height, it becomes potential energy and if you let it go, hopefully getting your foot out of the way, it becomes KE while the weight is in motion.
KE = 1/2 mv^2
W = fd = (ma)d (Newton II)
but ad = (V^2 – Vo^2)/2 for uniform acceleration.
W = m(ad) = 1/2m(V^2 – Vo^2) = 1/2 mV^2 – 1/2mVo^2
work = change in kinetic energy.
Therefore, f x d, as you put it is a change in KE. That proves that KE applies to mechanical or gravitational energy and it applies to all forms of energy, even the energy of an electron in an atom or electromagnetic energy. Of course, with EM, a substitution of mass is required.
With an electron, it’s KE is called heat.
Me and Mike studied all this stuff in engineering. By the time you get out of first year you are an authority on KE and so forth, even if I have forgotten much of what I learned.
ball4…”More heat means more measure of the KE of the constituents, only the KE exists, heat is only a measure thereof”.
We human applied the name heat as a description of the KE of atoms. As I told you, KE can apply to any form of energy when the energy is in motion. We need different names to distinguish the energy to which the KE applies.
Electrons flowing in an electric circuit have kinetic energy. We call that form of KE an electrical current, but only the flow related to the EMF driving the current.
Actually, it’s a lot more complex. Electrons flow through a conductor at cm/sec whereas they transfer electric charge electron to electron at the speed of light. The charge,q, is related to KE as qE = 1/2mv^2. E is the applied voltage and it does work on the charge to move it.
The same electrons can transfer heat, just as they transfer charge.
Therefore, in an electric circuit you have two versions of KE. But, wait!!! How about heat? As the electron bumps past atoms and other electrons heat is produced.
ball4…”Someone named Gordon always writes EMR not the KE transfers the energy (example sun to earth), the KE stays in the object, changes in measure. EMR is not heat. Are you another Gordon?”
Actually I use just EM rather than EMR. Radiation is energy and it seem redundant to use EMR. Radiation normally refers to a vector field where the EM is broken into a flux field (W/m^2).
I could claim the EM is kinetic energy but it seems better to mention the energy in question is EM as opposed to thermal energy.
If heat describes the KE of atoms then how could it be the same KE and describe the flow of EM? EM has no mass and all atoms do. EM is a product of atoms, specifically, of the electrons, not the atom per se.
Since EM has no mass, it cannot be describing the motion of atoms. The only way heat can ‘flow’ through space is via convection and that implies mass, as in a gas or a liquid. The heat is transferred by actual mass and since EM has no mass it cannot transfer heat.
“I defined KE as energy in motionKE = 1/2 mv^2”
No Gordon KE is mass in motion, KE equals mass with a velocity in a certain ref. frame as your formula shows, not energy with a velocity. So not energy in motion otherwise EM would have KE which it doesn’t since for EM m=0.0. Of course, Einstein expressed the equivalence of mass and energy but you are not describing nuclear energy here, that’s another form of energy.
“KE is not a ‘form’ of energy.”
Wrong. You are free to write the prof. at MIT about that too and attempt to correct his thinking, this effort will fail as testing shows.
“f x d is work. If you raise a weight against a gravitational field you are doing work. While that body is moving upward, it represents kinetic energy. When the weight stops at a height, it becomes potential energy and if you let it go, hopefully getting your foot out of the way, it becomes KE while the weight is in motion.”
fxd is a form of energy, so sort of, the weight has PE all the time during the motion, since its PE increases above a ref. as it rises. KE=0.0 at top stop, PE=max.
“KE applies…electromagnetic energy.”
No, for EM m=0.0 as you write “since EM has no mass” thus EM has no KE. Just inspect your KE formula.
“With an electron, it’s KE is called heat.”
There is more to the story, heat is a measure of the atom/molecule KE, the electron is a constituent of the atom/molecule.
Ball4,
I dont pretend to read minds – I actually do read foolish Warmist minds. Foolish Warmist minds are easy to read. They are full of fanciful imaginings – CO2 makes thermometers hotter, Michael Mann was awarded a Nobel Prize, Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, Hillary Clinton is US president, and other such delusions.
Look into your own mind. I was right, wasnt I? Ill be at least 76% right, which is twice the near certainty of 38% that Gavin Schmidt claimed for 2014 being the hottest year EVAH!
Cheers.
“I don’t pretend to read minds”
You just pretended to do so. Couple times. Deny, divert, confuse won’t help you at all Mike. Since your comments are immortal, the readership here has confirmation.
tricky trick, you failed to read the rest of the sentence you attempted to quote.
“I actually do read foolish Warmist minds. Foolish Warmist minds are easy to read”
The non-existent visible light from your cabbages makes it hard to read, huh?
That’s a pretend mind reading statement, anger, so Mike has confused anger too with his diversionary tactic. Don’t worry it’s not only you, Mike is master at denying. Not even anger can read Mike’s mind. Not that he cares.
And more good comedy points anger, the Romulan cloaking device you use to make cabbages and blue plates (6c3) invisible is turned on again, so hilarious! Please no experiments which would slow your climb to the top of 2018 climate comedy nonsense. I know keeping ahead of Flynn’s comedy is hard work but you show enough comedic capability to be up to the task.
Still no cabbages that glow in the dark. Still no “brightness temperature” that can be measured. Still no GHE.
Just not much working for tricky trick, huh?
That comment climate comedy hits 9of10 on the 2018 blog laughometer anger, be careful though and work harder as Flynn is aiming for 10of10. Please no experiments either, Flynn already complies with that, not that I care. Hilarious!
Ball4 wrote
“The internet never forgets Mike.
Thank you for the confirmation. Immortality is mine!
Cheers.
Gordon,
So your final answer to Clauisus’ statement is that he was wrong.
But modern physics agrees with him.
“The sun and the Earth both radiate heat towards each other. This seems to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot flow from a cold body to a hot body. The paradox is resolved by the fact that each body must be in direct line of sight of the other to receive the radiation from it. Therefore, whenever the cool body is radiating heat to the hot body, the hot body must be radiating heat to the cool body. Since the hot body radiates more heat (due to its higher temperature) than the cold body, the NET flow of heat is from hot to cols and the second law is still satisfied.”
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/black_body_radiation.htm
That is from an engineering website.
From MIT we have equations of energy transfer based on this 2-way flow of energy:
“We want a general expression for energy interchange between two surfaces at different temperatures. This is given by the radiation shape factor or view factor. For the situation in Figure 19.11,
F {1-2} = fraction of energy leaving 1 which reaches 2
F {2-1} = fraction of energy leaving 2 which reaches 1”
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node137.html
And:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node136.html
I can provide more modern physics examples of the 2-way exchange of energy resulting in the NET result being heat flowing from hot to cold.
I can do this all day. Credible physics sources are on my side, and corroborate Clauisus’ words.
But you cannot from any credible physics text provide corroboration that warm objects are unable to absorb radiation from cooler objects.
You have been asked many times. You have never doe so.
This is because you are wrong. Radiation and the classic definition of heat are not interchangeable. The 2nd Law only applies to the classic definition of heat, not to EM radiation.
You said you would provide a link to a credible physics text establishing that radiation from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a warmer one.
You have not done so. Please do so now. I don’t believe you will be able.
barry,
No matter how much you attempt to deny, divert and confuse, you cant actually do what you claim can be done – that is, raise the temperature of a warmer body by exposing it to a colder one – can you?
All irrelevant, nobody has managed to propose a testable GHE hypothesis, have they? Not NASA, not NOAA, not IPCC – no one.
As a matter of inconvenient fact, two bodies of any temperature, not contained within a perfect insulator, will continue to cool all the way to absolute zero. Try heating a teaspoon of water with all the 300W/m2 emitting ice in the world – squillions of Watts! When youve heated a warmer body with a cooler, you will be believed.
You can sprout nonsense all day – but a single fact – say a testable GHE hypothesis will be more believable than truckloads of foolish Warmist nonsense – no matter what journals have been greedy enough to publish it.
Still no GHE.
Youre welcome.
Cheers.
Try responding to what I write. Currently this seems beyond you.
barry,
No. Ill write what I wish. Your opinion of my ability to respond to is irrelevant, isnt it?
Why should I respond in accord with your wishes?
Silly, silly, silly.
If you object to anything I have presented as fact (or even opinion based on fact, I suppose), then you might challenge the facts. Im not likely to accept your opinion without basis in fact. Unsubstantiated assertions are not fact. Foolish Warmist computer model outputs are not fact. Claims that increasing CO2 levels between the Sun and a thermometer will make the thermometer hotter, are not fact.
So what do you have? Nothing at all, not even a testable GHE hypothesis.
No wonder you might feel like bursting into deny, divert and confuse mode. I understand.
Cheers.
I’m not likely to accept your opinion without basis in fact.
Funny, that’s exactly my position on g*e*r*a*n and Gordon’s opinions. And if you read my posts you would realize that I am asking them to corroborate their views with facts specific to the points on which they’ve been challenged.
They have been resolute in their refusal to do so.
What do you think of that?
barry,
I agree.
Cheers.
barry, I’ve offered you help, but you reject it. It’s almost as if you don’t want to understand.
All of your “research”, and you still can’t come up with “cold” can raise the temperature of “hot”.
Oh well, maybe if you keep searching.
Hilarious.
barry, you pseudoscience types are hilarious. You keep getting it wrong, and then try to find things that you can mis-read, to try to show you’re right!
You get so tangled up in your on spin, that you then get anxious, and try to blame others for your frustration.
It’s fun to watch.
Two objects radiating to each other is NOT a problem for the 2LoT. But, the cold object does NOT raise the temperature of the HOT object.
It’s just that simple.
Two objects radiating to each other is NOT a problem for the 2LoT.
Indeed so.
But you think warm objects tend to reflect radiation from colder objects.
You’ve specifically stated that black bodies cannot absorb radiation from colder black bodies.
You’re wrong about this, and you know it. But you just can’t bring yourself to say it.
barry, photon emission is linked to “temperature”. The temperature determines the wavelength. The wavelength determines whether or not the photon will be absorbed.
You can’t “define” yourself out of the Laws.
barry, photon emission is linked to “temperature”.
Yep. You got something right.
The temperature determines the wavelength.
So far so good….
The wavelength determines whether or not the photon will be absorbed.
Nope. This, as I’ve already pointed out multiple times, is where you stupidly confuse emissivity with absorp-tivity.
“Unlike emissivity, the absor-ptivity of a material is practically independent of surface temperature”
Tell me, what does in feel like to be in denial?
Deny this:
“A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object”.
–g*e*r*a*n says:
January 29, 2018 at 11:35 AM
Deny this:
A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.–
Ok!
An acid droplet in Venus atmosphere warms the rocky surface
of Venus.
Both droplet and rocky surfaces are objects.
And droplet of acid is colder than rocky surface.
And it’s not due to a radiant heat transfer.
It’s a convective heat transfer.
I could explain it, if required.
And its not due to a radiant heat transfer.
Ok
There is radiant transfer from sun to acid droplet.
But making the higher temperature is not due to a radiant heat
transfer. Or droplet can be relatively cool- about 70 C.
gbaikie…”An acid droplet in Venus atmosphere warms the rocky surface of Venus”.
That seems to be based on the old Venus runaway greenhouse theory.
According to astronomer Andrew Ingersoll, a more recent probe found the surface of Venus to be around 450C, far too hot to be explained by a greenhouse theory.
IMHO, it’s more likely explained by the Mike Flynn theory of a much hotter core.
I am quoting Ingersoll from an Abstract that I could dig up if required.
It’s not clear how an acid droplet, whether hotter or colder, could affect the surface temperature under such conditions.
barry…”The wavelength determines whether or not the photon will be absorbed.
Nope. This, as Ive already pointed out multiple times, is where you stupidly confuse emissivity with absorp-tivity”.
g*r is right according to Bohr. The frequency must match the requirements of the electrons frequency and the energy level must natch exactly the difference in energy levels to which the electron can jump upward.
You should check out you emission/absorp-tion theory, which I THINK refers only to bodies in thermal equilibrium. Anyway, an electron cannot emit and absorb at the same time. It would have to be one electron emitting and another absorbing. Either way, the absorp-tion is restricted to certain frequencies and intensities.
Read on spectral emission/absorp-tion.
— Gordon Robertson says:
January 29, 2018 at 10:30 PM
gbaikieAn acid droplet in Venus atmosphere warms the rocky surface of Venus.
That seems to be based on the old Venus runaway greenhouse theory.–
It’s not based upon it. as I am unaware of it.
It could be the same or similar, but as I said not aware of this old Venus runaway greenhouse theory.
I know, how I check out when it was discovered Venus has acid clouds. Hmm wiki:
In 1761, Russian polymath Mikhail Lomonosov observed an arc of light surrounding the part of Venus off the Sun’s disc at the beginning of the egress phase of the transit and concluded that Venus has an atmosphere. In 1940, Rupert Wildt calculated that the amount of CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere would raise surface temperature above the boiling point for water. This was confirmed when Mariner 2 made radiometer measurements of the temperature in 1962. In 1967, Venera 4 confirmed that the atmosphere consisted primarily of carbon dioxide”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Anyways I didn’t get answer, other than it seems the discover of acid clouds and the massive nature of Venus atmosphere occurred after spaceflight. Or only very wild and lucky guess, could be very old theory.
But it’s seems the discovery of Venus large atmosphere and thick clouds was related to current greenhouse effect theory and I would guess this was in early 1970’s.
And I would guess one probably find 1950 sfi novels about Venus being “earth like” and with strange humanoids living there.
–IMHO, its more likely explained by the Mike Flynn theory of a much hotter core.–
Does Mike Flynn have theory or is it a rough idea?
There is theory about Venus having “recent” [geologically speaking] global re-surfacing event. Which is largely to do with lack of old impact craters. Or counting impact craters is standard way to determine age of surface, and with this metric, Venus “appears” young. And if it actually is young, Venus seems to me to have a lot volcanic land forms and apparently not high percentage of them being currently active.
–Its not clear how an acid droplet, whether hotter or colder, could affect the surface temperature under such conditions.–
If droplet are warmed by sunlight, they would heat the atmospheric gas- they increase the average velocity of gas molecules.
If droplet in sunlight are radiating heat to space and warmed by the air, then the droplets are cooling the atmospheric gas- decreasing the average velocity of the gas molecules.
The net result of all the acid droplets of Venus is either one of these two options.
gbaikie, the simple statement was: A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.
If one wants to play games, to get around the statement, try this:
Drop a block of ice on a trigger for a large incendiary device.
Yes, that is how to cook a turkey with a block of ice, something anger has written to be impossible for so long. Now it is made possible courtesy anger. Hilarious! More comedy please. Just ignore the chemical energy, the KE, the PE as there is so much cartoon humor in that: anger cooks a turkey with a block of ice.
More puerile game-playing.
“g*e*r*a*n says:
January 30, 2018 at 9:19 AM
gbaikie, the simple statement was: A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.
If one wants to play games, to get around the statement, try this:
Drop a block of ice on a trigger for a large incendiary device.”
It doesn’t matter what temperature the block of ice is,
but it does matter what the temperature of droplet of acid is.
One could say roughly the droplets of acid of clouds of Venus
are interacting with 100% of the sunlight because the clouds cover 100% of the “surface area” of Venus.
