Last week I had the privilege of being invited to present a talk at a small conference of world experts in a variety of disciplines. The venue was spectacular, on the French Riviera, and we had an entire late-1800s hotel to ourselves, right on the Mediterranean. For me, it was a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I had the feeling that the organizers wanted the event to have a low profile, and so I won’t mention names.
I had about 12 minutes to lay out the case for climate skepticism. My talk was generally well-received and led to many follow-up discussions over the following days.
One of the attendees was an elderly particle physicist who was also a Nobel Prize winner. During Q&A, he mentioned how he had been teaching a climate class at his university for several years, and that he thought my skepticism was unwarranted. He was convinced that the Antarctic ice sheet was headed for collapse and we would have to deal with a 30 m rise in sea level as a result.
What was more than a little disturbing was that he openly declared that climate policy would not be able to move forward like it needs to until old skeptics like me die out. Part of my talk was about the fact that credentialed and published skeptical climate researchers are indeed slowly dying out, with an average age of around 70 now, and that governmental bias in climate funding will basically kill off skeptical research if things don’t change.
I approached him afterward and politely said I didn’t think either one of us was going to change our minds, and hoped we could just enjoy the nice dinner that was planned for us. He politely smiled and agreed to that.
I guess what was interesting to me is that the “belief” (his word) in catastrophic climate change, like religion, exists at all education levels. One also can’t help but notice how Nobel Prize winners tend to also be experts in all disciplines after they win their prize. Stephen Hawking comes to mind.
The whole experience was quite fascinating.
UPDATE: It has been pointed out to me that Hawking never received a Nobel Prize. The fact is that I can’t account for the lack of Hawking’s Nobel Prize at the moment, and it is a travesty that I can’t.
Most Nobel Prize winners have a highly advanced knowledge in a narrow field. Winning the Prize makes them feel like universal experts. Quite a few Nobelists signed a Hitler’s initiative “100 scientists against Einstein”.
https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090224224804AA2GQL1
It is not the credentials of the scientist that is of most importance, but the open-ness of the scientific method employed. If the scientific method is working properly, other scientists will challenge difficult-to-justify scientific claims. My concern is that many younger scientists do not fully appreciate that, and are too willing to be swept up in the excitement, notoriety, and politics of the moment.
True, some Nobel prize winners were “against Einstein”.
But the truly aberrant historical fact is that some Nobel prize winners and other significant figures actively supported Hitler and his explicitly-stated Nazi policies. Let us not forget that Hitler was the 1938 Time’s magazine man of the year.
http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19311221,00.html
It is often said, not without reason, that most people by far would have been Nazis if they had been in Germany at the time.
Well, there are all types of people among the anti-human climate alarmists. Among the prominent ones, I have noticed, are the type that would have moved to Germany in order to become Nazis so that they could volunteer to work in concentration camps.
Of course, this applies to many Malthusians.
Laura…”It is often said, not without reason, that most people by far would have been Nazis if they had been in Germany at the time”.
Beginning in the early 1930s, the Nazis were filling concentration camps with dissidents. If you spoke out against the party you went to a camp. If you were German, you were not likely to survive the experience.
The camps were run by the famed Waffen SS who were later regarded as an elite fighting force. It’s ironic that they were actually prison guards.
Had I been in Germany in those days, and I had a family and loved ones, I would have been careful about expressing my true feelings. There were Nazi groupies, to be sure, but it seems difficult to say how many Germans were onside with the Nazi program.
It would have been much safer for the average German to go along to get along. That does not mean they were all into it heart and soul.
We know there were army leaders who disliked Hitler and what he stood for and some of them paid a horrible price for a failed putsch. Rommel was forced to commit suicide over his connection to it.
Gordon Robertson says:
“The camps were run by the famed Waffen SS”
Not true.
“they were actually prison guards.”
The 3rd division was initially formed by concentration camp guards, some would rotate back, but the organisations were separate, both committing atrocities.
I was waiting for a fellow history enthusiast to correct above point, Bravo
Brad
Gordon Robertson…
“Beginning in the early 1930s, the Nazis were filling concentration camps with dissidents. If you spoke out against the party you went to a camp. If you were German, you were not likely to survive the experience.”
How did the Nazis get to amass the power you credit them with in that paragraph? The answer is well known. Germans supported them freely and massively.
I will grant you that, while I have zero interest in the Nazis, I do have other interests. You might enjoy listening to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2C90l7YlT8
Ah, the time-tested technique of smearing ‘the prominent ones’ of your opponents.
Goebbels would be quite proud of you.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Laura says:
“Well, there are all types of people among the anti-human climate alarmists. Among the prominent ones, I have noticed, are the type that would have moved to Germany in order to become Nazis”
I can see another pattern. Their ideas were divorced from reality, and it led to a disaster. They believed in a conspiracy against them, for economical gain and control of the world. Their ideology said others were inferior so they attacked the USSR and declared war on the US. The facts proved each act fatal on its own.
So if your ideology can’t handle the facts, what do you fix?
Godwin’s law strikes again.
Didn’t know that one!
I agree, George. The fact that a person won the Nobel Prize in a certain field of science does NOT make that person an expert in all other fields of science. Svante Arrhenius is a classical example of this. He won a Nobel Prize in chemistry for his excellent work in electrolytes, but his 1896 paper about the CO2 impact on climate and the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” (http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf) was a colossal failure! In this publication, Arrhenius shows remarkable inability to distinguish between a-priori assumptions and empirical evidence. He proposed a mathematical model to “predict” the effect of atmospheric CO2 on the global surface temperature (his Eqs. 3 & 4) that violates a basic principle of dimensional analysis, i.e. measurement units on the left-hand side of his equation do NOT math the units on the right-hand side! Specifically, his Eq. 4 claims T^4 = dimensionless number which, of course, is a total physical nonsense. Yet, his 1896 paper (which could not have passed peer review today!) is being quoted by followers of the AGW concept as a great achievement of the 19th-Century climate science. It’s really pathetic … Everyone, who cares about the truth regarding climate change, should read Arrhenius (1896: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf) in order to understand the unphysical roots and ABSURDITY of the climate “greenhouse theory”…
So, yes, Nobel Laureates can talk nonsense when expressing opinions about fields of science outside of their expertise.
In regard to the dying “breed” of skeptics that Dr. Spencer refers to, I don’t think the situation is that bad. There is now a new wave of skeptics, who bring forward research results that falsify the very foundation of the “greenhouse” climate concept. Here is one such paper:
Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model. Environ Pollut Climate Change 1: 112. doi:10.4172/2573-458X.1000112 (https://tinyurl.com/ydxlfwn7)
Here’s a discussion:
https://tinyurl.com/yag6g3vy
“First off, the authors used fake names to publish the paper in an open access site. In fact, it is the same two authors of the paper you linked, except that they spelled their names backwards (Nikolov -> Volokin; Zeller -> ReLlez). Ummm…what? Also, they later retracted the paper. Also also, the journal they published in is now defunct.”