So it’s a good guess that Venus clouds have something to do with Venus temperature.
Or if Earth was completely cover with clouds, those clouds would have something to do with Earth’s temperature.
Now, probably it’s near impossible for earth to be completely covered with water clouds, but if moved Earth to Venus distance one’s odds of this happening, would probably improve.
But assuming Earth at earth distance was completely covered with H20 clouds, one might guess that Earth was cooler than it it right now. One could say that clouds reflect 90% of sunlight and therefore only 10% can be absorbed.
One could say it’s so much cooler that Earth lack the heat to support earth having 100% coverage of clouds, though if earth had twice as much sunlight, maybe it would be warm enough. But anyhow if had 100% coverage of clouds and clouds reflected 90% of sunlight, regardless of how cool earth was, the clouds would be doing to warming of Earth, regardless of how cool it was.
And would say the warming of clouds would depend upon the density of air and elevation of the clouds.
Or clouds would warmed to some temperature, the air 1 km above it, would be cooler and air 1 km below it would be warmer.
If clouds were acid and reflected 75% of the sunlight, then as guess, the clouds would cause more warming, and if these clouds were in 1 atm density and 50 Km above the surface, then 50 km below the warmed clouds, the air would be hotter.
**I could explain it, if required.**
It seems it’s required.
If you make giant hole on earth, so you have a huge area well below sea level, the air will be warmed at the bottom of hole.
Same applies to Venus and Mars.
And since Venus and Mars lacks an ocean, you have natural giant holes on Mars and Venus, it seems easy to predict, that these lower regions will be warmer. Ie, Hellas basin on Mars would have warmer air and have warmer surface.
And on earth there was giant hole made, because the Mediterranean sea dried up and it called the “Messinian salinity crisis”.
Paper:
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~dankd/MSC_new.pdf
quote from paper:
“Lowering the sea level of the MS (LS case) leads to a distinct warming of the Mediterranean basin (Fig. 3). Assuming an adiabatic lapse rate from sea level down to
the lowered Mediterranean predicts a warming of 14 K. We
expect the warming to be somewhat less than this, since the terrestrial lapse rate is strongly governed by the surface
energy budget, which is not strongly height- dependent (Meyer, 1992)”
Also hottest places on earth will be below sea level- one needs other conditions, but it’s predictive.
One of conditions is for air temperature to warm at a higher elevation and be near the lower elevation.
Hellas Basin is very big hole with lots depressions within this giant impact basin, so the deepest spots within giant hole should or could be warmer.
So what saying is the clouds on Venus act like surface which is at a very high elevation, and rocky surface is global size hole.
barry…”Youve specifically stated that black bodies cannot absorb radiation from colder black bodies.
Youre wrong about this…”
You need to be careful here, there is no such thing as a blackbody. The theory gets seriously confused at times.
For example, the Sun is compared to a blackbody due to it’s broad EM spectrum radiation. However, what can it absorb? The Earth on the other hand is not considered a blackbody yet it acts like one. It absorbs broadband EM spectral radiation from the Sun and emit a very restricted IR band of energy.
That’s how a theorized blackbody should work. It should absorb a broad range of EM frequencies and emit a restricted band of frequencies.
I think blackbody theory was poorly thought out and we should scrap it.
“(BB) should absorb a broad range of EM frequencies and emit a restricted band of frequencies.”
And thus explode. I think Gordon’s comment was poorly thought out and he should scrap it.
barry…”The paradox is resolved by the fact that each body must be in direct line of sight of the other to receive the radiation from it. Therefore, whenever the cool body is radiating heat to the hot body, the hot body must be radiating heat to the cool body”.
Anyone who claims heat can be radiated does not understand what heat is. How many times do I have to explain that heat is ALWAYS associated with atoms. No atoms, no mass (was that Roberto Duran???), no heat. It’s that simple.
Clausius can be excused for thinking heat can be radiated. It was not till nearly 25 years after his death that Bohr explained how electrons CONVERT heat as kinetic energy to EM. Electron theory was not developed till the decade after Clausius died. Thermal energy and electromagnetic energy are two entirely different forms of energy, they have no properties in common.
Furthermore, anyone claiming EM transmitted by a hotter body can be absorbed by a cooler body does not understand Bohr’s explanation of atomic theory.
If you look closely at such claims of heat transfer via EM, where there is a two way transfer they are usually talking about a situation involving thermal equilibrium.
I have no problem with the notion that heat is lost at a hotter body and gained at a cooler body but it is not transferred body to body. Neither is it transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body by EM.
The EM acts as a transferring agent. Heat is converted to EM at the hotter body and back to heat at the cooler body. That process is not reversible.
I posted a quote from you by Clausius in the chapter you cited at the end of the chapter in the summary. He stated that the initial premise of the 2nd law had to be upheld with radiation but he thought the explanation for hot to cold only was the resultant effect of the aether.
There is no excuse whatsoever for modern scientists to be making the same mistake. Even at MIT. In climate science, you have two MIT professors in Lindzen and Emmanuel with opposing points of view. Yes, even MIT professors can be wrong, in this case, Emmanuel.
barry…I am sleep deprived. I wrote:
“Furthermore, anyone claiming EM transmitted by a hotter body can be absorbed by a cooler body does not understand Bohrs explanation of atomic theory”.
That should obviously read (based on my previous rants):
“Furthermore, anyone claiming EM transmitted by a cooler body can be absorbed by a hotter body does not understand Bohrs explanation of atomic theory”.
“Clausius can be excused for thinking heat can be radiated.”
Clausius did not write that, Gordon did. Gordon is simply wrong or point to a Clausius quote for context. Typo.s are possible in German too.
Here’s a university physics brief on radiation:
The emissivity, ε, of surface A will depend on the material of which surface A is composed, i.e. aluminum, brass, steel, etc. and on the temperature of surface A.
The absorp-tivity, α, of surface A will depend on the material of which surface A is composed, i.e. aluminum, brass, steel, etc. and on the temperature of surface B.
http://nptel.ac.in/courses/112108149/pdf/M9/Student_Slides_M9.pdf
Objects do not absorb radiation according to their own temperature. They absorb radiation according to the optical properties of their surface.
This is the point on which Gordon and g*e*r*a*n are wrong. You can cite physics texts all day long to demonstrate this, but they will not provide similar to corroborate their ‘alternative facts’ on radiation.
More:
The energy balance on the opaque surface is: q = q[emission] – q[absorp-tion]. Absorp-tion depends on irradiation, which depends on emission from other surfaces including those far away from the
observed surface
http://mafija.fmf.uni-lj.si/seminar/files/2015_2016/Thermal_radiation_heat_transfer_between_surfaces_Luka_Klobucar.pdf
No mention of absorp-tivity being based on the temperature of the absorbing object.
…a blackbody absorbs all incident radiation regardless of wavelength and direction.
Regardless of wavelength…. g*e*r*a*n begs to disagree with university physics courses. He thinks bolack bodies may not absorb radiation from colder black bodies – he thinks wavelength matters to absorp-tivity. He doesn’t ever respond to this discrepancy, and instead tries to divert away from it by announcing what everyone already knows – that BBs are theoretical constructs.
Here is a problem set for physics students:
Two parallel plates 0.5 by 1.0 m are spaced 0.5 m apart. One plate is maintained at 1000C and the other at 500C. The emissivities of the plates are 0.2 and 0.5, respectively. The plates are located in a very large room, the walls of which are
maintained at 27C. The plates exchange heat with each other and with the room…
http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lectures/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf
Yet another physics text vouching that energy is simultaneously exchanged between 2 objects of different temperature.
BTW, the equations that follow are applied to derive the NET transfer of energy, which gives the result of the total heat exchange.
Text after physics text corroborates the 2-way exchange, as well as the NET result always being from hot to cold. Just as Clausius said 160 years ago.
All these references, and none – not one – from Robertson and G corroborating their alternative facts.’
Not. One. After months of requests.
And because they can’t corroborate, their views are, therefore, without substance.
barry, the 30-minute physics expert! Hilarious.
barry, read the two italicized quotes at the start of your comment. If after reading them you believe temperature does not affect ab-sorp-tion, re-read the two quotes.
Continue until you understand.
Glad to help.
The italicised quotes do not corroborate your view that the temperature of the absorbing body determines its absorp-tivity.
On the contrary, the temperature of the emitting body affects absorp-tivity.
You still believe that a black body cannot absorb radiation from a cooler black body.
Every physics text I’ve referenced – and I’ve referenced plenty – states categorically that a black body absorbs ALL incident radiation.
Because you cannot find a credible physics text supporting your view, you lamely try to divert with a comment that everyone knows – black bodies are theoretical constructs.
The diversion doesn’t work. You can’t even get the physics right for a theoretical construct. No wonder you have trouble with reality.
Go on, provide a physics text that says black bodies cannot absorb radiation from cooler black bodies.
I challenge you to do this once and for all.
barry, why do you suppose the temperature of the emitter affects the absorber?
65
It doesn’t affect the absorber. The temperature of the emitter + optical properties of the absorbing surface determines the amount of radiation absorbed – or absorp-tivity of the receiving object.
“Unlike emissivity, the absor-ptivity of a material is practically independent of surface temperature. However, the absorp-tivity depends strongly on the temperature of the source at which the incident radiation is originating.”
http://fireflylabs.com/disted/courses/m262(2014)/docs/Will-Week10/m262-radiantHeatTransfer-Properties.pdf
Do you read that? “Absorp-tivity of a material is practically independent of surface temperature…”
Where you go wrong is thinking that emissivity and absorp-tivity are determined by the same things.
Is this still a 2-way street?
Could you provide a link to a physics text that says black bodies cannot receive radiation from colder black bodies?
This is your claim. Not verified after numerous requests.
barry, you keep missing “absorp-tivity depends strongly on the temperature of the source at which the incident radiation is originating.”
65?
Since you are changing all the rules, I want to change the rule about a party every multiple of 10. Here’s the new rule:
“Party on every multiple of 5.”
(Much better.)
“barry, you keep missing ‘absorp-tivity’ depends strongly on the temperature of the source at which the incident radiation is originating.”
Now you’re just lying. I’ve discussed this quite openly. I said it before you did. I even quoted it.
Your fantasies enlarge, all so you can avoid acknowledging that “Unlike emissivity, the absorp-tivity of a material is practically independent of surface temperature.”
It’s hilarious. With your back turned to this fact, you point at anything else hoping no one will notice your deliberate blindness.
Your next comment will avoid that fact yet again. And anyone reading will see it as plain as day.
Wriggler, why do you suppose the temperature of the emitter affects the absorp-tivity of the absorber? I will count your last reply as evasion number 5.
Ws text quote: The absorp-tivity, α, of surface A will depend on…the temperature of surface B.
J: So g*e*r*a*ns question is legitimate. B is the emitter, and the absorp-tivity of A depends on it, according to your own quote. Your wriggling is getting pretty desperate now.
W: The temperature of the emitter + optical properties of the absorbing surface determines the amount of radiation absorbed or absorp-tivity of the receiving object.
J: *amount of radiation absorbed* does not equal *absorp-tivity*
A black body of any temperature will absorb the all the radiation emitted to it by a body of any temperature above absolute zero.
That is what is meant by:
“Unlike emissivity, the absor-ptivity of a material is practically independent of surface temperature
g*e*r*a*n’s error is to confuse absorp-tivity with emissivity.
He thinks black bodies don’t absorb radiation from colder black bodies.
Do you think that is correct or incorrect?
barry, no matter how you try to twist definitions, no matter how many imaginary objects you use, no matter how many ways you try to get around 2LoT, the truth remains:
“A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object”.
Learn it, love it, live it.
Wriggler, why do you suppose the temperature of the emitter affects the absorp-tivity of the absorber? I will count your last reply as your 2nd evasion.
J-Halp,
For instance, white surfaces tend to reflect high frequency radiation, such as visible light from the sun. Whereas infrared is not much reflected by white surfaces.
The temperature of the emitter PLUS the optical properties of the receiving object determine absorp-tivity.
The optical properties of a receiving surface may be changed by the radiation received (mainly gases), when the receiving object temperature changes (from absorbing the emitted radiation).
Now that I’ve answered your question, will you answer mine?
Are black bodies unable to absorb radiation from colder black bodies?
Yes or no?
Wriggler, why do you suppose the temperature of the emitter affects the absorp-tivity of the absorber? I will count your last reply as your 3rd evasion.
I just answered you, dickhead.
If you clicked the link above on the portion I’ve been citing you’d read more abut it.
“However, the absorp-tivity depends strongly on the temperature of the source at which the incident radiation is originating… For example, the absorp-tivity of the concrete roof of a house is about 0.6 for solar radiation (source temperature: 5780 K) and 0.9 for radiation originating from the surrounding trees and buildings (source temperature: 300 K), as illustrated in Fig. 2134. Notice that the absorp-tivity of aluminum increases with the source temperature, a characteristic for metals, and the absorp-tivity of electric nonconductors, in general, decreases with temperature. This decrease is most pronounced for surfaces that appear white to the eye. For example, the absorp-tivity of a white painted surface is low for solar radiation, but it is rather high for infrared radiation.”
g*e*r*a*n believes that the temperature of the receiving object determines its absorp-tivity.
Specifically, he believes that black bodies are completely unable to absorb radiation from colder black bodies.
Do you agree or disagree? You’re not afraid to openly contradict g*e*r*a*n, are you?
barry wants to know: “Are black bodies unable to absorb radiation from colder black bodies?”
barry, you first need to indicate which kind of black body it is. Is it the “insulator” black body, or the “heat source” black body, or some other exotic imaginative concept?
Wriggler, why do you suppose the temperature of the emitter affects the absorp-tivity of the absorber? I will count your last reply as your 4th evasion.
You two are made for each other.
See barry, in the incorrect solution to the blue/green plate problem, you have been deceived. For the green plate to do what is does in that false solution, it has to be either a perfect insulator, or a heat source, or both. That’s the only way you can get the blue plate to a higher equilibrium temperature.
Wriggler, you really havent answered the question! The fact that you have written some things, does not mean that those things answered the question.
So, with the other evasions elsewhere, we are now at 7.
Black bodies absorb all incident radiation regardless of frequency.
What this means is that the blue plate absorbs the radiation from the green plate.
It emits to the green plate more than it receives from the green plate, so the NET transfer of energy (and heat) is always from the warmer blue plate to the colder green plate.
Where you are completely wrong is in believing the blue plate absorbs no radiation from the green plate.
Yep, these are theoretical constructs, but if you’re going to make use of them in your silly version of the GPE, then you’d better learn how they function. Your GPE arbitrarily turns the side of the blue plate facing the green into a white body.
9.
No barry, you just don’t understand the correct solution. Look at the sources you found (above). They clearly indicate the importance of the emitting temperature. So, since the green plate is downstream, in the energy flow, it will never have the exact same temperature as the blue plate. You can think of it as just as it is about to reach the blue plate temperature, it emits a photon.
But in the incorrect solution, the green plate must either be a heat source, or insulator, to achieve the temperatures.
Your choice, correct or incorrect solution?
“So, since the green plate is downstream, in the energy flow, it will never have the exact same temperature as the blue plate.”
anger admits his 6c3 solution is incorrect. The writing of Sir Eddington applies since anger’s cartoon contains a reversible process that does not increase universe entropy – the blue plate LW albedo reflectivity being 1.0.
tricky, are you a blonde, by any chance?
guys, if you look at the actual document, FIGURE 2133, what they are talking about is changing the source temperature room temperature 300K to the sun’s temperature 6000K, two orders of magnitude range. Of course that changes peak from visible to deep IR
Look at fig 21-33, abs*orp*tion hardly changes for sources between 300-600 K for most materials. Thats the relevant range for the plates problem.
barry won’t appreciate that info. He believes there is NO change with temperature.
But, your confusion between the real-world absorbers and imaginary concepts is hilarious.
barry…” Electromagnetic waves transport energy like other waves and travel at the speed of light”.
Has it occurred to you these papers may be wrong? Here’s a quote from one from the u of waterloo.
“Electromagnetic waves transport energy like other waves and travel at the speed of light”.
Totally wrong. EM waves do not transport energy like other waves, they ARE energy. The author is comparing energy transport in EM to energy transport in something like water. Two very different transport mechanisms.
In water, the water does not actually move in general. If a mechanical energy is being transported, the water molecules sit in place and bob up and down. If you have a boat in water, and a wave passes through it, the boat rises and falls. It does not follow the energy causing the wave action unless the slope of the wave is steep enough to allow gravitational force to drag the boat down the wave.
Electromechanical energy does not sit in place while transporting other energy, the waves represent the propagation of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field through space. Each wave front represents a different or sustained emission.
When I see garbage like this in an article, I lose confidence in it. You should too, but I know you are combing the net looking for anything that seems to uphold your theories.
barry,
There is no GHE, you cant actually raise the temperature of a warmer object by exposing it to a colder, and your attempts to deny, divert, and confuse arent working too well.
Maybe you could indicate what relevance your notions have? Are you trying to say that inserting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
Who cares what fantasies you are indulging yourself in. There is no GHE – of course until you can define it at least, which of course you cant, because even you wouldnt be able to bring yourself to utter the nonsense which would be required.
Maybe you could give it a try? No other foolish Warmist has managed, so you might set a record. Worth the effort, do you think?
Nah. You probably couldnt stand the laughter which would ensue, and youd have to slink away with your tail between your legs, figuratively of course, unless you really do have a tail!
Cheers
Maybe you could indicate what relevance your notions have?
My comments are specific to a couple of assertions repeatedly made by G and Gordon. It is the basis of their misunderstanding on radiation transfer.
I’ve been quite clear on which of G and Gordon’s points I am challenging. Apparently you have nothing to add to that.
No barry, the “misunderstanding” is all on you. You still believe an imaginary concept allows you to get around 2LoT, so that you can have your precious GHE.
It’s fun to watch.
64
barry, apparently you were cut out to be an accountant, not a physicist.
The world needs accountants too.
Again, you mis-state the green plate problem. FWIW all the attempts to deal with this issue try to mis-state the problem in an attempt to escape the obvious conclusion
The warmer, blue plate is not isolated, but it is heated at a constant rate from an external source.
Again, youre a tedious liar and the GPE was refuted months ago.
The refutation was wrong in many ways.
It applied 2LoT to energy instead of heat for a start.
Nope.
“the GPE was refuted months ago.”
Nope the refutation referred to is & was easily shown to be a failure especially without experimental results; Halp-less’ refutation missed a factor of 2 by misreading an obscure text. Don’t feel too bad Halpless, this is a common mistake and was avoided in the originator’s correct ideal solution which is supported by experimental results.
Ha ha!
Svante, you are raising confusion to the tenth power.
Here again is the correct solution. It’s not that hard to understand, unless you fear actual science.
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
The incorrect solution to the plate problem requires the green plate to be either an insulator, or a heat source, or both. That was not the original set up.
If the green plate is a “perfect absorber”, it cannot be an “insulator”. And it is not a “heat source”. So, the incorrect solution violates 2LoT.
Here’s the correct solution:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
Obviously anger’s 6c3 cartoon is a different proposition than the original, but a funny! diversionary tactic which preserves anger’s solid reputation for climate comedy.
(Your comment does not meet the minimum standards for truth and clarity. Please feel free to try again, later.)
The Green Plate Effect is a gedankenexperiment which only depends on the properties of black bodies. Black bodies by definition absorb all light that falls on them 100% without any dependence on their temperature. They emit electromagnetic radiation in an amount (SB Law) with a spectrum (Planck Law) that only depends on their temperature.
If you try (and several here have) to challenge this, you also need to severely change thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, Maxwell’s laws and a few other things along the way which is why the simple GPE is tying this blog into knots.
It is, however, useful to discuss the insulating properties of a BLACK BODY. To keep things interesting, let’s assume a BLACK BODY at some temperature T, placed between your nose and ANOTHER BODY at temperature T1. What your nose detects is the thermal radiation from the BLACK BODY characteristic of the temperature T. By shoving a spectrometer up your nose, we don’t even have to worry about geometric effects because we can assign T by measuring the spectrum (Planck’s Law) or even just the maximum frequency (Wien’s law)
It can never detect the thermal radiation from ANOTHER BODY, unless the temperature T of the BLACK BODY is changed by interaction with ANOTHER BODY
E: The Green Plate Effect is a gedankenexperiment which only depends on the properties of black bodies.
J: You are an absolutely shameless disgrace.
You mom wears used army boots
My moms dead. You killed her.
It appears the poor “Eli” has shoved more things then just a spectrometer, up more orifices than just his nose.
But, I love his grasping to real science, that he actually repulses, (Planck’s Law), and (Wien’s Law).
Great climate comedy.
it would be way too much to ask g* for supporting calculations that verify energy balances for both plates, the system as a whole and the net energy transferred between the plates.
These involve very simple equations but hopefully it is not beneath the dignity of this self appointed genius (the consensus may have a different opinion) to provide these calculations.
miker, perhaps you forgot:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
If you need any help with the math, and can ask in a responsible manner, I will try to respond.
G*, I am in desparate need of your help with the math underpinning your figure above.
My efforts below cannot explain your reasoning see
https://s20.postimg.org/in6frkozh/Consistency_Tests.jpg
Please help, I beseech thee!
Glad to help, if you have a responsible question. Preferably 25 words or less, in a comment no longer than 10 lines, so that I don’t have to sort through tons of rhetoric trying to figure out where you are confused.
MikeR, I have a question. You show anger’s system outgoing 400=267+133, rounded. anger’s non-experimental “pseudoscience” cartoon shows system outgoing 400=200+200, rounded. Explanation?
(Less than 25 for anger’s reading comprehension limit).
Tricky, you’ve got yourself all wrapped around your cabbages again.
Here’s the correct solution:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
6c3 is a different proposition than original anger, the correct solution to the original proposition is on the originator’s website. The internet never forgets.
Nope, 6c3 is exactly the same. It just shows the correct solution.
But, your constant efforts to trick/twist/spin/obfuscate/tangle/confuse will not be lost.
As you indicated, “The internet never forgets.”
Yes Ball4, it should read 400 = 200+200 rather than the correct summation of 400 = 266.7+133.3. Thanks for pointing that out.
I am wondering why g*’s eagle eye did not pick this up. Possibly he has a math phobia.
G* sorry that I used 30 words above but I will ask you again.
Please demonstrate your math skills. I am ready to be impressed.
Are you admitting you cannot handle basic algebra?
I obviously can. That’s how I supplied the numbers in the graphic.
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
If you have a responsible question, I’ll be glad to respond.
G*, you obviously cannot justify your calculations.
What a total fraud, but that is not exactly news to anyone following these comments.
“Nope, 6c3 is exactly the same.”
6c3 proposition shows a white body on one surface of the blue plate with a black body on the other BP surface. The original proposition had black body on both blue plate surfaces thus anger solves a different proposition.
And, MikeR, anger means by the two green arrows one toward blue, one away from blue, that the blue is a reflecting white body for that green LW not absorbing it. So that is how anger gets 244K, rounded for the blue plate. anger simply changes the original proposition. anger thinks of this as a “teaching tool”.
This being more than 25 words, anger won’t comprehend.
Responsible question G*:
Show, with math and laws of physics, how you find the net flow of heat from BLUE to GREEN.
Nate, anger misses in 6c3 that for experimental “science” reflectivity + transmissivity + emissivity = 1.0
For anger’s non-experimental “pseudoscience” blue plate surface facing green plate in 6c3:
reflectivity + transmissivity + emissivity = 2.0
1.0 + 0.0 + 1.0 = 2.0
anger will never be able to use experimental “science” proper “math and laws of physics” to prove his non-experimental “pseudoscience” cartoon.
If anger could do so, he would have published an experiment which is nowhere in sight & not a cartoon. The experiments published in these comments and elsewhere prove anger (and Halp-less) are simply wrong. But they are great “pseudoscience” comedy entertainers driving healthy discussion of and production of experimental “science” around here.
Ball4,
Like to see G* acknowledge that he cannot write down equations derived from laws of physics and solve them to get an answer.
Yet another physics source that disagrees with Gordon and g*e*r*a*n:
“Unlike emissivity, the absorp-tivity of a material is practically independent of surface temperature. However, the absorp-tivity depends strongly on the temperature of the source at which the incident radiation is originating.”
http://fireflylabs.com/disted/courses/m262(2014)/docs/Will-Week10/m262-radiantHeatTransfer-Properties.pdf
G and G believe the opposite – that the surface temperature of an object determines its absorp-tivity – to the point where (they believe) a warmer object (or black body) cannot absorb the radiation of a cooler object (or black body – g*e*r*a*n’s belief).
This is because they mistake absorp-tivity for emissivity, which IS strongly dependent on the temperature of the surface.
Yet another:
It is therefore appropriate to say that the irradiation is absorbed and reflected by the surface, with the relative magnitudes of [equation] depending on the wavelength and the nature of the surface.
https://www.omega.com/literature/transactions/volume1/theoretical2.html
NOT on the temperature of the surface.
Temperature of the absorbing body can be a factor if temperature changes affect the optical properties of the surface material. But temperature otherwise does not determine radiative absorp-tivity.
barry forgot to “bold” the last part: “However, the absorp-tivity depends strongly on the temperature of the source at which the incident radiation is originating.”
It’s amazing how his mind fails him. He can only read what he wants.
(See barry why I don’t waste time trying to teach quantum physics to you. You would NEVER understand.)
Hahahaha. Denying and diverting. Of course the temperature of the emitting source determines how much radiation will be absorbed, not the temperature of the receiving material.
This is what you deny:
“Unlike emissivity, the absorp-tivity of a material is practically independent of surface temperature”
I quoted in full. And understood it. You ignored this part.
So what does denial feel like?
And let’s translate the bit YOU quoted to the GPE.
“However, the absorp-tivity depends strongly on the temperature of the source at which the incident radiation is originating.”
—>
The absorp-tivity of the blue plate depends strongly on the temperature of the green plate.
But YOUR mistake is to believe the absorp-tivity of the blue plate depends strongly on the temperature of… the blue plate.
Look at the spectra for a black body at different temperatures. The spectra change with temperature.
Maybe that will help to understand.
You’re floundering. You’re in denial.
Yep, the spectra regard emissivity. You just keep saying the same thing, confusing emissivity with absorp-tivity.
“Unlike emissivity, the absorp-tivity of a material is practically independent of surface temperature”
Only the ideologically blind couldn’t read and understand that.
But, it is dependent on the surface temperature of the emitter.
(Unless you fail to understand your own links, as in “ideologically blind”).
barry, see if the worms in your head will actually allow you to read this aloud:
“A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.”
It’s the truth, but you just can’t speak it.
But, it is dependent on the surface temperature of the emitter.
Why are you repeating something I’ve already agreed with? Why repeat something I said before you did as if I haven’t already said it?
The answer: you are ducking your tacit agreement that the temperature of the receiver is not the main determinant of absorp-tivity.
You just can’t be up-front and say that you have been wrong.
You knew you were wrong when you read the definition of a black body. You knew you were wrong when you read that they receive ALL incident radiation regardless of frequency.
Despite making use of this theoretical construct in your silly version of the GPE, you denounce it as ‘imaginary’ in a self-sabotaging twist to keep denying.
It’s a wonder to behold.
Wriggler, why do you suppose the temperature of the emitter affects the absorp-tivity of the absorber?
Lets be generous and call that only your 6th evasion.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-283612
Since you bothered to link to a comment where you did not answer the question (and in which you reference another comment in which you did not answer the question), the count moves up. Now at 8 (see above).
GUYS,
If you look at the actual document, FIGURE 21-33, what they are talking about is changing the source temperature from room temperature 300K to the suns temperature 6000K, more than an order of magnitude range.
Of course that changes peak emission from visible to deep IR. Yes only a few black materials work over that wide range, i.e. asphalt.
Look at fig 21-33, abs*orp*tion hardly changes for sources between 300-600 K for MOST materials. Thats the relevant range for the plates problem.
You must be commenting double, Nate.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-283651
And your failing to comprehend what it means is double. Abs*orb*tion happens even in a warmer object.
barry, your comment above (29th, 5:41 PM) is full of inaccuracies and irrelevancies. You have to ask yourself “why”. Why do you have to distort reality?
If you were honest with yourself, you would admit the incorrect solution is WRONG. There is no way the green plate can cause the blue plate to have a higher temperature. If the blue plate were there by itself, it would have an equilibrium temperature of 244 K. The incorrect solution indicates that by adding the green plate, the blue plate temperature INCREASES!
Even if you don’t understand the physics, you should be able to see the problem with that.
Here’s another way to see the problem. Suppose both plates are initially in perfect contact. Now, they would both be at the 244 K, at equilibrium. So now move the green plate slightly away. Do you really believe that would cause the blue plate temperature to increase? You’re not adding any additional energy to the system, but the temperature goes up!!!
If the worms still have you confused, I would recommend repeating, out loud, about 10 times a day: “A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.”
“So now move the green plate slightly away. Do you really believe that would cause the blue plate temperature to increase?”
Yes as conservation energy/2LOT demand since the now separated shaded green plate comes to a new lower temperature than blue at equilibrium as demonstrated by experiment.
I would recommend anger repeating, out loud, about 10 times a day: “A cold object can raise the temperature of a hotter object as proper experiments show due universe entropy increasing”.
anger doesn’t do experiments and never will so anger will never prove this to himself and will keep raising the blog comedy laughometer. After all that is anger’s sole purpose in commenting & so far is in the hilarious! comedy lead over Flynn but not by much.
Reply
“Ball4
January 30, 2018
So now move the green plate slightly away. Do you really believe that would cause the blue plate temperature to increase?
Yes as conservation energy/2LOT demand since the now separated shaded green plate comes to a new lower temperature than blue at equilibrium as demonstrated by experiment.”
How do you figure that? The green plate is recieving exactly the same amount of energy just via radiatiom rather than conduction… How then can its temp drop?
Note it was already in the shade when it was contacting the blue.. Also , given the conditions of the original thought experiment , being in the shade is immaterial
tricky trick, I performed an experiment to determine if you have any concept of reality, or not.
The experiment proved conclusively that you are clueless.
G*, what happened to abs*orp*tion topic? Data proves you wrong, so change the subject?