Svante,
You are WAY behind the curve on this news. Do some more Google search to find out, why we were forced to use pseudonyms, and that our paper was not retracted but WITHDRAWN for reasons NOT related to its scientific merit. Also that paper was later published in an expanded form (see the reference on my previous reply above).
You may also update your understanding about the use of pseudonyms in science. It’s an old practice and it’s a valuable approach for various reasons, see this 2013 research paper on this topic: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661313000661
Good luck!
OK, so the premise is:
“A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years.”
And this recent study was yours?
Svante, please stop trolling.
Sorry I can’t, please ban me.
from discussion:
“And it does not mean that “temperature is only influenced by pressure”. On the contrary: just as much, pressure is influenced by temperature – if you somehow lowered the mean temperature of a given planet, surface pressure would drop as well”
No it doesn’t.
on Earth you have 10 tonnes of air above each square meter, increasing temperature or decreasing, does not affect it’s weight.
Increasing or decrease temperature could affect the mass of atmosphere by subtracting or adding gases. But if amount weigh of remains constant so does it’s pressure.
Nope.
Doesnt appear to be anything wrong with eqn 3 and 4 in Arrhenius paper, if you read it carefully.
Nate, do you understand dimensional analysis? It sounds like you don’t … Arrhenius Eqs 3 and 4 are contrived nonsense from a physics and math standpoint of view …
Yes, of course i do. He defined various constants en route to those equations. The constants appear to have the right units.
In any case, it is a 120 y old paper.
Its main ideas were correct and influential. They have been built on since then.
Nate,
This is where the problem is – Arrhenius Eq. 3 & 4 do not have matching (equal) units on both the equal sign. On the left-hand side is temperature T^4 (Kelvin^4), while on the right-hand side is a ratio of dimensionless number. If you read carefully the text, it becomes clear that all variables on the right-hand side have no units including the CO2 amount represented by K, which given in terms of relative optical depth. So, Arrhenius Equation 3 & 4 is totally fabricated with no physical meaning. And this is the FOUNDATION of the “Greenhouse” climate concept. It’s pretty tragic!
Yeah, looking at it again, I find that I can’t figure out what he’s done in eqn 3.
‘Equation 3 & 4 is totally fabricated with no physical meaning.
I think that’s a bit over the top interpretation.
Up to that point (eqn 3) it mostly makes sense. The terms that are there make sense to me. The physics is correct. In the end he makes calculations that again seem to make sense. Modern papers have repeated the calculations (no-one blindly accepts his results), made some improvements, but in the end find similar results.
Its written in an old fashioned style that is hard to follow. We probably need to read his earlier and later papers.
I think more likely
a. he has not explained very well what he’s doing at eqn 3
b. We are missing something
c. He means proportional to, or a its a typo
My argument would be as follows:
The jig is up this year for AGW, as I have been saying. AGW has hi jacked natural variations within a climatic regime to attribute the recent warming to mankind. That being ENSO,( look at the MEI index over the past 3 or 4 years), lack of explosive major volcanic activity and the sun itself which I say had a warming effect on the climate up until the end of year 2005. Thereafter a cooling effect but lag times have to be taken into consideration.
Year 2018 is a key year because this is the first year my two solar conditions are present in order for solar to have a significant cooling impact on the climate.
They are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (post 2005-present) and following that a period of very low average solar parameters (which commenced in year 2018).
All solar influence moderated by the geo magnetic field. Sometimes in concert ,sometimes in opposition.
Overall sea surface temperatures one of the keys and the trend is down. It has been down for a year. Albedo being the other ,which I say are both tied to very low prolonged solar conditions.
I have talked about this so much but to get to the chase I see year 2018 as a transitional year to a different climatic regime ,one similar to what was present during the Dalton.
What is prevalent is more often then not when the climate transitions to another regime it usually does it at the top of the previous climatic regime.
Post 1850-2017 the climate has been in the same climatic regime with variations +/- 1C due to ENSO and volcanic activity, which is in no way unique.
The test is on and I like what I see but this is the top of the 1st inning(cooling has scored) but we have many innings to go.
“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
I knew I had read that before…
David, please stop trolling.
Trolling on all other websites now that nobody visits your own blog? Probably for good reason David.
Made yourself look foolish in your “debate” with Wiese, so now you of course go back to trolling Spencer’s site to make you feel better?
There are going to be a lot of people with egg on their face if and when the temperatures go down. I wonder how they will blame that on CO2. (I’ve already had arguments with people absurdly claiming that we will somehow get both warming and cooling)
Of course being with egg on the face might be a good thing. Cooling will mean famine.
I’m appalled to find I want evidence of strong cooling. I like warmer weather and I am apprehensive of life during a Maunder or Dalton cooling scenario complete with famine, plague, and war. However, I also don’t like the globalist agenda including economy destroying carbon policies that seem based on the AGW hoax.
Whilst cooling is not to be welcomed, we are better equipped these days (with the aid of fossil fuels) to adapt and cope with a cooling scenario.
I do not envisage that times will be as harsh, even if temperatures were to fall to LIA levels.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Overall sea surface temperatures one of the keys and the trend is down. It has been down for a year.”
Looks like it was subducted then:
https://tinyurl.com/ybo3coub
Salvatore, back in Dec 2010 you said the following.
“The meridional cir. AO NEG 3 , as we speak, if it should continue, will evenually lead to more snow cover ,if so earth’s albedo could increase which could bring about further cooling. We will have to see how this, among solar,volcanic eruptions, oceanic temp etc etc all play’s out.”
Is it my understanding that these did not play out as anticipated until now. That you were expecting these in the earlier part of the decade? Or were there subsequent modifications in your theory?
I had hoped to live to a see a stake driven through the heart of the Global Warming monster, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’ll be 74 this year and to read that a Nobel prize winner in physics believes the Antarctic Ice sheet is headed for collapse is disheartening. Does the man not know that Antarctica is well below freezing nearly everywhere nearly all the time?
Ice mass balance on the continent is a function of snow fall decades or centuries ago and the calving of ice bergs today. Temperature has nothing to do with it. Or does he believe the fairy tale that warm sea water sinks to the bottom and then flows up hill to melt the ice sheet from the bottom?
So temperature has nothing to do with ice mass. Hmm.
I can’t see that idea getting much traction.
DA,
On that basis, it seems to have cooled mightily since the last time Antarctica was ice free.
Just something else you can’t see, and it’s a fact, not just one of your ideas.
Try harder.
Cheers.
I can’t see the idea that temperature doesn’t have much to do with the Antarctic Ice Balance gaining any traction either, but then it really doesn’t get above freezing anywhere in Antarctica hardly at all, so how does temperature have anything to do with the ice mass balance?
More to the point, telling us that the Antarctic ice sheets are melting is B.S.
More to the point, telling us that the Antarctic ice sheets are melting is B.S.
Why?
——–
Temperature doesn’t get much above freezing because that’s how phase transitions work.