Nate, as usual you have no responsible questions.
If anything changes, let me know.
Phil J asks: “How do you figure that? The green plate is receiving exactly the same amount of energy just via radiation rather than conduction”
The green plate is NOT receiving exactly the same amount of energy just via radiation rather than conduction when there are two objects (with one in shade of the other) instead of one object in the sun.
After separation, the green plate mass is illuminated by LW radiation from the blue plate on one side and LW radiation by deep space on the other. Conduction from the sun’s SW has ceased in the green plate due to the vacuum.
The correct energy conservation/2LOT compliant ideal solution to the original proposition is on the originator’s website. The real solution would differ by about 5% as shown by experiment.
anger has simply changed the original proposition to a proposition of angers own choosing sans experiment. Which is why anger is being so hilariously! funny and provides endless top of the pack climate comedy entertainment on this site. Otherwise commenters would be discussing just the mundane science.
PhilJ nails it. Just ignore Trick/Ball4, hes been paid for a long time to infect GHE threads and lie, obfuscate and distort.
Yes, this has been an amazing discussion. barry was behind from the start and just kept getting farther behind.
He searched the Internet for a “definition” of black body that would then allow him to violate 2LoT. Then, he planned to use his violation and imaginary concept to “prove” the GHE!
Only in pseudoscience, would someone attempt such nonsense.
Hilarious.
The statement of the problem was simple. Both plates are ideal black bodies. Ideal black bodies absorb all radiation that falls upon them. Period.
Emission from an ideal black body follows the Planck Radiation Law. The total emission from an ideal black body is given by the Stefan Boltzman Law.
Arguing with definition is a fools errand. There appear to be any number of errand runners here about.
“Arguing with definition is a fools errand.”
Changing definition is even worse.
A black body is not also an “insulator”. A black body is not a “heat source”.
Here’s the correct solution to the plate problem:
https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
‘Both plates are ideal black bodies. Ideal black bodies absorb all radiation that falls upon them. Period.’
Yet, somehow, G* and JP and Halp, provide a ‘solution’ to the problem.
Oddly, they now say, ‘Black bodies do not exist’ to justify their answer and nullify Eli’s answer.
Truly bizarre.
Nate continues to just make stuff up.
Nate, where is your physics textbook that says a black body is an “energy source”?
Hilarious.
G* you guys have been arguing about abs*orp*tion. You’ve been arguing that just because photons are emitted by a cold object toward a a warm object, doesnt mean they will be abs*orb*ed.
Now when data from real objects, and black body definition, shows this argument is a red herring, then you change the subject to other red herrings:
A black body is ‘not an insulator’. Can be.
A black body is ‘not a heat source.’ When has ANYBODY said this?
A black body is imaginary. Irrelevant.
Move the plates together than, apart. Make them square dance. Irrelevant. Been there rebutted that.
All these are tired arguments or straw men.
Nate, your comment is both a tired argument and a failed straw man.
Nate, re absorp-tion, my only comments have been attempts to get a straight answer out of barry, Wriggler extraordinaire. To pretend I, or JP, have said anything like what you have claimed in your last couple of comments here is a complete fabrication. So, typical Nate comments, really…
“Nate, re absorp-tion, my only comments have been attempts to get a straight answer out of barry”
I answered your question “why do you suppose the temperature of the emitter affects the absorp-tivity of the absorber?”
here
“Nate says:
January 29, 2018 at 6:32 PM
GUYS,
If you look at the actual document, FIGURE 21-33…”
But showing you actual information seems to never actually inform you.
Do you have a response to this?
Nate, I will give you a hand. Here, for example, is *an* answer to the question:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-283565
Do you have a better answer? Just so we are clear, the words that you and barry write do NOT answer the question.
I answered your question with real information and an explanation of it.
Tell me what you think is incorrect about that and why.
Your comments didnt answer the question. I linked to one that did. If you have a better answer than that linked comment, lets hear it.
I see you asked a question, but didnt really want an answer.
You say I didnt answer it, but you cannot point out any flaws.
Apparently you are unable to do the work required to read my answer and tell me what you disagree with.
Once again, we learn that discussing rationally with you is impossible.
I say you didnt answer it, because you didnt answer it. Simple, really.
Hint for future interactions with humans: If you dont want an answer, dont ask a queston, simple really.
OK, Nate, you wanted me to point out flaws in your comment, which you claim is an answer to my question. Well, the main flaw is: you didnt answer the question. I showed you an example of a comment that *does* answer it, and asked if you could improve on that answer. Since you havent, I can only assume that you agree that answer is sufficient. Fine by me.
OK Halp,
You never have been good with details, specifics, have you?
Again, you don’t want to discuss, have rational debate, then don’t respond to any conterfactuals, just ignore them.
Define things in your own mind, it doesnt matter if anyone else agrees.
Dont ask questions unless you expect an answer and are prepared to rebut it with specifics.
Maybe, just don’t comment at all and you wont have any problems like these.
We wouldnt have any problems if you just answered the question.
And adding an emissivity factor does not change the conclusion.
You probably thought that meant something, huh?
Epsilon remember?
є: Emissivity of the material.
2 є σ Teq4
You will still have a GPE in normal physics.
What will it do in your world?
Don’t forget:
At a given wavelength and angle of incidence the emissivity and reflectivity values sum to 1 by Kirchhoff’s law (two in your world, but only on one side).
Svante, if only you could assemble your confusion into an intelligible question, maybe I could help you.
You have shown arithmetic and possibly some algebra.
Now show the physics formula that give you those numbers.
E: The statement of the problem was simple
J: And the refutation is even simpler.
Exactly!
And the Halp-less refutation is a hilarious! failure by misreading an obscure text however it was entertaining. Especially anger’s cartoon 6c3 which simply changed the original proposition to a different proposition invented by anger.
These two continue to produce world class climate comedy & avoiding mundane experimentation ensures their failures will continue to be entertaining. More please.
I think the depths that you have been forced to sink to has been one of the most amusing things about this whole farce! Long may these discussions continue. Its been an absolute gift from E-Lie, unintentionally. I hope this blog is filled with nothing but green plate/blue plate arguments for the rest of the year, all readers need to have is an open mind, and the ability to think rationally, and they will see through it. Thanks E-Lie!
Many readers do have an educated mind, and the ability to think rationally & perform proper experiments since they do see through Halp-less’ sophistry and anger’s hilarious! climate comedy tactics.
You guys will have to start creating some *objective reader* avatars to come along and back up that point. Who knows what further depths you could sink to?
The trickster loves to mention “experiments”. That’s his way of tricking folks into believing him.
Ask him about his “experiments” that prove that cabbages emit visible light.
Hilarious.
Go ahead anger, make my day. Ask away.
Provide a link to your comments, maybe 2 years ago, where you claimed cabbages could glow in the dark.
Experiments & theory show they do. Next?
Why are you ashamed to furnish a link to your past nonsense?
I’m not! I just wrote it again. Perhaps anger needs a counter too, n+1.
Tricky trick, you tricked yourself again.
You haven’t provided a link.
Tricky!
(Delusional climate clowns are the funniest.)
No need for a link anger since the internet never forgets.
I could say “You made my day”.
But, that would not be accurate.
My day was already great, without you.
Hilarious.
barry,
I see you are arguing about semantics, unless you believe that a warmer body can have its temperature raised by a cooler one.
Therefore there should be no attempt to drag in the non-existent GHE.
I also see you are not objecting to my statement of fact that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer raises the temperature of the thermometer. All good.
Actually, much of what is taught in university physics courses is well out of date, but doesnt make much difference. Very few current physics lecturers have much idea about quantum electrodynamics, and less about chaos theoy. How anybody could imagine speaking authoritatively on the interaction between light (all frequencies) and matter, by depending on speculation from eminent men who nothing of radioactivity, the divisibility of the atom, quantum physics and so on, is quite beyond me.
It leads to silliness such as the very poorly named GHE. I believe the people who proposed this invisible effect, actually believed that greenhouses operated according to the speculation of some 18th and 19th century luminaries.
One might as well believe that Lord Kelvins calculations about the age of the Earth were correct, that atomic fission and fusion were impossible, and that the luminiferous ether was essential to explain the solubility of solids such as salt in liquids.
University physics courses are just that – courses run by people who may or may not have much idea what they are talking about. They range from extremely good, to bloody dreadful! Often, students and administrations have no idea which is which, until its far too late and the damage has been done.
This probably wont cheer you up much, but it happens to be true.
Cheers.
The deep ocean currents move vast bodies of water of different temperatures around the global oceans at various depths. Salinity also varies due to these currents. The full turnover rate for ocean bottom waters is about 1000 years.
You write:
———————
I see you are arguing about semantics, unless you believe that a warmer body can have its temperature raised by a cooler one.
———————
You, and others, are having a problem understanding the problem.
A warmer body HEATED BY AN EXTERNAL SOURCE (emphasis added) at a constant rate will reach a steady state temperature, call it T1. If a colder body is placed near it, interchange of thermal radiation will raise the steady state temperature to T2 where T2>T1. This increase is cause by a portion of the radiated thermal energy from the warmer body being returned to it.
See Green Plate Effect (TM -ER)
You, and others, are having a problem understanding the difference between *keeping* something warmer and *making* something warmer. You also have problems with honesty, integrity, and not being an academic fraud.
Excellent response, “J”.
J Halp-less
You seem to have a difficult time telling the difference between your delusions and reality. You make up some science and declare it, without support, and think you are right and the rest of the entire scientific community has it wrong. Don’t tell engineers who use current heat transfer equations to design their equipment. Eli is completely correct in what he states. You are the one who lacks the reasoning ability to comprehend the errors in your thoughts. We could try for years but you will not accept the fact your really do not understand any science or physics but follow the conman (g*e*r*an) and accept whatever make believe science he feeds you. I am not sure if you are not g*e*r*a*n going by a different posting name to make it seem like his ideas are valid. It is difficult to think that two people would have identical problems with real science and reasoning ability and then make up their own unsupportable physics and think it is real.
Thanks, g*. Norman, your entirely predictable yelping is noted, and dismissed accordingly.
Hey con-man, why don’t you explain 2LoT to us again?
“I am not the one confused about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It clearly states that heat cannot transfer from a hot object to a colder one.”
Hilarious.
“having a problem understanding the difference between *keeping* something warmer and *making* something warmer.”
There is no problem Halp-less both wordings result in T2>T1.
Which shows anger is wrong about an “Excellent response”. Very funny & great entertainment anger; you are worthy of nomination for best supporting actor.
Whoosh!
Thanks, trick.
(Any time trick says I was “wrong”, it means I was “right”. It’s good to have such a reliable critic.)
Experimental “science” is the arbiter anger.
“Truth” is the arbiter, tricky trick.
Truth comes from experimental “science”, no truth comes from anger’s non-experimental “pseudoscience”.
This is sort of like a long baseball game, anger, Flynn and Halp-less make non-experimental “pseudoscience” pitches and those who write comments based on experimental “science” hit the pitches out of the park. Sometimes a relief pitcher shows up but the starter returns, unlimited sub.s on this blog.
The crowd is entertained.
But poor tricky trick can not entertain us with his most famous experiment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284159
What I wrote is recorded, not forgotten for all to read on the internet anger and truthful since it was based on experimental “science” not your non-experimental “pseudoscience” untruths.
Here is an experiment anger can do to learn about cabbages emitting visible band light in the dark:
1) Obtain a) a lab. cabbage, b) a Photo Research SpectraColorimeter Model PR-650 SpectraScan, which measures radiance from 380 nm to 780 nm in increments of 4 nm with a bandwidth of 8 nm or sensitive enough equivalent.
2) Turn out the lights so your cabbage is illuminated i.e. irradiated by BB radiation
3) Take data pointing the instrument viewer at the cabbage
4) Readout the non-zero cabbage radiance measured at 600nm
5) Voila cabbages emit visible band light in the dark!
Then obtain the formula for the Planck curve. Plug 600nm wavelength (converted to f) at room temperature. Calculate the result. Compare the two numbers. Why are they slightly different?
I understand this is way…WAY beyond anger’s comprehension and ability but with some work by anger at least it illustrates experimental “science” to a non-experimental “pseudoscience” untruthful commentator such as anger, Halp-less, Flynn so forth. I’m here to help.
norman…”Eli is completely correct in what he states”.
Two experts in thermodynamics told Eli he is wrong. They told him the 2nd law applies to heat only.
Gee!! Go figure!! The second law of THERMODYNAMICS applies to heat!! Tell me it isn’t so.
“Two experts in thermodynamics told Eli he is wrong.”
The GPE piece is AFTER, way after, G&T wrote their survey paper so Gordon is ignoring causality here. Nothing in the GPE piece violates anything G&T wrote or Gordon needs to point out exactly in the writers own words where that may have occurred.
Sorry Gordon, In the words of Science of Doom Gerlich & Tscheuschner have written an amazing paper which had the appearance of physics yet failed to address any real climate science.
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/
eli rabbett…”A warmer body HEATED BY AN EXTERNAL SOURCE (emphasis added) at a constant rate will reach a steady state temperature, call it T1. If a colder body is placed near it, interchange of thermal radiation will raise the steady state temperature to T2 where T2>T1. This increase is cause by a portion of the radiated thermal energy from the warmer body being returned to it”.
You were told by two experts in thermodynamics (Gerlich & Tscheuschner) that you’re wrong yet you persist with this propaganda.
There is no reason whatsoever that radiation, which is not heat, should raise the temperature of an adjacent warmer body. Stefan-Boltzmann does not say that, Planck does not say that, G&T does not say that, you are one of the only people claiming it.
Have you never hear of losses, Eli? Heard of perpetual motion?
“You were told by two experts in thermodynamics (Gerlich & Tscheuschner)”
G&T were not experts in thermodynamics when they wrote that piece. They did not include one original experiment or any original data in their paper proving anything new in the field. They simply discussed the experimental and theoretical results of others in a 200+ page survey paper that introduced nothing…NOTHING new.
The “Purveyors of Pseudoscience” are throwing caution to the wind. They’re trying everything, to push their agenda. They’re absolutely desperate.
barry is busy mis-applying the laws governing photon emission/absorp*tion.
ball4 is corrupting the meaning of “brightness temperature”
davie is trying to heat Earth to 800,000K from the Sun at 5800K
Norm is changing the definition to “rotating on an axis”.
This is going to be a great year in climate comedy.
2018 is already a great year anger, your contributions to the 2018 comedy herein are wayyyy… too numerous to list. Hey, anger gets a double count – even anger’s list is hilariously! wrong, way to go. Flynn can not match that or catch you with your huge comedic effort, anger is safe at the top. I’m sure Flynn will try though, not that I care.
You’re providing plenty of yucks, G. Denial is never more fun to watch than when it’s blatant.
Still no reference for your nonsense. That’s funny, too.
Funnier yet–“Still no GHE”!
barry…”From MIT we have equations of energy transfer based on this 2-way flow of energy:”
I have sent an email to the professor at MIT explaining his error.
“You said you would provide a link to a credible physics text establishing that radiation from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a warmer one”.
I meant that I was going to link you to an article explaining how EM is absorbed and emitted by electrons and the restrictions that places on EM absorp-tion.
http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Bohr/Bohr-1913a.html
Can’t get any more authentic than this, it’s the man himself. It’s all explained in this article.