Heat up a block of ice that’s at a temperature below freezing, and the temperature will rise. But when the temperature get to 0 C, it stops rising and the ice starts melting. Only when the ice is all melted will the temperature begin to rise again.
Example: average Arctic temperature north of 80 N:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Dave, your link is to Arctic, not Antarctic temperatures.
Temperature doesnt get much above freezing because thats how phase transitions work.
Most of Antarctica is well below freezing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica#/media/File:Antarctic_surface_temperature.png
Steve, my link was to demonstrate temperatures not rising much above zero in an icy region. Same will hold everywhere — it’s a general thermodynamic property of heat and matter.
David Appell, the temperatures in the Antarctica has gone down for the last 30 years, both airtemperature : http://cci-reanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_tseries/output/tseries_4919.png
and seatemperature: http://cci-reanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_tseries/output/tseries_6524.png
The number of freezing degrees has increased: http://cci-reanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_tseries/output/tseries_4229.png
while the number of melt-degrees has declined massivly: http://cci-reanalyzer.org/reanalysis/monthly_tseries/output/tseries_3688.png
How it is possible for ice to melt (“faster than ever”) under these conditions is very strange I think !
David Appell…at 8:58 PM … my link was to demonstrate temperatures not rising much above zero in an icy region. Same will hold everywhere …
You didn’t post a link to Antarctic temperature because it isn’t above zero anywhere.
The ice mass balance maybe negative but if it is, it’s not due to melting.
West Antarctica is where the melting is occurring and where warming has been extreme. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1671
While East Antarctic has been stable.
This pattern agrees with decades old predictions.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
To the extent that West Antarctica is melting, it’s due to subglacial volcanism, not warmer air or water.
But in any case, the WAIS is barely a pimple on the posterior of the gigantic East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of most of the world’s fresh water. It’s not just stable, but gaining mass. It stopped retreating over 3000 years ago.
“West Antarctica is melting, it’s due to subglacial volcanism, not warmer air or water.”
Blog science, not real science.
Have a legit reference?
The potential sea level rise is 30 feet from the WAIS, what you call a ‘pimple’.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Yeah, an outlier among such studies. Most recent analysis disagrees.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y
Your fallacy is: argumentum ad populum.
“Bart says:
June 19, 2018 at 10:46 AM
Your fallacy is: argumentum ad populum.”
Is there a reason to prefer Zwally 2015 over other such studies, particularly a multiple sensors and solutions composite study like Shepherd 2018?
Given that they don’t differ substantially on West Antarctica being in trouble is there any meaningful difference in the context of projected sea level rise?
As the WAIS is subject to powerful influences beyond a few meager 10ths of degrees of temperature, it isn’t relevant to the question of AGW.
Pfft. Obviously relevant to predicting future SLR.
And of course your fallacy is cherry pick.
These are mass balance studies not attribution studies. Differing on attribution doesn’t change the question as to why one might be preferred over the other.
“Differing on attribution doesnt change the question as to why one might be preferred over the other.”
No, but it renders it moot.
‘Moot’
If you apply the usual Bart false premise.
‘a few meager 10ths of degrees of temperature’
Nate, please stop trolling.
For the record there is some Antarctic melt water:
Antarctic Scientists Go Chasing Waterfalls
Interesting. Wow.
Beautiful. Note that it was first observed in 1912.
From the article:
‘Most importantly for climate studies, the systemand the waterfallseem to respond to slight changes in local temperature. After the coldest summers, the waterfall shuts down. And in the wake of warm summers, like the one from late 2014 into 2015, it flows at a thundering pace for almost a month. At the low end of our estimate, its the Potomac, Bell told me.’
Bart says:
June 21, 2018 at 12:48 PM
Beautiful. Note that it was first observed in 1912.
BINGO! I have to go back to the IPCC AR4 report’s table 10.7 that says that Antarctica’s contribution to sea level is negative and that AR5 says it’s positive? Essentially static is what I’m thinking.
Steve,
Average temp at South Pole around -49 C.
A fair way to go before Antarctica becomes ice free again, I guess.
David lives in WarmWorld, where the GHE exists, Schmidt is a scientist, and Mann won a Nobel Prize for tree-whispering.
Meanwhile, back in the real world . . .
Cheers.
There has been no warming at the South Pole since record keeping began there.
Yet, according to the greenhouse gas hypothesis, that is precisely where the effect of more CO2 should be felt the most, since the air there is so dry.
Felix,
“Yet, according to the greenhouse gas hypothesis, that is precisely where the effect of more CO2 should be felt the most, since the air there is so dry.”
Actually, that is not correct. The rise in atmospheric GHGs is not expected to cause any average warming at the South pole (or over the rest of the highest altitude regions in Eastern Antarctica), due to a combination of surface attitude and very low surface temperatures. There has actually been a net surface cooling at the highest altitudes in Antarctica due to rising CO2. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_in_Antarctica#/media/File:Antarctic_Temperature_Trend_1981-2007.jpg)
In any case, putting all arm waves to the contrary aside, Antarctica is not going to melt any time soon.
Steve,
‘More to the point, telling us that the Antarctic ice sheets are melting is B.S.’
So you are basically saying the data on mass balance is BS.
Because? Just cuz. Cuz it disagrees with my beliefs.
You mean the melting in the West Antarctic caused by the geological heat caused by the 90 odd known volcanoes scattered down the west side, that melting?
You mean the melting in the West Antarctic caused by the geological heat created by the 90 odd known volcanoes scattered down the west side, that melting?
It never ceases to amaze me that Alarmists continue to repeat the same old debunked lines and offer the same old debunked references from their own Alarmist sites.
You mean the melting in the West Antarctic caused by the geological heat created by the 90 odd known volcanoes scattered down the west side… that melting?
It never ceases to amaze me that Alarmists continue to repeat the same old debunked lines and offer the same old debunked references from their own Alarmist sites.
There are volcanoes beneath, that have been there for eons. Have they just now become active?
Evidence?
I don’t know if you consider this blog science.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica
Could this be Blog Science?
“Could the volcanoes blow away Antarcticas ice? The scientists were unable to determine volcanic activity in the range, according their recent study in the Geological Society of London. But even inactive or dormant volcanoes can melt ice because of the high temperatures the volcanoes generate underground.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/scientists-found-91-volcanoes-under-antarctica
Yes volcanoes have been found-but no evidence that they have recently become more active is reported.
From the story “But even inactive or dormant volcanoes can melt ice because of the high temperatures the volcanoes generate underground.”
So 91 undiscovered active or dormant volcanoes. Both of which can melt ice from below. Newly discovered. Not known before. They are melting ice. Melting ice that was not known to be melting prior to the volcano discovery. Is this blog science?
Nate says: … at 5:24 AM
So you are basically saying the data on mass balance is BS.
Because? Just cuz. Cuz it disagrees with my beliefs.
Considering that the IPCC’s table 10.7
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html
in their AR4 report said Antarctica was a negative contributor to sea level rise in all scenarios and since then Government funded scientists are telling us the opposite. I surmise that the ice mass balance is close to static over time. But I really don’t know. After all, Government funded scientists are going to find what the government wants them to find.