I do have a simpler link I have already posted and I’m trying to track it down.
“how EM is absorbed and emitted by electrons”
Gordon misses that article is explaining the “energy radiation from an atomic system” and dismissing the notion the radiation is emitted just from the electron as the electron would then lose the energy it alone radiates away and spiral into the nucleus.
ball4…”and dismissing the notion the radiation is emitted just from the electron as the electron would then lose the energy it alone radiates away and spiral into the nucleus”.
Old theory based on electrodynamics in the pre-Bohr (1913) era. Bohr changed all that by proposing electrons are constrained to certain quantum energy levels hence eliminating the old theory of electrons losing energy.
Even at that, I see no reason why the electron should lose energy in the ground state. After all, the Moon is kept in orbit around the Sun due to sheer momentum, just as all the planets are kept in orbit around the Sun.
The electrostatic attraction between the electron and the +ve nucleus should be no different than the gravitational attraction between the Sun and the planets.
If an electron in the ground state absorbs EM, it jumps to a higher energy level, problem solved. If it loses the energy it simply returns to ground state.
Of course, we are presuming the electron orbits the nucleus. We have absolutely no proof that it does.
ps. we should pray that the Moon does not encounter a significant collision and lose it’s momentum. Or that the Earth does the same and begins a death spiral into the Sun.
Gordon, the article you linked was written in part to inform you the electron alone does not absorb the radiation the whole atom does and part of that is electrons are elevated to higher energy levels see: energy radiation from an atomic system
ball4…”Gordon, the article you linked was written in part to inform you the electron alone does not absorb the radiation the whole atom does and part of that is electrons are elevated to higher energy levels see: energy radiation from an atomic system”
Not according to Bohr, and that’s good enough for me. All quantum theory is based on the electron and its properties, not the atom per se.
Since electrons are part of atoms, it is correct to claim the atom gains and loses energy but a closer inspection shows it it the electron’s movement that defines the quantum properties.
Some people say the same of molecules without understanding that a molecules is made up of atoms where the bonds are due to electrons or their charges.
Not according to Bohr
Bohr wrote: energy radiation from an atomic system
So according to Bohr. Verbatim.
Bohr wrote out the formulas proving the electron did not have the required energy and momentum you claim only the atomic system does in the article you link.
ball4…”Bohr wrote out the formulas proving the electron did not have the required energy and momentum you claim only the atomic system does in the article you link”.
That’s odd, I could have sworn the Bohr model featured an electron orbiting a proton. Since electrons are the particle doing the moving, the absorbing, and the emitting, I could have sworn Bohr would have calculated the angular momentum of the electron AFTER he had postulated the electron was limited to certain quantum levels.
Wait, I’ll check.
He did!!! He did!!!
So did Schrodinger, the father of quantum theory. Ball4 thinks both are wrong.
An electron carries a negative charge with an electric field. In motion, it produces a magnetic field. Does the same in a conductor, that’s how electric motors, transformers, and so on work.
Elctromagnetic, get it? A proton has no magnetic field. Which particle do you presume emits and absorbs the EM in a hydrogen atom and why do you suppose Bohr and Schrodinger spent so much time studying the electron?
Maybe if you got rid of that pesky electron you could fire a proton around and give it a magnetic field. If you did that, how would you form molecules, which require the electron as the bonding agent?
Gordon uses his own incorrect words not those of Bohr:
energy radiation from an atomic system
And Bohr’s formulas, apparently beyond Gordon’s expertise, show why Bohr wrote that. If Bohr agreed with Gordon, then Bohr would have written:
energy radiation from an electron
This is not what Bohr wrote in the piece linked by Gordon.
barry…”Unlike emissivity, the absor-ptivity of a material is practically independent of surface temperature…”
Stefan-Boltzmann….P = ebA(To^4 – T^4)
e = emissivity
b = Boltzmann constant
A = surface area
To = surface temperature
T = temperature of surroundings.
If To > T, the surface emits
if T > To, the surface absorbs.
Both are totally dependent on temperature.
Emissivity and absor-p-tion COEFFICIENTS of either body are dependent on the type of material since the electrons in different atoms have varied arrangements and depths.
I have no idea why S-B has gained such prominence. IMHO, it is a flawed relationship between radiation and temperature and it was created before electron theory was first investigated in the 1890s. It’s flawed because it fails to account for the fact the energy at each frequency, E = hf, approaches infinity as frequency increases.
I explained earlier that the Planck radiation density equation has an exponential function multiplier built in to arrive at the bell-shaped EM density curve we normally relate with the EM spectral distribution. That’s because Planck treated the EM spectrum for a static temperature with the probability of finding each intensity at each frequency.
Boltzmann and Planck are both based on fudged math. Both arrived at correct ballpark relationships but it was done through fudging math, not by physical observation.
If Planck required an exponential function to create the EM energy distribution we use today by fudging math where is that exponential in the S-B equation? Obviously, Boltzmann did not know about Planck’s quantum energy theory and failed to account for it.
Each frequency intensity across the EM spectrum FOR A BODY AT ONE TEMPERATURE is represented by the Planck equation. However, each frequency is also governed by E = hf, where E = intensity and f = frequency. Therefore, as frequency increases, the energy intensity should approach infinity.
That conundrum was called the ultraviolet catastrophe at one time till Planck fudged the math and introduced the idea there is a probability distribution across the spectrum. Therefore, E = hf does not hold across the spectrum, it has been modified at higher frequencies based on the probability that intensities will decline with frequencies beyond a certain frequency.
We really don’t know if the inferred energy quanta exist as speculated by Planck. He admitted he did not know and no one knows to this day. In fact, Norman’s friend, Claes Johnson, a mathematician, has proposed an explanation for quanta using ordinary Newtonian theory.
The moral to this sad tale is that we should discard blackbody theory, Boltzmann, and Planck, and get back to good, old physical science featuring direct observation.
Of course, that means scrap-ping the GHE and AGW, since both are based on those flawed theories.
Gordon Robertson
I see you are back to making up physics. Your post is not based on any reality. You just made it up. Sorry I can’t praise this effort with a compliment. It is not a worthy task and it sours your posts. You lose all credibility.
I was doing some fact checking on your made up post. There are lots of modern tests and experiments that verify the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Here is one:
http://physics.wooster.edu/JrIS/Files/Carter.pdf
In this same article they discuss Planck and I don’t see this fudging of math you accuse him of. I think you just make this stuff up.
So you won’t accept tested empirical data but you will blindly believe Claes Johnson on the issue.
I guess I can’t stop you from posting your fantasies and made up stories. I can even provide several links proving you just make up stuff. It won’t change you or alter anything. You will ignore reality and continue posting your fantasies as if they were reality. Based upon nothing, making up stuff and cobbling together things that you have no ability to understand.
norman…”I was doing some fact checking on your made up post. There are lots of modern tests and experiments that verify the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Here is one:
http://physics.wooster.edu/JrIS/Files/Carter.pdf”
*******
Your paper does not address what I’m talking about and I don’t think you even begin to understand my points. Rather than rebut what I am claiming in your own words, you have rushed off to find any paper you can find that you think rebuts my points.
Both Boltzmann and Planck approached atomic theory using a statistical approach. They both re-invented the meaning Clausius gave to entropy.
I am not arguing that the results they got cannot be verified by experiment, I am claiming they fudged the math and their results cannot be verified visually. In other words, their results make absolutely no sense in a physical reality when applied as some modernists apply them.
Furthermore, modernists have completely misunderstood what they did. To make matters worse, they have added theories to it such as a net balance of energies that satisfy the 2nd law.
David Bohm, a highly regarded expert on quantum theory, and a friend of Einstein, claimed once that an equation with no physical reality to back it is garbage. That’s how I regard Boltzmann and Planck. And that’s why Feynman claimed about quantum theory that it works but no one knows why.
Even Planck did not know why and he admitted it. Boltzmann admitted that his discrete approach to energy had no physical validity.
Gordon Robertson
I will request the very same thing of you that I ask of g*e*r*a*n. It is not possible for him to oblige a request. I am hoping you are different.
YOU make this claim: “I am claiming they fudged the math and their results cannot be verified visually. In other words, their results make absolutely no sense in a physical reality when applied as some modernists apply them.”
Where is your proof that the math was fudged? Is this your made up version of reality you hope people will accept without any verification? You seem to be mostly antiscience. You don’t accept any modern theories of science and think most scientists today are easily duped and don’t know what they are talking about. I have no clue why you believe such nonsense. Not sure what it is based upon.
I get tired of your assertions without any evidence. Your antiscience wears my scientific mind out. Give evidence with your posts please and end the nonsense. Quit being so antiscience!
con-man, you keep demanding “proof” from others. To try to have some credibility, you need to supply some evidence that you will accept proof. I have seen you reject truth time and time again.
Establish your credibility, then you can legitimately expect others to respond.
g*e*r*a*n
Did you change your name to Gordon Robertson? My post was specifically to him. Your nonsense just blurs reality. Take another drink. You are still too sober.
Norman, as I recall the history, Prof. Planck et. al. first came up with the formula by matching it to test data to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe that existed from a photon’s energy increasing unbounded with its f while radiance did not. Gordon calls this fudging.
The Planck radiance formula has wavelength in the denominator (per nm) so as f increases the photon energy increases but the radiance decreases solving the problem. Given the experimental data was clean enough it gave clues so that the theory was eventually worked out from first principles. They knew most of it to begin with but the UV catastrophe needed the experimental data showing the radiance was indeed bounded.
Planck is almost a household name these days (at least around here) which wouldn’t have happened except for the forgotten fact that this work was long and arduous.
norman…”Where is your proof that the math was fudged?”
For cripes sake, Planck admitted it himself. He did not use the word fudged, that would make no sense in German. He worried himself silly that no reality would be found to substantiate his finding.
I am not knocking the guy, I am not claiming sarcastically or cynically that he was wrong to do so. I am only claiming based on another quote from him that his work cannot be visualized because he related entropy to probability and there’s no way to visualize it.
My beef is not with Planck, I think he did stellar work. My beef is with modernists who have misunderstood his work and read far too much into it. The EM curves you see today based on a singular temperature are lacking certain parameters. They are not plots of EM versus frequency, they are the result of applying a function to each frequency to overcome the E = hf going to infinity as f increased.
Planck was not trying to find energy quanta, he was trying to solve the ultraviolet catastrophe wherein, based on E = hf, energy should increase without bounds with frequency. It did not.
He resorted to statistical means and treated frequencies of EM as independent harmonic oscillators. In the end, he became desperate and turned to some of Boltzmann’s methodology. He admitted that bothered him. However, by applying probability to finding certain energy levels in EM, he was lead to the conclusion that not all frequencies produced the same energy levels.
That lead to the bell shaped curve graph for the Em spectrum and his discovery of quantum levels.
He was a pretty brilliant guy, as was Boltzmann, but both lacked the structure of the atomic model and theory produced by Bohr in 1913. Their investigations did lead to the Planck function, h, and the Boltzmann constant, k. as many write it.
“E = hf, energy should increase without bounds with frequency. It did not.”
It does. Gordon you are mixing up Planck radiance with the energy of a photon. The photon energy does increase with f without bound, radiance does not just inspect the formula and look at the Planck curve for a BB and the S-B curve for any real body.
g*e*r*a*n
Above, in a response to barry, you make this declaration: “barry, no matter how you try to twist definitions, no matter how many imaginary objects you use, no matter how many ways you try to get around 2LoT, the truth remains:
A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.
Learn it, love it, live it.”
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states: “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.”
Where does that support your made up declaration that a cold object cannot raise the temperature of a hotter object?
Heat will not flow from a cold object to a hot one but how does that support your claim?
The temperature of the cold object determines exactly how much heat will flow from hotter object. The warmer the cold object the less heat will flow from the hotter object.
If an object is powered (which is what barry is discussing) the temperature the hotter object can reach will depend on how much heat is loses. The warmer the cold object relative to another colder object, the less heat the hot powered object will lose and its temperature will rise.
So basically what part of the 2nd Law supports you claim? If a hot object is not powered nothing will make it warmer, it will cool regardless of the surroundings. If it is powered its temperature will be set by the temperature of the surroundings. It is really simple physics that you are not getting. You make many declarations and you support no a one. You are the Master of Pseudoscience. You make up stuff with no support and get a couple people that don’t know physics (J Halp-less, Gordon Robertson) to fall for you Con. You call me the Con-Man but you are really good at conning as many people as you can. You support nothing. I support all my physics with established science. I have provided massive amounts of links to real science. You and Mike Flynn never support your conclusions. You just make up stuff and hope people will not challenge what you say. I guess it is all fun and hilarious in 2018. Ball4 enjoys your made up science. I will learn to enjoy watching you put on the clown suit and pretend you are a genius! Ha! Ha! it really is hilarious!
“If an object is powered (which is what barry is discussing) the temperature the hotter object can reach will depend on how much heat is loses. The warmer the cold object relative to another colder object, the less heat the hot powered object will lose and its temperature will rise.”
And at earth distance from the sun [and you are dealing with blackbody surface] the highest temperature would be about 120 C [surfaces which not blackbody can reach a higher temperature at 1 AU distance from the sun [a powered source].
In terms of being under the earth atmosphere and blackbody surface will be limited to about 80 C [if insulated and convectional heat loss is prevented. Or about 1000 watts of direct sunlight can only heat to 80 C.
But at sea level land surface only reach about 70 C and the air above such heated ground gets to about 50 C due to convectional heat loss. And with ocean which covers 70% of Earth surface, the surface ocean and surface air is limited to about 35 C [due to evaporation heat loss]
Or greenhouse gases are not factor related to limiting or enhancing high temperature of ocean or land temperatures- doesn’t effect convectional heat loss or evaporation heat loss.
Norm, you still appear to be confused about 2LoT. Your long rambling comment just seemed to confuse you further.
If you have a responsible question, try to state it as concise as possible, hopefully in 25 words or less. That might keep you from getting so wrapped around your own axle.
g*e*r*a*n
Your ADD getting to you again?
I am not the one confused about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It clearly states that heat cannot transfer from a hot object to a colder one. That is all.
You have made up your own hilarious physics (based upon nothing at all) and then declare it as if it is a fact.
It is not a question but a demand from you. If you want to make these declarations: “A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.”
Then prove it! Support it with physics. You don’t do this at all. Devise a test to prove your point and put it on YouTube.
Your made up physics is hilarious. Give us more. Your comedy routine continues to amuse us all.
Sorry con-man, your one question did not qualify as responsible.
Feel free to try again.
Our hilarious con-man cons himself once again:
I am not the one confused about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It clearly states that heat cannot transfer from a hot object to a colder one.
Hilarious!
He seems to believe that the more he pounds on his keyboard, the smarter he will appear. Actually, it’s just the opposite. (But, don’t tell him.)
2018 is turning out to be a great year in climate comedy.
g*e*r*a*n
I know you want some sort of negative reaction from me. I learned from Ball4 just to enjoy your wacky made up physics. There is no evidence that will change your view. So we can just enjoy as you make up some more physics.
You are unable to support your claim then it seems as you are not even trying to do so.
I have linked you to real empirical testing from Roy Spencer’s tests and a room with powered lab equipment. Both tests demonstrate your position is not only confused but actually wrong. Evidence is against your made up version of the 2nd Law.
So continue either to make up some unsupportable declarations about your own belief or just ignore the request that you present evidence for your pseudoscience.
I am nearly certain you will not provide any supporting evidence for you made up idea: “A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.”
con-man, read this comment (link below) 20 times, out loud.
If you do not then realize how pathetic you are, read it another 20 times.
Repeat, as necessary.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284026
g*e*r*a*n
One nice thing about your funny posts. You never do the unexpected. Nicely predictable in what you will post. Never an exception
I did ask you to support your claim and I also made the correct prediction you would not do this.
What part of the 2nd Law claims that: A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.
I predict again you will not be able to support your claim. Man am I good or what!
Con-man, you are incompetent, incoherent, and irrelevant.
This is your version of 2LoT: “I am not the one confused about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It clearly states that heat cannot transfer from a hot object to a colder one.”
But, you keep pounding on that keyboard, sounding like a rabid chihuahua.
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
A while back you were complaining I was a bully for name calling you now what are you doing as I ask for evidence.
Let us see. I am asking you to support you notion that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics claims: A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object.
You reply with insults “Con-man, you are incompetent, incoherent, and irrelevant.”
Again you bluff and pretend you know physics. You never support your declarations. What makes my asking you for evidence for a claim incompetent? Incoherent? or Irrelevant?
I am sure you could not answer those questions either. You make up science, declare you believes as valid physics. Support nothing, insult people. You are the Master of Pseudoscience.
Norm your own quote: “What makes my asking you for evidence for a claim incompetent? Incoherent? or Irrelevant?”
I think you somehow answered any questions about your incompetence, incoherence, and irrelevancy.
(You know the routine.)
Hilarious!
g*e*r*a*n
I guess it is bluff and ignore for you. Incredibly predictable.
Okay Norm, as long as you’re not confused: “I am not the one confused about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It clearly states that heat cannot transfer from a hot object to a colder one.”
Hilarious.
g*e*r*a*n
Totally predictable. You still won’t support your declaration I take it. You don’t even know how to read, correctly, my post. I think you might need a new pair of glasses.
norman…”The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states: 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.”
You can use the word ‘flow’ in a solid or perhaps a liquid/air, where flow refers to convective flows, but in radiation there is no heat flow since heat cannot flow through space as radiation. Heat must first be converted to electromagnetic energy, then the EM flows trough space.
“The temperature of the cold object determines exactly how much heat will flow from hotter object. The warmer the cold object the less heat will flow from the hotter object”.
If you could suspend an externally heated ball inside a cylinder at a cooler temperature, IN A VACUUM, where conduction and convection played no part, you MIGHT have a case. Scientists have applied Stefan-Boltzmann to such a case but I have yet to see proof of it in a real experiment.
If you do the same experiment in air, then the temperature of the cooler body has nothing to do with situation unless the exterior cylinder had been cooled to a significantly lower temperature and was influencing the air between it and the suspended ball.
This is all thought-experiment stuff and does not affect the 2nd law as described by Clausius.
It would appear every part of the 2nd law supports g*rs claim. On the other hand, you admit heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a hotter object, by it’s own means, then you introduce a requirement that a colder body controls the temperature of a warmer body. That’s not part of the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “On the other hand, you admit heat cannot be transferred from a colder object to a hotter object, by its own means, then you introduce a requirement that a colder body controls the temperature of a warmer body. Thats not part of the 2nd law.”
Yes the colder body control the temperature of the warmer body. In powered and unpowered cases. Much empirical evidence supports this including Roy Spencer’s own testing.
It does not have to be part of the 2nd Law. The 2nd Law claims only that Heat cannot flow from cold to hot without work, it makes zero claims about how a cold body affects the temperature of a hot body. That is exactly my point with g*e*r*a*n. He is declaring the 2nd law claims that A cold object can NOT raise the temperature of a hotter object. I have asked him numerous times to find support of this notion. To date he has not been able to and will never be able to because the 2nd Law does not cover that situation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
Notice that the water with the less cool shield did not cool as fast as the water which received less energy back from a colder atmosphere. The difference in cold directly affected the temperature of the warmer water. It is empirically proven reality. I will accept reality over speculation and false declarations any day. I hope you might become scientific as well and go where the truth leads you.
norman…”Where does that support your made up declaration that a cold object cannot raise the temperature of a hotter object?”
You seem to be supporting the theory of DA that the Earth can affect the temperature of the Sun. You stated in another reply that a colder object controls the loss of heat from a warmer object.
G* you have summed up your position brilliantly, but it is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
G* regards himself as a lone voice in the wilderness with his own unique insight. He reveals that because they don’t share his beliefs, the entire world wide astronomical community, as well as the engineers and physicists of NASA, are just pseudo-scientists.
Unfortunately g* your message is not getting through, so it may require you to stand on some street corner and wear a sandwich board with a diagram and regale passers-by with your unique insights. It might take some time for the message to get through to any passing astronomers so you may need some help.
Maybe you could cover the East coast and Halp the West coast or vice versa.
The only unfortunate result of this venture could be being forced to share accommodation with a range of individuals who believe they have been similarly blessed with divine revelations.
You may eventually get out, but it may take some time, particularly if you incessantly repeat the same word (hilarious is an unfortunate choice). This kind of behaviour is convincing evidence of a continuing psychiatric disorder.
I see now it was all a big practical joke.
I should have realized a long time ago, but here it became just too evident:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-283987
Hilarious!
boys and girls, as regards NASA and the moon/axis issue, study this:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/28/464744781/30-years-after-disaster-challenger-engineer-still-blames-himself
As regards the blue/green plate issue, answer this:
A black body absorbs 3 photons, each with “E” energy. Can the black body then emit a single photon with “3E” energy?
anger wrote above: “1) A black body is an imaginary concept” and showed a cartoon where a black body reflects all incident photons, green arrows: https://postimg.org/image/kwzr0b6c3/
So anger, please explain how your imaginary concept that reflects all incident photons can now absorb “3 photons, each with “E” energy”?
Like Gordon, anger cannot keep his stories straight. Oh what a tangled web anger weaves.
(Your incoherent comment, with its mis-representations, did not meet the minimum standards for truth and clarity. Please feel free to try again later. Thank you.)
anger is dumbfounded once again, no answer.
There is no mis-representation; interested readers can find I quoted anger verbatim. Is that the truth? Is that perfect clarity anger? The world awaits. Try not to live up to all my expectations anger.
B: anger is dumbfounded once again, no answer
J: Yes, it must be somewhat surprising for g*e*r*a*n to have two responses from you, and still no answer to his question.
I’ll maybe answer once anger explains how the imaginary 6c3 black body reflects all incident photons and now the imaginary black body can absorb 3 photons.
Or maybe Halp-less knows the answer and is holding back. Start the count Halp-less.
Partial quote from J: “..and still no answer to his question”
Yup, and I bet we don’t get one!
They can’t answer correctly, because it destroys their pseudoscience. And, they can’t “spin” their way out of the simple question, because it shows (again) their duplicity.
Hilarious.
It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy!
OK, I will. You have evaded g*e*r*a*ns question 3 times now.
Halp-less AND anger haven’t explained anger’s original nonsensical question n=2 times now.
How long do you want to go Halp-less? I see you and anger are living up to all my expectations. Maybe this infinite loop will keep you busy and reduce your non-experimental “pseudoscience” elsewhere.
Count n+1 next.
Well, Ball4, its quite easy really. I will simply wait around a few days to see if anyone answers the question, then present the total number of evasions at the end. You see, your mistake was to assume that the whole world revolves around you.
The world revolves around experimental “science” and not Halp-less’ and anger’s non-experimental “pseudoscience”.
Someone said And, they can’t “spin” their way out of the simple question, because it shows (again) their duplicity.
I think that same party also said Hilarious.
“Someone said And, they cant spin their way out of the simple question, because it shows (again) their duplicity.
I think that same party also said Hilarious.”
And, the non-experimental “pseudoscience” commenters cant TEST their way out of any simple question, because it shows (again) their duplicity. I think that the non-experimental “pseudoscience” commenters also introduced the concept of experimental “science” being Hilarious!
So the Challenger disaster had nothing to do with the O rings.
Was it was due to the incorrect assumption by NASA regards the rotation of the moon?
Were the astronauts not told that they were meant to land on the moon?
Did g* lead the investigation into the disaster?
So many questions, so much stupidity from g*’s latest diversion.
Congratulations miker! Once again, you have completely chosen “cute” over “truth”.
That only has value in comedy.
But, you knew that.
ball4…”A cold object can raise the temperature of a hotter object as proper experiments show due universe entropy increasing”.
Entropy is a measure of reversibility and has nothing to do with the direction of heat transfer. In fact, if what you claim is true, with two bodies exchanging heat equally, both would have zero entropy over the entire process.
It was a mistake to associate entropy with the 2nd law. Clausius developed the 2nd law first, explaining the part that heat can never be transferred cold to hot by it’s own means, then introduced entropy as an aside. Clausius obviously did not associate entropy with the 2nd law, that began with the likes of Boltzmann, Planck, and anyone else who misinterpreted the meaning of Clausius vis a vis the 2nd law.
It needs to be understood as well that the applications of Boltzmann and Planck of statistical means for deriving the distribution of EM took place at thermal equilibrium, not in a state where one body was significantly hotter than the other.
Nothing can be inferred from either Boltzmann or Planck with regard to two way heat transfer.
Gordon 10:21pm: “I have no problem with the notion that heat is lost at a hotter body and gained at a cooler body but it is not transferred body to body.”
Gordon 4:50pm: “Nothing can be inferred from either Boltzmann or Planck with regard to two way heat transfer.”
Gordon cannot ever keep his stories straight; claims first heat is not transferred then claims there IS heat transfer.
“Clausius obviously did not associate entropy with the 2nd law”
Clausius lists the two thermodynamic laws in his 9th memoir p. 356:
Law 1: The energy of the universe is constant
Law 2: The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
Oh what a tangled web Gordon weaves.
ball4….”Clausius obviously did not associate entropy with the 2nd law
Clausius lists the two thermodynamic laws in his 9th memoir p. 356:
Law 1: The energy of the universe is constant
Law 2: The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum”
********
Come on bally, I’ve seen you do better. The 2nd law is not stated in the works of Clausius as entropy. He wrote it out very clearly that heat cannot by its own means be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.
He then defined entropy in words and explained where he got the word. Then he added, almost as an aside, that in a reversible process, entropy is 0. In an irreversible process entropy is positive.
That’s when he made the point that since most processes are irreversible, the universe is headed for disorder.
“(Clausius) wrote (2nd law) out very clearly that heat cannot by its own means be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.”
That is not the 2nd law as written by Clausius. That is a consequence of the 2nd law as written by Clausius as that process breaks 2nd law as Clausius wrote it:
Law 2: The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
“most processes are irreversible”
All real processes are irreversible or they break Clausius 2nd law as he wrote it & Sir Eddington made even more clear:
Law 2: The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
For GR and others,
I’ve run another Green Plate demonstration, which refutes GR’s claim that conduction had anything to do with the increase in temperature shown in the previous experiments. It’s clear that back radiation can cause a body to exhibit an increase in temperature, showing that this effect does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Here’s the link.
https://app.box.com/s/al1duvn2aq3blkyqecivh5y3yyvlno4i
swannie, place a glass plate on the burner. Wait until the plate is at least 200F. Then, place your hand on the glass plate. Hold your hand in place for 30 seconds.
After you get out of the emergency room, review “heat transfer”, “thermodynamics”, and “radiative heat transfer”.
Glad to help.
anger once again changes the original proposition into a proposition of anger’s own choosing. Non-experimental “pseudoscience” written by anger demands this silly tactic.
It’s a teaching tool, tricky.
But some just can not learn.
Changing the proposition is not a teaching tool, anger. anger employs this straw man tactic to avoid dealing with the original proposition which is experimental “science” truth winning v. anger’s non-experimental “pseudoscience” untruth.
Realizing that both swannie and tricky trick will not understand, here’s a hint for them:
Glass does not pass infrared very well.
If either of them needs further clarification, I’m here to help.
g*e*r*a*n-a-moe, you may be on to something there. Lets see, glass absorbs IR, gets hot, radiates IR in both directions, heats the plate below. Wouldn’t that also prove the Green Plate Model? Have you ever thought about doing some real science, as in, an experiment, instead of sitting there in front of the monitor spitting out bile and venom? Or, is that part of your job description?
Glass conducts enough that the temperature of the top will be high enough to burn, but the temperature of the top will be less than the temperature of the bottom touching the heating plate.
swannie, one plate, no matter its composition, heating another plate is not what the fraudulent blue/green plate issue is about. It is about the green plate heating the blue plate, beyond its incoming energy level.
That’s why your “experiments” are so funny. You don’t really understand the issue. So, everything you do “proves” your beliefs.
It’s fun to watch.
Yes g*e*r*a*n
E. Swanson is doing actual testing. You are the one that does nothing. You can’t even find valid physics to support your bogus ideas. I think everyone knows you are bluffing, a phony and pretender. You never produce. You only ridicule and make fun of people that understand what you don’t.
I have seen nothing from you to date. I think J Halp-less is you pretending that someone else out their believes your made up physics. Pseudosupport.
Sorry Norm, I was doing some more experiments.
Unfortunately, you’re wrong again. Heat does move from “hot” to “cold”.
You can do this experiment yourself, on your kitchen stove.
It proves your interpretation of 2LoT is wrong: “I am not the one confused about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It clearly states that heat cannot transfer from a hot object to a colder one.”
The advantage of experiments, huh?
g*e*r*a*n
Are you drunk? I have absolutely no clue what point you are trying to make. Usually it seems you want to be humorous. With this one I am at a loss.
So far to date. You have not done any tests (except maybe the taste of some whiskey). So far to date you have not supported any of your many declarations. So far to date you have pretended you know physics. Pretended you are far smarter than reality shows you to be. Bluffed your way around anyone’s inquiry of your knowledge.
Someone stated that you are actually working for the climate alarmist group (actually making money doing it). Roy Spencer is a moderate, an actual scientist who does not oppose established science but questions catastrophic climate change (disasters, intense heating, oceans flooding all coastal cities on a global scale, food production going down the drain). You come on with no science, lots of ridiculous nonsense about heat transfer that you can’t back up. You are trying to make moderate skeptics look like crackpots. Nothing else, with your continuous obnoxious posts makes much sense. You want skeptics to look like idiots in the eyes of the viewing public. Scientists (some who post on this blog) come on and see your posts and just shake their heads wondering how did Public Education create such empty heads like yours.
He’s just trying to wind us up again.
Svante, you stumbled onto it.
My purpose is to bring some truth to the issues. I rate my progress by how much flak I get from those that deal in untruth.
As noted by the surrounding comments, I’m doing a great job.
G*s a little behind on his monthly quota. Only 722 comments.
And most are just magic words:
Hilarious. 105
Climate comedy 50
Pseudoscience 122
Yes, anger is doing a great job of non-experimental “pseudoscience” and all the climate comedy that comes with it is entertaining & instructional. A tough job but someone has to take the losing side in every debate.
More progress, I see.