But if Antarctica is in fact losing ice, it’s not due to temperature and it would follow not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. If you think it is, that is, you think Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers are melting you need to provide the links to data that show temperatures warm enough to melt the ice. Or how warm sea water sinks to the bottom then flows uphill to melt the ice from beneath.
‘ I surmise that the ice mass balance is close to static over time. But I really don’t know.’
Indeed you don’t
” After all, Government funded scientists are going to find what the government wants them to find.”
Funny, see Bart comment above, on NASA results finding ice gain, vs other papers showing ice loss, most recently this one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y
‘Newly discovered. Not known before.’
But clearly they have been there a long long time. As has the ice.
The accelerated melting is a recent phenomenon. Unless you show evidence that the volcanoes have RECENTLY become active, then they are not the cause of the accelerated melting, as you claimed.
Steve,
One mechanism of accelerated ice loss is explained here:
https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/magazine/170622-ngm-antarctica-melting-sea-levels-climate-change
Warmer ocean contacting grounding line of ice shelves.
Evidence of destabilized ice shelves is clear, been reported in many papers.
‘you think Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers are melting you need to provide the links to data that show temperatures warm enough to melt the ice. Or how warm sea water sinks to the bottom then flows uphill to melt the ice from beneath.’
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6214/1227 ‘Multidecadal warming of Antarctic waters’
Nate says: at 6:07 AM
One mechanism of accelerated ice loss is explained here:
Thanks for the link to the video most enlightening:
Time mark 1:12 to 1:22 National Geographic shows us an animation of warm sea water flowing uphill and downhil along the ocean bottom to melt the glacier at the grounding line. What they don’t show is the sea ice that surrounds Antarctica nearly all of the time.
Whether National Geographic shows it or not, the sea ice is there and the the warm water has to flow under it. Sea water freezes at -2°C (28.4°F). There isn’t going to be any plume of water, warm enough to melt freshwater ice, flowing for miles under the sea ice.
There’s a saying, “Beware of carefully worded non-sense.” You have to wonder when National Geographic made this video did someone pipe up and say doesn’t that warm water have to flow under the sea ice? Maybe they like their pay check and just kept their mouths shut.
Steve,
The fact is that the evidence is clear that the accelerated erosion and melting at the base of ice shelves is observed.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5575/2020.full
‘ There isn’t going to be any plume of water, warm enough to melt freshwater ice, flowing for miles under the sea ice.’
I wish skeptics, such as yourself, would be more skeptical of their own ideas.
IOW, dig deeply into the facts, read the papers, try to understand them, before announcing that you have found a glaring error made by the experts.
Nate says: … 9:51 AM
…dig deeply into the facts, read the papers,
try to understand them, before announcing that
you have found a glaring error made by the experts.
There’s just too much stuff that doesn’t add up. The polar bears aren’t dying like they’re supposed to, hurricanes are about the same, the multi-meter sea level rise claims are clearly ridiculous, precipitation in the United States is up, extreme tornadoes are down, methane really isn’t 86 times more powerful than CO2. I suppose I could go on.
The data manipulation is pretty much off the charts. Every month NASA’s GISSTEMP puts out their Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) and the latest for May is out. Here’s the link
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
There are 1660 monthly entries and 879 (53%) of them have been changed since April. Averaged up annually all the changes since 1979 have been positive. This goes on every month.
I don’t much care what all the experts claim. The duck test says that it looks like there’s something fishy going on.
Steve Case, you are indulging in Blog Science. According to Nate, it’s irrelevant. He has already made up his mind any rebuttal or analysis by you is worthless. You are wasting your time.
‘ He has already made up his mind any rebuttal or analysis by you is worthless. ‘
I look at the evidence, and don’t reject/accept based on ideological reasons.
‘There are 1660 monthly entries and 879 (53%) of them have been changed since April. Averaged up annually all the changes since 1979 have been positive. This goes on every month.’
I believe they adopted an updated SST data set. It affects all, but slightly.
Don’t trust them, look at any of the half dozen surface data sets.
‘rebuttal or analysis by you is worthless.’
Apparently there is lot going on with the circulation of deep water around the antarctic, its salinity vs sea ice, density effects etc, that make it warmer than near the surface.
Without getting informed about these complexities, it is unlikely a blogger can make an intelligent conclusion about it.
I am no expert on it. Its good to realize that other people are.
The Other Brad says: at 1:22 PM
… you are indulging in Blog Science. … You are wasting your time.
There are lurkers. Every now and then I get a private message from some one. Hard to say how many people read blogs and don’t post. I don’t post on every blog or article I read.
‘I dont much care what all the experts claim.’
Experts, what do they know? Who needs em?
Steve, did you become an expert on anything in your career?
You’d be fine with people dismissing your expertise?
Nate, please enlighten us. Maybe I missed it. You ask Steve about his expertise. For what are you an expert?
Nate … at 5:35 AM
‘I dont much care what all the experts claim.’
Experts, what do they know? Who needs em?
…did you become an expert on anything in your career?
You’d be fine with people dismissing your expertise?
Nate … at 5:35 AM
‘I don’t much care what all the experts claim.’
Experts, what do they know? Who needs em?
…did you become an expert on anything in your career?
You’d be fine with people dismissing your expertise?
I’d accept the expertise of Climate Science
If climate science wasn’t pushed as an absolute in schools.
If the predictions from climate science seemed to be true.
If climate scientists didn’t rig the peer preview process.
If climate scientists didn’t sabotage scientific careers.
If IPCC reports weren’t re-written after final approval.
If climate scientists didn’t try to sue the opposition.
If climate scientists didn’t appear to fudge the data.
If climate scientists didn’t resort to name-calling.
If climate scientists complied with FOI requests.
If climate scientists agreed to debate the issue.
If climate scientists didn’t exaggerate findings.
If climate scientists didn’t rig grant programs.
Stev,
I would respectfully suggest that many of these items are false, simply accusations, or overgeneraliztion.
Others are true (lawsuits, refusal of FOI requests) but arguably can be justified, if you know the background.
If you have real evidence to back up these claims (fudging, rigging) I’d take look.
Some are just plain conspiracy theories, that are IMO, highly improbable.
As I said to someone else here, there is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization that applies to many of these claims about climate scientists:
Wiki:
“A faulty generalization is a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has been reached on the basis of just one or just a few instances of that phenomenon.[1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions. For example, we may generalize about all people, or all members of a group, based on what we know about just one or just a few people.”
My suggestion, have a beer with a climate scientist. You will find that, in general, they are regular people who do their job with integrity.
Let me just add an example.
Based on some videos I’ve seen, I might conclude that most cops are racist and want to harm black/brown people.
Would you agree that’s a proper conclusion?
Brad
‘You ask Steve about his expertise. For what are you an expert?’
My expertise is materials science.