Nicely done experiment!
Is there a way to do w plates vertical?
Yes, I think so. I’m thinking about doing something like that next…
Fantastic!
Maybe use ice cubes for the heat source? A turkey for the target?
Be careful not to burn the turkey!
(It’s going to be a great year in climate comedy!)
The desperation that the GPE has induced in the faithful, is absolutely astonishing to behold. The *lengths* you people are going to!
More accurately for Halp-less and the climate sophistry blog:
The desperation that the GPE has induced in the non-experimental “pseudoscience” faithful, is absolutely astonishing to behold. The *lengths* you non-experimental “pseudoscience” people are going to!
anger has even gone to *lengths* to comment on and reveal how a turkey can be baked by a block of ice!
^^ See, they even have to stoop to stuff like that! ^^
Amusing, but not surprising that the only people who think experiments are pointless are G* and Halp.
Who needs experiments when you’ve got fact-resistant ideology, and scripture from the dark lord Postma.
Nate, you are making stuff up again.
Here’s another common sense “experiment”. Cut a hole in the wall of a well insulated house which has a well regulated temperature control. Place a thin sheet of glass in the hole, sealing it along the edges. In cold weather, measure the temperature of the center of the glass. Now, add another sheet of glass of the same dimensions to the inside of the first, separated by a small distance (less than 3/4 inch). Measure the temperature of the inside piece of glass when the outside temperature is the same as during the first measurement. Science tells us that the inside glass will be warmed by back radiation from the outside piece.
Or, one could just buy double pane windows for said house and save on the HVAC bills. Better yet, get some ’70’s high tech low-e windows which have an IR reflective layer deposited on one of the two panes. A real energy fanatic might even go for triple layer windows, like the Russians use, or the newer setup with a middle layer of IR reflective plastic…
Heres another one: lay four plastics sheets on the ground, with the edges facing inwards. Grab two house bricks, and place them edge downwards in the middle of the plastic sheet nest. Now, fart. You just proved the GPE!
Now Halp-less follows anger’s lead and changes the original GPE proposition to a proposition of Halp-less’ own choosing. Won’t work with the experimental “science” crowd, will work occasionally with the non-experimental “pseudoscience” crowd.
Ball4, you were an odd choice for the funny one. Youd think the hive mind would have selected a part of itself which at least possessed a sense of humour. Or a soul.
“you were an odd choice for the funny one.”
So apparently Halp-less agrees I do have a sense of humor contradicting himself by his next sentence. This is typical for the non-experimental “pseudoscience” crowd.
Come on over to the experimental “science” crowd J, it’s so much more fun than just the lecture.
No, I dont agree you have a sense of humour. I would have put the funny one in ironic quotation marks, but apparently such punctuation is not permitted by WordPress.
” Science tells us that the inside glass will be warmed by back radiation from the outside piece.”
Pseudo science tells you that.
The double panes are reducing convectional heat loss.
When the two pieces of glass are close together, the formation of a convection loop between the two is suppressed. Convection energy flow from the room to the glass surface continues. That leaves heat transfer via conduction thru the layer of air, which is rather small, and radiation between the two pieces. The reflective coating in low-e glass results in reducing the IR transmission between the two pieces.
The space between the layers of glass could be evacuated, as is applied in vacuum bottles, which would remove the remanding conduction, leaving only IR transmission. With a vacuum bottle, the surface(s) are mirrored as well, reducing the IR transmission and keeping your coffee warm all day. In either situation, if the mirror is on the exterior side, the IR is “back radiated” to the inside surface…
A double pane window is a good insulator. Nothing magical about that.
A thermos bottle is a good insulator. Nothing magical about that.
Both are engineered for a specific purpose.
But, neither is a “heat source”.
You have to go into magical pseudoscience to create new energy from nothing, or warm “hot” with “cold”.
But, magical pseudoscience attracts a lot of followers.
“The space between the layers of glass could be evacuated, as is applied in vacuum bottles, which would remove the remanding conduction, leaving only IR transmission.”
[the remanding conduction? Remaining conduction doesn’t make sense either]
Anyhow, vacuum is a loose term- 1/2 atm of pressure could called a vacuum and with 1/2 atm of vacuum, one still has convection. And 1/2 atm would create a force of 14.7 / 2 =
7.35 pounds per square inch or the force over 24 by 24″ is
4233.6 lbs of force. Or more force then 200 lb guy standing in the middle of window- 200 lbs of force about 3 lbs per square inch depending shoe size. Or something like 200 lb person jumping up and down on 2 foot wide window pane.
If you wanted to put vacuum so as to prevent convection of heat, you need to have a small window and/or thick panes of glass. And a triple pane [not using vacuum- but 3 would reduce convection loss] would be cheaper.
g*e*r*a*n
It seems your really are also J Halp-less. A delusion to make people think you are correct in your unscientific unfounded declarations. You made up J Halp-less to make it seem as if your pseudoscience had some validity because someone eles (you) parroted the very same nonsense.
Here is some evidence: J Halp-less: “Thanks, g*. Norman, your entirely predictable yelping is noted, and dismissed accordingly.”
Sounds identical to a post by g*e*r*a*n
I also think you gave us a clue by initially adding a bunch of random “*” in your earlier posts.
So g*e*r*a*n and J Halp-less are probably the same person posting under two different online personas. Do I win a prize for figuring this out?
It’s a big prank. He went a bit too far here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-283987
He tried to fix it with something serious, but he already spilled the beans.
G*e*r*a*n once warned me that you were prone to yelping, and soon you proved his point correct. At that point I took up using the term to describe your posts. Is not evidence for anything other than that you see whatever confirms your pre-existing beliefs.
Hilarious! 😉
Norman
An interesting aside regarding g*e*r*a*n.
He was a regular contributor to the comments section of this blog until August 11, 2016.
On that day he posted on Joe Postma’s Web site two comments that joined in an extremely nasty attack on Roy Spencer by Joe Postma. This particular blog was called “Roy Spencer: As***le (Language Warning!)” see the following link –
https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/08/11/roy-spencer-ae-language-warning/#comment-27658
On the same date G*e*r*a*n last appeared (without asterisk) in the comments on this blog after getting into this heated argument with Roy Spencer see –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2016-0-39-deg-c/#comment-220114
There was no further sign of any comment by g* with or without asterisks until he reappeared exactly 6 months to the day later on April 11, 2017 (now with asterisks).
So g* has form. He was banned for 6 months by Roy and only reappeared after having his name filtered and then forced to use the artifice of asterisks to avoid these filters.
I can understand Roy’s reluctance to ban him again as he is liable to morph into g# or g! or something else, or possibly just reappear using the Halp alias.
It is pretty well.impossible to successfully filter out a determined serial pest despite the past successes in eliminating D*C and m*p.
I think we will just have to put with this idiot and thank our lucky stars that he is a flag bearer for the climate change denial movement.
Sorry correction. G* was of course off the air for 8 months.
Could it be tbat g*’s innumeracy is contagious?
miker, I’m flattered that you would exhaust so much time and energy to track down everything I’ve ever put, on every blog. Some people might describe that as “fanatical”, but they don’t understand where the word “fan” comes from.
I appreciate my fans. That’s why I have raised the price on T-shirts, once again. How many do you want?
G*, are you still selling these, with your own personal monogram?
https://www.zazzle.com.au/im_with_stupid_t_shirt-235795798351327070
Is the monogram with or without the asterisks? I think the ones without the asterisks would be a collectors item.
I do have a close acquaintance who would be interested in going into the T- shirt business with you. He also has a number of other business opportunities that might interest you.
Just post your bank details, driver’s licence details and social security number and he will get in touch with you.
By the way you flatter yourself again g*. It didn’t take long to narrow down the search with the judicious use of Google.
Miker, don’t be ashamed of your obsession with me. You have a lot of company.
Possibly all of you may be able to get a group rate on therapy.
(Be sure to wear my T-shirt to sessions. Many cost-saving deals now available.)
G*,Thanks for the offer and I can similarly offer the same services that I offered the dearly departed m*p*a*i*n*t*e*r.
My specialty is grouper therapy where a large fish is used to knock sense into a sufferer of delusions of grandeur. A discussion of the therapeutic value of the technique is discussed here –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fish-Slapping_Dance
M: the Halp alias
J: MikeR also proves that he only sees whatever confirms his pre-existing beliefs.
Yes maybe Halp is a distinct entity to g*.
Unless g* is up late or has moved to a different time zone then we may have two idiots for the price of one.
The two comprise a tag team of lunacy that is demolishing any remnants of credibility for the climate change denial community after luminaries such as Gordon (and now TonyM) have finished wreaking their havoc.
However there are some more intelligent colleagues who must squirm each time these two hit the “Submit Comment” button. A lot seemed to have disappeared lately, perhaps through embarrassment.
J: MikeR also proves that he only sees whatever confirms his pre-existing beliefs.
M: Yes maybe Halp is a distinct entity to g*.
J: Im glad you can admit your shortcomings.
Yes Halp, like any mature adult I will happily admit to my shortcomings when shown evidence that I am wrong with my assumption.
My assumption was that there could not possibly be more than one idiot that could believe such blatant nonsense and even more unbelievably, proud to display their stupidity and ignorance on a continuing basis.
Boy you live and learn.
MikeR, you definitely dont learn, and you definitely are not a mature adult. But, you are an amusingly relentless sociopathic bore, so please continue.
Halp, yes I am still learning from my mistakes.
I should have also referred to you and your organ grinder as having anger management issues, typical of an immature 4 year old.
How remiss of me but at least i am trying to correct my mistakes.
Sometimes it is hard to tell online the difference between the monkey and the organ grinder. I can hazard a guess though.
Feel better?
Yes now that I know.
OK, well next time you make yourself look foolish by making a mistake in your prolonged, random ad hominem attack, I will try to be here again so you have someone to talk it through with. If we work together we can make sure you are fit enough to go out into society again, one day. As long as the police dont find those bodies, you will be fine.
Halp I detect a slight hint of anger in your latest comment with respect to dead bodies.
I am indeed sorry that I identified yourself as being someone else. I do say in my defence it was an easy to jump to this conclusion as it was bewildering that both of your idiosyncratic (emphasis on the first syllable) views are pretty much identical.
G* has let the cat out of the bag with his remarkable belief that, unlike himself, NASA and the entire astronomical community do not understand the laws of motion See –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-283987
Do you have even, at any stage entertained the thought that maybe g* is wrong about orbital dynamics given that NASA and the astronomy departments of every university disagree .
Also did the numerous links that I posted in response to these tendentious claims here –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-280049
also not make you reconsider your position? Did the fact that g* could or would not reveal the source or a relevant link to material that supports his claim arouse suspicion? Not even a flicker of doubt?
M: Halp I detect a slight hint of anger in your latest comment with respect to dead bodies.
J: So again, you havent learnt a thing. Thats OK, I expect very little of you. Im here though, if you need someone to talk to again. We can get you through this, together.
M: Halp I detect a slight hint of anger in your latest comment with respect to dead bodies.
J: So again, you havent learnt a thing. Thats OK, I expect very little of you. Im here though, if you need someone to talk to again. We can get you through this, together.
M: Are you the latest version of ELIZA? Still needs more work.
Thats funny, I had been thinking the same thing about Ball4, and Nate. I never detect any humanity there, at all! Now, what did you want to talk about?
Halp, I am glad you found the above funny, but not hilarious.
Your colleague’s impersonation of the type of idiot that finds everything hilarious has become his trademark, so it may be time that you distanced yourself from him.
Accordingly, I was just hoping for a response as to whether you are still gung-ho in your support for g*’s theory regarding the moons lack of rotation, in light of my preceding comment (at 3 am).
It is OK to reconsider and change your mind. We all make mistakes and I certainly have made my fair share.
On that note, an admission of doubt would finally put to bed (appropriate in this context) the notion that you are a distinct entity from g* (who maybe an insomniac or a shift worker) .
So Halp this maybe an opportunity to claw back the credibility that you lost witb your over-zealous support for g* by admitting even just a smidgin of doubt.
Well, repeating previous conversations can be a useful exercise for some people. Lets see if it can help you here. I think your confusion arises from assuming that the links you share have not already been read, and understood. You assume that to understand, is to comply; and agree with what the position of authority states. But there are other ways to see things.
Let me try to summarise again:
Authority states that the reference frame for the moons axial rotation is a fixed point, inertial space. Looking at it that way, it appears the moon rotates once on its axis on completing an orbit. This is known, and understood (I believe) by both myself and g*e*r*a*n.
However, the English language dictates that the sentence:
The moon rotates on its axis
Would imply the frame of reference is relative to the moon itself, *its axis*. In other words, the orbiting reference frame. Considered this way, the moon does NOT rotate on its axis on completing an orbit.
The reason the moon does not rotate, is due to the fact it is tidally locked to Earth.
Halp, Interesting that you attribute the differences to semantics and frames of reference.
Unfortunately a rotational frame is a non inertial frame of reference so arguments based around relative motion are not appropriate in this context.
Non inertial reference frames are subject to fictitious forces such as the Coriolis force and centrifugal force.
A wonderful example that illustrates the latter is the old amusement ride, that I nauseatingly remember from childhood, that is the dreaded Rotor see-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotor_(ride)
Halp did you ever ride this sickening device?
Do you remember being stuck to.the walls and sliding down to the floor when it stopped rotating. Recall also, you were also always looking in the same direction at the opposite wall while spinning, so you may have thought you were not rotating. The only factor to indicate you were spinning, other than the fact you were stuck to the wall, was the effect on your inbuilt inertial guidance mechanism (i.e. your inner ear).
If you haven’t had the educational experience of the Rotor, I recommend it to you. As for myself, I would only go on a Rotor ride again that was spinning at the same rate as the moon’s rotation. It wouldn’t be as impressive as the centrifugal force would be miniscule and wouldn’t support a fly but it would be less vomit inducing.
The other point to discuss is the difference in rotational momentum for the two cases. Any stationary moon would have zero rotational momentum so they would be unique in the solar system and possibly the universe. It would be impossible to reconcile with any known theory for the formation of the solar system, such as the accreting disk model.
If your concept was true, you would have to have a very good theory as to how the solar system formed with moons that had zero rotational angular momentum.
This finally leads to atrribution of non rotation to tidal locking. This is clearly not the case. There are numerous articles on the internet that explain this.
There are two very good YouTube videos that explain tidal locking clearly see the following –
https://youtu.be/lmc5XqChJpY z (warning- contains some math) and
https://youtu.be/j91XTV_p9pc
The latter explanation is excellent in that it explains that tidal effects are slowing down the earth’s rotation and will eventually cause it to tidally lock to the moon. When this occurs this will cause the moon to be in exactly the same place in the sky in one hemisphere and to be never visible in the other hemisphere . This is the same situation as per the moon now (i.e. the earth appears to be in the same position from one side and invisible from the “dark side”).
Halp, I hope this is all clear and we can continue our discussion, if necessary, in a cordial fashion.
The moons angular momentum is due to the motion known as *orbiting*. Not sure if there was anything else worth addressing in your last epic post.
So, how did writing that all out make you feel? We need to get to the bottom of your issues, if we are going to make any headway.
No Halp there are two components to the angular momentum.