Nate says … at 2:05 PM
…
If you have real evidence to back up these claims (fudging, rigging) Id take look.
Re-writing historical data is done in broad daylight. The best example I know of is GISSTEMP’s Land Ocean Temperature Index see my post June 19, 2018 at 11:08 AM Your comment on the post keyed in on my statement “I dont much care what all the experts claim.” and ignored the GISSTEMP changes I pointed out. Out of 1660 monthly entries, 879 (53%) between April and May of this year were changed. That should raise eyebrows. But when you analyze those changes a pattern develops that should set off alarm bells, but it doesn’t and it goes on every month. Here’s a comparison of what that looked like in 2015 compared to the 2005 data LINK. Maybe you would like to comment why entries after 1980 are consistently bumped up and most of the earlier entries are reduced.
Nate says:
June 20, 2018 at 2:11 PM
Let me just add an example.
Based on some videos Ive seen, I might conclude that most cops are racist and want to harm black/brown people.
Would you agree thats a proper conclusion?
I’ve had good experiences (most) with cops and bad experiences (a few). Considering that I would fit into the regular people to have a beer with category I really shouldn’t have had any bad experiences. Way too many of them are arrogant assholes. Answer the question, “What sort of person wants to become a cop?” and you might figure out why that is. The police academies need to do a better job of weeding out people who shouldn’t be cops. That’s easier said than done of course.
Steve,
I appreciate your comment on your police interaction. It wasn’t completely clear, but I think you agree that it is not reasonable to pass judgement on all or most police, based on a few instances caught on tape.
Nor do I think its reasonable to pass judgement on all or most climate scientists for similar few instances of (possible) bad behavior. Do you?
The GISS data changes. You seem to assume there are nefarious reasons for these, but, this is an unproven suspicion. As you said its done all in the open. Thats means anyone can go through what they’ve and try to figure out if done for legit reasons. Has anyone looked at their reasons?
Here is their explanation of the most recent significant change
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst5vs4/
Notice that the most recent decades are suppressed by this change, counter to your narrative.
A big change before that produced a significant lump in the 1940s temperature that looks out of place. Its still there. This runs against the narrative that changes are all done to better fit models.
Maybe a future correction will determine this lump is wrong, maybe not. There were issues with ocean temp during WW2.
But again, there are a half dozen, at least, other independent surface temp records, from Berkeley, UK, Japan, elsewhere. There are even a group of skeptics who produce their own analysis. All generally find similar trends. They are all imperfect estimates, but the best we have.
Do you reject them all?
“steve case says:
June 19, 2018 at 11:08 AM
. . . The data manipulation is pretty much off the charts. . . .”
The best explanation for temperature record adjustments I’ve seen is this article:
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
Note that the article linked above references two follow on articles going into regional consequences and time of observation bias adjustments that can be found at the links below:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/
From Nate:
“The accelerated melting is a recent phenomenon. Unless you show evidence that the volcanoes have RECENTLY become active, then they are not the cause of the accelerated melting, as you claimed.”
I don’t claim it. Scientists claim it. From 2014…
https://phys.org/news/2014-06-major-west-antarctic-glacier-geothermal.html
From the article:
“The findings significantly change the understanding of conditions beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet where accurate information has previously been unobtainable.”
As you can read Nate, not previously known. The information was “unobtainable.”
This is blog science.
Brad,
Thats good stuff. They are figuring out in detail what is contributing to melting, and some of it is geothermal energy.
They don’t appear to be claiming this has recently changed, nor are they claiming this explains recent accelerated melting. It is one piece of the puzzle.
BTW, I don’t call that blog science–it came from an actual research publication.
I call that science.
‘where accurate information has previously been unobtainable.
As you can read Nate, not previously known. ‘
I don’t understand the point this is making?
Do you think: Not previously known to us = not previously happening?
My last time to feed the troll.
Nate states: “They don’t appear to be claiming this has recently changed, nor are they claiming this explains recent accelerated melting. It is one piece of the puzzle.”
From the article:
“Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.
The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet’s stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.”
“The combination of variable subglacial geothermal heat flow and the interacting subglacial water system could threaten the stability of Thwaites Glacier in ways that we never before imagined,” Schroeder said.
All the models indicated a presupposed conclusion that it was Man Made Global Warming causing the melt. The ‘scientists’ were not aware of the geothermal activity of 91 newly discovered volcanoes melting the ice from below at the rate they presumed. It was “unknown”. They did not know the extent of the melt via geothermal melt. You’ve claimed they knew all along. The did not know and still don’t because, as laid out in the article, they need more research to determine the affects of the geothermal activity.
Thank you for contributing to Blog Science Nate.
Brad,
I understand you think I’m annoying, I probably am, but Im just telling you my straight-up opinion. Take it or leave it.
I read that passage, too. But you seem to have missed my point completely.
Again I ask:
‘Do you think: Not previously known to us = not previously happening?’
Upon arriving at the south pole, did the explorers exclaim, “Wow, we discovered the South Pole, it now exits”?
If geothermal flux has been there for eons, which seems most likely since the ice has been there for eons, and we have just now found it, then it can be a contributor to melting. But something else, is likely causing the INCREASE in melting.
The paper says “geothermal heat CONTRIBUTED significantly to melting” Natural contribution does not mean NO anthro contribution, and the paper is not saying that, is it?
BTW, adding to the confusion perhaps.
The heat flux they found is TINY.
“Thwaites Glacier catchment has a minimum average geothermal flux of ∼114 10 mW/m2 with areas of high flux exceeding 200 mW/m2”
Nothing like Kilauea.
200 mW/m^2 could melt 2 cm thick layer of ice in a year.
Nate says:
June 21, 2018 at 6:18 AM
The GISS data changes. … As you said its done all in the open.
To the extent that entries for each month are published on the internet until they are removed and replaced by the next month’s numbers.
Thats means anyone can go through what theyve [done] and try to figure out if done for legit reasons.
No, you have to copy and save each month to figure what was changed. Figuring out why the changes are made isn’t really possible. For example the entry for January 1880 was listed as -29 in this past April and when the May numbers were published it was changed to -28. Can you figure out why the January 1880 entry was changed?
Has anyone looked at their reasons?
Some time ago I emailed Gavin Schmidt to ask why 100 year old data is routinely changed. I got this response:
Your main concern seems to be why data from 1880 get affected by the addition of 2018 January data and a few late reports from the end of 2017. To illustrate that, assume that a station moves or gets a new instrument that is placed in a different location than the old one, so that the measured temperatures are now e.g. about half a degree higher than before. To make the temperature series for that station consistent, you will either have to lower all new readings by that amount or to increase the old readings once and for all by half a degree. The second option is preferred, because you can use future readings as they are, rather than having to remember to change them. However, it has the consequence that such a change impacts all the old data back to the beginning of the station record.
They said the changes impact data back to the beginning of a station record. I know that January 1880 has been changed about as often as every other entry in their Land Ocean Temperature Index, and I doubt that all the stations have records back to 1880. So I’m having difficulty wrapping my mind around exactly what they’re doing let alone why they’re doing it.
Here is their explanation of the most recent significant change
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/ersst5vs4/
Notice that the most recent decades are suppressed by this change, counter to your narrative.
Overall the ERSST v5 vs. v4 update didn’t change much. This graph:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/wck4lc.jpg
using the May 2018 issue of the GISS LOTI didn’t change much:
https://s15.postimg.cc/u25l1fswb/LOTI_2018_vs_2002.gif
Can you explain why ALL of the changes since 1980 average out to an increase?
I can’t explain it, I only know what it looks like.
“Can you explain why ALL of the changes since 1980 average out to an increase?”
Per the linked article there is a dominating bias associated with the transition from liquid in glass thermometers to electronic instruments starting around 1980.
http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
Steve,
That is cool that you reached out to find out about the changes and got a response. Keep them on their toes.
IMO, the response sounds plausible. I have often wondered how they deal with such things-changes in stations and instruments.
They could just leave everything alone and use the raw data, but that would emphasize the heavily sampled places, big cities, in the past. Then as we added in new stations in the mountains, things would look like they were getting colder, or hotter for deserts. Just some of the issues to deal with. You have to do something.
Here’s the thing that IMO helps. I know how scientists think. Scientists worst nightmare is to be proven wrong. GISS has competitors, plus skeptics like you, who are holding them accountable.
If over time, their record keeps deviating from the others, they’re going to look bad. Slight differences are fine, but if these build up to big differences. They will have to explain why and they better have good reasons.
Steve,
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Here you can quickly compare trends between data sets. Try from e.g. 1975. Those on the left are considered more ‘global’ because they include more of the arctic.
nate says:
June 22, 2018 at 7:50 AM
nate says:
June 22, 2018 at 8:02 AM
Thanks for the replies. Why GISSTEMP makes hundreds of changes each month to their Land Ocean Temperature Index is a mystery. Not all stations go back to 1880, I expect that most don’t so why is January 1880 changed just as often and as January 1998?
Mark B said that the bump up in 1980 is due to the fact that liquid and electronic thermometers read differently.
After a brief search I find that not to be true. Mercury is being phased out because it’s toxic. Liquid filled thermometers don’t require a battery and all the wires & chips and meters that go with them. Going back to 1880 and changing the data because you say your electronic digital read out would have given a different answer back then is a real stretch and insulting to those long gone record keepers.
Steve,
Hi mate.
Thanks for linking to the IPCC report from 11 years ago on Antarctic ice sheet contributions to sea level.
It allows us to get some perspective on the state of understanding at that time. Quoting from your link:
“It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.”
I think we both know that any changes between AR4 and AR5 that downplayed future warming effects would be greeted by you with something lie, “See? This is the truth, and they were wrong before!”
And any changes in understanding that emphasised warming effects are greeted just as you have done.
You respond to how things look to you. Not from a rigorous examination of the underlying science. That’s why your responses are predictable.
A truly interested and skeptical person would be interested in how understanding evolved, not automatically responding in predictable ways to the results.
barry says:
June 22, 2018 at 8:33 PM
Steve,
Hi mate.
Thanks for linking to the IPCC report from 11 years ago on Antarctic ice sheet contributions to sea level.
It allows us to get some perspective on the state of understanding at that time.
And at the time I told you what they would say in the AR5 when it comes out. Too bad I can’t link to that dead website.
Quoting from your link:
“It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.”
I think we both know that any changes between AR4 and AR5 that downplayed future warming effects would be greeted by you with something li[k]e, “See? This is the truth, and they were wrong before!”
What I said up thread was, “I have to go back to the IPCC AR4 report’s table 10.7 that says that Antarctica’s contribution to sea level is negative and that AR5 says it’s positive? Essentially static is what I’m thinking.” Turns out I’m wrong here’s what the AR5 says:
13.4.4 Antarctic Ice Sheet
13.4.4.1 Surface Mass Balance Change
Because the ice loss from Antarctica due to surface melt and runoff is about 1% of the total mass gain from snowfall, most ice loss occurs through solid ice discharge into the ocean. In the 21st century, ablation is projected to remain small on the Antarctic ice sheet because low surface temperatures inhibit surface melting, except near the coast and on the Antarctic Peninsula, and meltwater and rain continue to freeze in the snowpack (Ligtenberg et al., 2013). Projections of Antarctic SMB changes over the 21st century thus indicate a negative contribution to sea level because of the projected widespread increase in snowfall associated with warming air temperatures …
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf
Quoting from your link:
“It must be emphasized that we cannot assess the likelihood of any of these three alternatives, which are presented as illustrative. The state of understanding prevents a best estimate from being made.”
I think we both know that any changes between AR4 and AR5 that downplayed future warming effects would be greeted by you with something lie, “See? This is the truth, and they were wrong before!”
And any changes in understanding that emphasised warming effects are greeted just as you have done.
You respond to how things look to you. Not from a rigorous examination of the underlying science. That’s why your responses are predictable.
A truly interested and skeptical person would be interested in how understanding evolved, not automatically responding in predictable ways to the results.
As I’ve pointed out to you over the years, you ooze a wonderful tone of high handedness but you’re in there biting and eye gouging with everyone else. Well anyway if you hadn’t shown up I wouldn’t have fired up the search engine through the AR5 to find that snippet about the surface mass balance change. (-:
(In a few hours I’m off to the north woods of Minnesota for a week to slap mosquitoes and listen to the wolves howl.) IOW Internet access will be spotty or zero.
Shorter: You were wrong. I am as bad as everyone else.
Glad to prompt a bit of revision. Most skeptics wouldn’t have been as honest.
Barry says at 4:06
Instead of side tracking into assessing each others predicted behavior, why not address some of the points:
At least one source, the IPCC says Antarctica is projected to contribute negatively to sea level for the remainder of this century.
This thread is about Antarctic ice sheet collapse.
The discussion about warm ocean water melting the ice sheet from below.
The discussion about surface melting in Antarctica given that there is some liquid water on the surface and temperatures are reported as well below freezing nearly everywhere nearly all the time.
I Pads in the woods well anywhere are clunky facsimiles of real PCs so if I can continue to access the net I wont be very wordy and no links.
Beating a dead horse. Newly discovered active volcanic activity.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-06/uori-rdv062618.php
Yep, and from the article the researchers noted:
“However, Loose cautions, this does not imply that volcanism is the major source of mass loss from Pine Island. On the contrary, “there are several decades of research documenting the heat from ocean currents is destabilizing Pine Island Glacier, which in turn appears to be related to a change in the climatological winds around Antarctica,” Loose said. Instead, this evidence of volcanism is a new factor to consider when monitoring the stability of the ice sheet.”
Professor Karen Heywood, from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, the United Kingdom, and chief scientist for the expedition, said: “The discovery of volcanoes beneath the Antarctic ice sheet means that there is an additional source of heat to melt the ice, lubricate its passage toward the sea, and add to the melting from warm ocean waters. It will be important to include this in our efforts to estimate whether the Antarctic ice sheet might become unstable and further increase sea level rise.”
Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the Pine Island Glacier?
No, said Loose. “Climate change is causing the bulk of glacial melt that we observe, and this newly discovered source of heat is having an as-yet undetermined effect, because we do not know how this heat is distributed beneath the ice sheet.”
re: “steve case says:
June 22, 2018 at 2:01 PM
Mark B said that the bump up in 1980 is due to the fact that liquid and electronic thermometers read differently.
After a brief search I find that not to be true.”
I missed this earlier, but if you’re still following the thread, I’m curious what you found in your brief search that contradicts the linked article.
I think their point is that the temp of -75 rises to -73 it won’t make much diff to the ice, but precipitation will.
Scott,
a. What is temp of ocean water?
b. W. Antarctica air temps in summer reach freezing temp.
Nate,
Ummm.. no, average temperatures in West Antarctica, even in summer, are well below freezing. Most of the peninsula averages below zero in the summer. Whatever net loss of ice there may be, it isn’t from streams of water pouring into the sea due to surface melt in West Antarctica. You would be well served sticking closer to the facts.
‘Reach’ does not mean ‘average’. It is more related to maximums.
Heres Wiki
“The highest temperature ever recorded in Antarctica was 17.5 C (63.5 F) at Esperanza Base, on the Antarctic Peninsula, on 24 March 2015.[10] The mean annual temperature of the interior is −57 C (−70.6 F). The coast is warmer. Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from −26 C (−14.8 F) in August to −3 C (26.6 F) in January.[11] At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was −12.3 C (9.9 F) on 25 December 2011.[12] Along the Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures as high as 15 C (59 F) have been recorded,[clarification needed] though the summer temperature is below 0 C (32 F) most of the time. ”
At McMurdo, the mean is -3 C, clearly the maxima will be > 0C.
I was thinking of near the coast, such as McMurdo, but you are right, the interior matters.
Esparanza Base on Upper end of Antarctic Pennisula:
Wiki
“Mean monthly temperatures range from −10.5 C (13.1 F) in June, the coldest month to 1.4 C (34.5 F) in January, the warmest month.[8] “
steve,,
https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/magazine/170622-ngm-antarctica-melting-sea-levels-climate-change
‘Whatever net loss of ice there may be, it isnt from streams of water pouring into the sea due to surface melt in West Antarctica.’
Video shows exactly that, surface melting, plus melting below the ocean surface.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Nate says:
June 19, 2018 at 10:24 AM
steve,,
https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/magazine/170622-ngm-antarctica-melting-sea-levels-climate-change
Whatever net loss of ice there may be, it isnt from streams of water pouring into the sea due to surface melt in West Antarctica.
Video shows exactly that, surface melting, plus melting below the ocean surface.
I saw that and because is was National Geographic I doubted that it was true. But I didn’t say that here. Yes there’s some melt water.
“National Geographic” and “Scientific American” are no longer reliable in my opinion.
There will still be believers in 50 years, the people making money off it won’t stop and of course those for who it’s a religion will keep the faith.
I wouldn’t be so skeptical about being skeptic , the Sun is going into a major minimum and earth cooling will follow shortly possibly significantly, Now is the time to put yourself on the record and secure your scientific credibility and future carrier.
Global warming has only few years in it left.
Eben
The last minimum during the LIA cooled the Earth by 0.3C.
That is 23 years at the current UAH warming rate.
Enough to give us a bit more time, but not enough to reverse the warming.
And what happens after the minimum ends?
What happens when the minimum ends?
Global temperatures rise.
Salvatore Del Prete
Exactly.
Like a volcano such as Pinatubo a solar minimum would temporarily lower the global temperature.
A Dalton minimum would drop the global temperature 0.3C below the trend while it lasted, and tempearures would return to the trend line when the minimum passed.
No the trend line is not real that is artificial.
I have said if prolong solar minimum conditions continue the climate will shift back into a Dalton like climate regime. That was more then .3c colder then what is present by the way.
The climate post Dalton-2017, has been in the same climatic regime ,+/- 1C in response to ENSO,VOLCANIC ACTIIVTY ,and very strong solar activity until the end of year2005.
That resulted in the climate shifting out of the Dalton regime to what we have now (2017) with up’s and downs of 1C against the backdrop of an overall temperature rise.
That trend I say has ended, with year 2018 being the transitional year because the solar conditions necessary to stop it are now in place. This is the first time since the Dalton Minimum that they are in place.
Solar being moderated by the geo magnetic field which this time is acting in concert with solar not in opposition.
They are 10+years of sub solar activity(post 2005) with a period of very low average value solar parameters (year 2018).
The result of this being overall lower sea surface temperatures which is happening now and has been for the past year , and a slightly higher albedo which I think is also happening. If true lower global temperatures.
I say if solar stays in the tank the global warming trend ends(it has thus far for year 2018), followed by a down trend 2019 and beyond.
With overall oceanic temperatures off by some .25c over the last year that in itself will put a halt to any further global warming even if the lowering oceanic trend were to stop at this level much less continue further down which I think is very likely.
The test has finally arrived we are in the 1st inning and global cooling in the top of the first is ahead.
Salvatore Del Prete wrote:
May 4, 2017 at 5:42 AM
“I was wrong on the solar activity it was way higher then I thought it was going to be back then. 2011 mid 2016”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245576
Which trend line?
The trend from the 1940s until 1977 was dramatically down, until the PDO flipped. Then Earth warmed slightly for about 20 years, comparable to the warming of the early 20th century. Since then, it has been flat, except for the 2016 super El Nino. For the past two years, Earth has cooled, reverting to the flatline of the temperature plateau since the 1998 super El Nino.
The beneficial warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age is nothing about which to worry.
Felix says:
Then Earth warmed slightly for about 20 years, comparable to the warming of the early 20th century. Since then, it has been flat, except for the 2016 super El Nino.
So except for the warming, there hasn’t been any warming. Confirmation bias.
Want to explain why the annual GMST for the 2015-16 El Nino season was 0.4 C higher than 1997-98, and why it was 0.4 C warmer than 1982-83?
Why do El Nino years keep getting warmer. And La Nina years? And neutral years?
This scenario — another solar Maunder Minimum — has been well studied. There is very little cooling, and it’s easily swamped by GHG warming. Cooling by 2100 would only be, at most, 0.3 C below IPCC projections. We will not be entering another Little Ice Age.
“On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth,” G. Fuelner and S. Rahmstorf, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L05707 2010.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
“Increased greenhouse gases enhance regional climate response to a
Maunder Minimum,” Song et al, Geo Res Lett vol. 37, L01703 (2010)
http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/~zhang/PDFs/Song_et_al-2010.pdf
“What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?” Gareth S. Jones, et al, JGR v 117, D05103 (2012) doi:10.1029/2011JD017013, 2012.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf
DA,
Still afflicted with the delusional belief that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter?