1. Due to orbital motion of the moon and
2. Due to rotation of the moon on its axis.
See –
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
and see if you can solve the following homework problem.
http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/angular-momentum-moon-orbit-around-earth-b-angular-momentum-chapter-10-problem-37pe-solution-9781938168932-exc
Let me know if you need assistance with this question i.e. you will need to able to calculate the rotational moment of inertia of the moon.
Hope to hear from you soon with the answer.
miker, you sure ramble endlessly with your meaningless nonsense.
You need to study orbital motion. The forces acting on the Moon keep it going in the same direction along the orbital path. It is just the same as if it were moving in a straight line. You just don’t have the background, or initiative to understand.
The simple fact that you only see one side of the Moon is proof it is NOT rotating on its axis.
You deceive yourself constantly, and it’s fun to watch.
Since 2), for the moon, is only apparent rotation relative to a fixed point, it is really only a part of 1). Other bodies, of course, do have both components. By all means you can solve the problem, if it makes you feel better, but the solution wont change what has been said.
I had hoped to hear from you with your feelings on writing out such lengthy posts? You keep trying to avoid talking about the reasons you are here. I made it clear that I was only here for you now since it seemed like you needed someone to talk to, and you continued, so I have assumed you are in need of counselling. But, you must open up! Im really only here to listen.
G*, oh my goodness.
“The forces acting on the Moon keep it going in the same direction along the orbital path. It is just the same as if it were moving in a straight line. ”
This comment needs to be kept for posterity. Maybe this should be emblazoned on g*s T-shirt or maybe a Borat like mankini.
Which forces (plural) are they?
Has g* returned to the era of Aristotle, bypassing Newton on the way back. It appears so. I thought Gordon was bad enough with his distaste for post 1930s physics before it was corrupted by Einstein and his ilk. But I suspect he might even find this beyond the pale.
We know the centripetal force of gravity keeps the Moon moving in circular motion. He now appears to claim it is the same force that would keep the Moon going (indefinitely?) in a straight line. This boy needs therapy.
G*, you have expressed disdain for NASA and all the university astronomical departments. Are you now going after every currently practising physicist? They would shrug their shoulders and just draw a red line through the work of a student who generated such nonsense.
They would also keep the student back and writing on the blackboard a thousand times, Newton’s First Law.
An object remains at rest, or keeps moving in uniform motion in a straight line, unless acted upon by an external force.
miker, your ignorance of the physics of orbital forces is only exceeded by your fanatical obsession with me.
(Did you want another shipment of T-shirts?)
I don’t know why you inserted yourself into the discussion between Halp and myself but yes I will take a dozen T-shirts.
They should be emblazoned with G*E*R*A*N at top, a large smiling face emoji in the centre and the following words at the bottom in the largest font that will fit.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS
BUT TO AN IDIOT EVERYTHING IS HILARIOUS.
Halp, can you please bring back ELIZA.
She made so much more sense and she probably could have solved the angukar momentum question.
Still waiting for you to open up a bit more. Your last posts have been somewhat revealing but you still need to give me more to work with.
miker finds some correct info on wiki: “An object remains at rest, or keeps moving in uniform motion in a straight line, unless acted upon by an external force.”
Very good, miker. You are able to copy/paste all by yourself.
Of course, the next task is to try to understand that sentence. The forces on an orbiting object are constant. That’s why it remains in orbit. Consider the race car. Consider the race car’s steering wheel is locked to always turn the car the exact amount to orbit a circular race track.
That would be a fairly close analogy to the Moon, in it’s orbit.
Notice the race car is NOT rotating on its axis, as it orbits the track.
G*
Have you changed your tune? Yes we all know that gravitational force will keep an object orbiting indefinitely but what about the following statement of yours?
“It is just the same as if it were moving in a straight line.
If it is just the same as you claim, what forces would keep an object moving in a straight line?
I fully expect the g*’s standard evasion, rather than a sensible answer such as, maybe I was wrong.
I am sure I won’t be disappointed.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-285100
G*, Halp and now Gordon,
Rather than a thought experiments with cars, race horse etc why not perform this incredibly easy 10 second experiment. It is incredibly safe so you can try this at home.
Go to your kitchen pantry and take a cylindrical can with a label on it. Hold it firmly in your hand at arm’s length. Rotate your arm 90 degrees. Note where the label is now pointing.
What do you have to do to make the label on the can point
g*e*r*a*ns
Tactics are like. Boy that Norman is one really smart person as he was able to figure out g*e*r*a*n and J Halp-less are the same poster using different names.
How do you get two people posting on a blog with the same notion that the Moon does not spin on its axis (when it is well established physics that it does and we have dozens of videos showing this fact).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284003
Pete, I don’t know if “J” has a position on the Moon/axis issue, or not. So, you should let him speak for himself, rather than forcing your opinion as fact. (I don’t know “J”, but it appears he can think for himself. That means, if he were interested, he would likely understand the Moon/axis issue also.)
It appears you are not well-educated on orbital movements. See if this helps:
There are TWO different, distinct, independent motions being discussed. One is “orbiting”. This is the motion where an object moves around another object, or point. Such as a race car racing around an oval track. The car is “orbiting” around the center of the track.
The second motion is “rotating on an axis”. Here, the object spins around its own center. A fan blade is a good example. The fan blade is “rotating on its axis”.
The Moon only has ONE of the two motions. Its motion is the same as the race car. But, many people cannot separate the two motions and believe, because when viewing from outside the orbit, both the Moon and the car appear to be turning around. And, most of “institutional pseudoscience” gets it wrong also.
It’s fun to watch.
The race car is orbiting around the center of the track while the car rotates once on its axis.
The fan blade is attached to hub rotating on its axis once while it orbits the center of the fan.
By inspection.
If the fan blade were not attached to the hub then it could be non-rotating on its axis but that’s a different proposition.
B: The race car is orbiting around the center of the track while the car rotates once on its axis.
J: Really? So the car is driving round the track whilst doing one slow, controlled spin on its axis, without flying off the track? So that seen from above, the cars headlights are continuously pointing in one direction (e.g, always pointing North) throughout the whole circuit? Thats extraordinary driving skills, but if you say so, it must be true.
“So the car is driving round the track whilst doing one slow, controlled spin on its axis, without flying off the track?”
Yes, by inspection.
“So that seen from above, the cars headlights are continuously pointing in one direction (e.g, always pointing North) throughout the whole circuit?”
No, then the race car would not be rotating once on its axis while performing one orbit of the infield. The race car would be non-rotating on its axis; this is called a crash or “losing control”. By inspection at Indy500.
If inspection and experimental “science” say so, it must be true.
Ball4, you just said:
Yes, by inspection
To the very same situation you went on to describe as a crash, or losing control. The paragraph you started with:
No, then the race car…
You just completely contradicted yourself. And now, you will confuse yourself even more, in your next reply…here we go…3…2…1…
No contradiction. Perhaps Halp-less could learn not to be so confused by actually watching the Indy500 and keeping a list of where the headlights would be pointing if they had headlights on each orbit. Or any race with headlights that is on an oval track.
Indy500 going past the S/F Grandstand which cardinal direction do the race cars point? This answer can be obtained by inspection.
In the 1st short chute, which cardinal direction do the race cars still in control now point? This answer can be also obtained by inspection.
Yep, you are even more confused! Thanks for amusing me, plaything.
You’re welcome. I’m here to help! Drivers know it’s better to rotate a race car once on its axis during each orbit of the infield at Indy500 as the winner does or your team owner will look for another driver. And your pit crew will have nothing to do for the race but watch.
Thanks for amusing me, plaything. To be abbreviated to TFAM, P, for the inevitable next usage…
Pete…”How do you get two people posting on a blog with the same notion that the Moon does not spin on its axis…”
Are you suggesting the Moon has an axle running through the middle and extending out each end? Which way does it spin anyway? I’ve been looking for this axle and I can’t see one.
I’ve been looking for the man in the moon too and I can’t see him.
PhilJ
I wanted to respond to your post somewhere above in which you wonder: “Yes as conservation energy/2LOT demand since the now separated shaded green plate comes to a new lower temperature than blue at equilibrium as demonstrated by experiment. (this was Ball4 post)
How do you figure that? The green plate is recieving exactly the same amount of energy just via radiatiom rather than conduction How then can its temp drop?”
Ball4 is correct the green plate will drop in temperature. You can do an easy experiment to see this. Boil a pot of water. Lift the pot just barely off the red hot boiler plate and it instantly cools enough to quit boiling. Why? It now has a whole new radiating surface now, the bottom of the pot becomes a new emission source for IR cooling the pot at a greater rate. Try it and see what happens. As Ball4 states. It is better to experiment and learn. A lot of science does not make common sense. Galileo was one of the Father’s of empirical testing. Common sense thought a heavier object would fall faster than a lighter one. Empirical testing demonstrated this was not the case. In your world your common sense thinking determines that if you move a plate away so conduction is broken it won’t matter. If you boil the water and break the conduction you will have immediate results that common sense thinking and science are not always together.
Pete, Ball4 also said:
Changing the proposition is not a teaching tool, anger. anger employs this straw man tactic to avoid dealing with the original proposition
Amazingly hilarious, con-man.
Taking the pot off the burner allows the pot to cool!
More please.
Just like taking the green plate off the blue plate allows the green plate to cool!
More please.
norman…”Lift the pot just barely off the red hot boiler plate and it instantly cools enough to quit boiling. Why?”
Most scientists would claim that moving the lid a bit reduces the pressure.
You think it’s because the pot has a new radiating surface. Incredible!!
Gordon, the lid alone didn’t move. The whole pot moved. Try again.
This is an excellent simple experiment even g*e*r*a*n should be able to do.
I was interested in the thermosphere and wondered what Mars thermosphere looked like.
So, I googled it:
“…A typical thermal profile for the Martian atmosphere is shown in Figure 1. Due to the small amount of water in the Martian atmosphere, the decrease of temperature with altitude in the troposphere follows the dry adiabatic [3].
The Martian atmosphere does not have an stratosphere like the terrestrial one. The reason is that the amount of ozone in the Martian atmosphere is too small to produce a noticeable heating. However, when the dust load is high enough, the heating induced by the dust can produce thermal inversions similar to a stratosphere.
The lower thermosphere is characterized by a strong increase of temperature with altitude, due to the absor*ption of UV solar radiation, while in the upper thermosphere the temperature tends to an asymptotic value due to the high efficiency of the thermal conduction, that suppresses temperature gradients.”
https://tinyurl.com/y9ng9gb3
Figure 1 show a rapid increase in temperature of thermosphere starting around 110 km and leveling off at around 170 Km. An going from 130 K to 250 K.
It seems it was going to colder than Earth, but it’s much colder than I thought it was going to be.
I would guess it was colder because Mars has 1/3 of Earth’s gravity and Mars escape velocity is about 1/2 of Earth’s.
Or molecules of gas can’t be going as fast or they escape and Mars’s orbital speed is lees than 1/2 of earth’s low Earth’s orbit orbital speed. Or the smaller Mars requires a longer time to orbit in low Mars orbit.
Earth is about 90 min and Mars is about 2 hours- I check it to see what it is:
“We’ll use a 400 km orbit.
…gives us a velocity of 3,361 m/s (7,519 mph)- a little less than half the orbital velocity for the same height above Earth’s surface.”
https://tinyurl.com/yccrth5h
Equatorial radius: 3396.2
+ 400, so 3796 km radius, 7592 diameter, 23852 km circumference or distance traveled in 400 km mars orbit:
23852000 meters / 3,361 = 7096 seconds, 118.2 mins
[And about 2 hours is also true of the Moon].
[it took me 6 attempts of sniping before I noticed absor*ption is the quoted ref]
gbaikie…”[it took me 6 attempts of sniping before I noticed absor*ption is the quoted ref]”
If I have trouble posting a longer post, I break it into a shorter length of a couple of paragraphs. If it posts, load another section and see if it loads, etc. Easier to troubleshoot the WordPress miscues.
mike r…”No Halp there are two components to the angular momentum.
1. Due to orbital motion of the moon and
2. Due to rotation of the moon on its axis.
See
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
************
Seems to me your link supports g*r’s argument. The moon is tidally locked to the Earth due to Earth’s gravitation therefore it is not turning freely on an axis.
From link:
“Gravity from Earth pulls on the closest tidal bulge, trying to keep it aligned. This creates tidal friction that slows the moon’s rotation. Over time, the rotation was slowed enough that the moon’s orbit and rotation matched, and the same face became tidally locked, forever pointed toward Earth”.
If you could look at the Earth/Moon system from above, with the Earth/Moon plane perpendicular to your POV, with a line drawn from the North Pole axis through the moon, turning with the Moon, the Moon would never turn against the line.
Some people interpret that as a rotation but it’s not. Unless the Moon had a rotation exactly synchronized to it’s orbital period around the Earth, the Moon would, over time reveal it’s back face, which it never does.
Also, you are wrong about angular momentum. If the moon is tidally locked it has no rotational angular momentum, the only angular momentum is the momentum that keeps it in orbit around the Earth.
However, if the tidal bulge had that much of an effect, one would think by now that the tidal bulges on the Earth, created by the Sun and the Moon, would have seriously slowed the Earth’s rotation down. I don’t think the tidal effect has much of an effect on rotational momentum. It does not act like friction.
No one knows, as they claim in the article, if the Moon was once rotating.
Gordon the earth’s rotational period is increasing slowly due to tidal friction and this is why every few years there is a leap second added see –
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second
I also urge you to read the all the material linked to in the following comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-280049
and additionally the linked material in the two subsequent comments and see if they sow any doubts in your mind.
Also do you hold the same view as g*, in that you summarily dismiss the scientists and engineers of NASA, the physicists and astronomers of university departments worldwide, as ignoramuses who believe in pseudo-science?
Even those who ostensibly support your agenda re AGW such as SkepticGoneWild, Kristian and Bart have sensibly dismissed g*’s nonsense.
So there appears to be now a grand total of three people in the known universe who agree with the view that the moon is not rotating on its axis. There may be some others lurking in one of the other infinite parallel universes but we must be the only one to have had the misfortune to have such a large number.
Finally do you, or the other two lunar ticks, have any link to any material anywhere that could provide independent supporting evidence that the moon does not rotate and/or that it has zero angular momentum? Unfortunately links to simple assertions by g* and Halp cannot be regarded as independent evidence.
If you or your fellow, advocates cannot come up with such evidence then it is safe to assume that the concept of the non rotating moon is just a another figment of the fevered imagination of g*e*r*a*”n.
On that note, If I had to find something positive to say about g*, is that he is good at making shit up and even better at steadfastly ignoring the incoming foecal matter when his creation hits the fan. Gordon I would stand clear, particularly if the blades are rotating.
M: So there appears to be now a grand total of three people in the known universe who agree with the view that the moon is not rotating on its axis.
J: MikeR, numbers of people in agreement do not determine whether something is right or wrong. However, you may as well at least get those numbers right. There are at least four commenters at Roys blog in agreement. Heres the fourth:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2018-0-26-deg-c/#comment-285329
And, from previous comments of gbaikie, I am fairly sure he at least understands our perspective, if not necessarily committing one way or another. A tentative fifth. Plus, Roys blog is not the known universe. People actively commenting on Roys blog is also not the total number of people reading Roys blog.