GHG warming? Neither you nor anybody else can actually demonstrate such a thing, let alone propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis!
Keep trying to whip up fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Hopefully, you’ll become so exhausted that you will have to get a real job. Less effort, and more reward. You don’t need to thank me.
Ah well, nobody has ever accused fanatical cultists of being too reasonable.
Cheers.
Mike,
‘GHG warming? Neither you nor anybody else can actually demonstrate such a thing, let alone propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis!’
Ok, Mike, one more try. Here is GHE hypothesis explained
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
First page under heading GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Have at it.
Second page: Test of the hypothesis is described.
“The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets, which provide an ensemble of experimentsover a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars,Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse rates of 5, 5.50, and 7C km^-1, respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence
and order of magnitude of the predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3).
So Mike, unless you can clearly demonstrate what they’ve done wrong, your oft repeated meme is proven FALSE.
WRONG DAVID 100% WRONG!
Salvatore, what problems have you found in the methodology of those papers?
Three scientific papers refuted by hand-waving.
S,
Facts don’t go away if you flap your hands at them.
Would you believe a scientific paper because you have blind unswerving faith in “scientists”?
Good for you! Cult leaders depend upon unthinking belief – just look at people who believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
How sad is that?
Cheers.
MF said: “Facts don’t go away if you flap your hands at them.”
Written by a guy who apparently can’t provide an alternate scientific explanation for the facts presented in my Green Plate Demonstration.
Do you ever get tired of “flapping your hands” to no effect?
swannie…”Written by a guy who apparently cant provide an alternate scientific explanation for the facts presented in my Green Plate Demonstration”.
He doesn’t have to, already been done. Your experiment demonstrated interference with heat dissipation, not back-radiation.
E,
You demonstrate that a hotter object can raise the temperature of a colder at a distance.
What alternative explanation is there?
Flap on, laddie. Maybe you can flap a disprovable GHE hypothesis into existence, but I doubt it.
Are you disagreeing with anything I wrote? It would seem not.
Cheers.
Mike, you are the reality distorter in chief. And teller of lies and half-truths specialist.
The experiment also showed a cool object causing a warmer object to get warmer.
You forget that part??
If facts are on truly your side, why do you need to hide them, cherry pick them, lie about them?
Gordo wrote:
Gordo repeats another example of his deviant physics by assertion. He has offered no physical basis for claiming that “heat dissipation” causes the Blue plate temperature to increase. For starters, I suggest that he define his term “heat dissipation” and then show exactly how my demonstration “interferes” with this process.
Mike “Flapper” Flynn comments without mentioning the main point from the demonstration. Of course, it’s true that the Green plate is warmed as it is placed close to the Blue plate. But, why does the temperature of the Blue plate also increase? Still no science from either Mike Flapper or Gordo.
E.Swanson, you’re problem is you have found a way to prove to yourself what you already believed. That’s NOT the way science is done.
swannie…”its true that the Green plate is warmed as it is placed close to the Blue plate. But, why does the temperature of the Blue plate also increase?”
I have told you that several times. Without your green plate in place the blue is free to radiate based on a different temperature gradient. When you put the green plate right in front of it, the radiation from the blue plate is altered and it cannot dissipate heat so quickly, so it warms.
You are confusing a warming due to radiation from a colder plate, which contravenes the 2nd law, with the blue plate operating in a cooler mode without the green plate raised.
The blue plate would have an optimal temperature for the conditions. If you cut off it’s ability to radiate in the vacuum but still exposed it to EM from a hotter source it would reach that optimal temperature. If you remove the radiation insulation from the green plate side, without the green plate in place, it would cool based on the temperature differential between it and the glass on your container.
If you now raise the green plate so it’s right in front of the blue plate it’s like insulating the blue plate so it cannot radiate as well. The temperature gradient will be reduced due to the blue plate warming the green plate which is nearby therefore the blue plate warms closer to it optimal temperature.
It’s all explained in S-B: q = ebA(To^4 – T^4)
If you mess with the To – T gradient you change the amount of radiation it can emit and the temperature of the blue plate changes accordingly.
Nothing to do with a back-radiation warming that contradicts the 2nd law.
swannie…”He has offered no physical basis for claiming that heat dissipation causes the Blue plate temperature to increase”.
I have offered as evidence the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that governs such an interaction. I have offered as evidence the 2nd law which claims heat can never be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
You are hung up on the belief that the blue plate MUST warm due to an illegal back-radiation from a cooler body to a warmer body. You refuse to consider any other way the blue plate could warm even though the scientific logic presented to you is sound.
You don’t get the meaning of heat dissipation. A body warmed from an external or internal source reaches a maximal temperature that is limited by the energy delivered to it. If the body is NOT allowed to dissipate heat through conduction, convection, or radiation, it will remain at that maximal temperature.
Your blue plate has been allowed to dissipate heat via radiation, especially when the green plate is not interfering with it’s radiation field. Since it is allowed to dissipate heat it stabilizes at a temperature below the maximum temperature.
In other words, the blue plate is cooling itself based on the temperature difference between it and its surroundings, the glass cover. When you raise the green plate so it’s right in front of blue plate, the BP radiation warms the GP but not to the temperature of the BP. Therefore, the temperature gradient has been decreases and the radiation from the BP decreases.
It has to warm closer to it’s maximum temperature. That warming does not come from back-radiation from the GP, it is the BP warming itself because its rate of heat dissipation has been decreased.
Remember, the BP receives energy from an external source and its temperature at any time is represented by the difference of heat gain – heat loss. Your GP is interfering with heat loss by blocking the BP’s EM emission, therefore the BP must warm to maintain the heat gain – heat loss balance.
nate…”The experiment also showed a cool object causing a warmer object to get warmer”.
It causes the warming by forcing the object to warm itself not by injecting heat into the body. The hotter body was warmed to its temperature as a balance between heat gained from and external source minus heat lost due to radiation (it’s in a vacuum).
With the colder body in proximity, radiation from the hotter body warms the cooler body but only to a fraction of the hotter body temperature, as indicated on swannie’s diagrams. Any EM emitted by the coder body will not raise the temperature of the hotter body (2nd law).
The hotter body warms because the colder body is blocking its radiation field, causing the hotter body to warm due to a reduced heat dissipation.
That is not the case in the atmosphere. The surface sees the entire atmospheric temperature at the surface as the end point of its temperature gradient not the temperature of CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere. Atmospheric temperature is set by the 99% of it represented by N2/O2.
GHGs cannot affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.
‘The hotter body warms because the colder body is blocking its radiation field, causing the hotter body to warm due to a reduced heat dissipation.’
Ok, same principle applies to GHE.
JD,
‘E.Swanson, youre problem is you have found a way to prove to yourself what you already believed. Thats NOT the way science is done.’
So if he got a different result – you would not object to the experiment. THAT is not how science works either.
His experiment was simply confirming well known, much-tested physics. If he got a different result-that would be quite strange.
BTW the history of science is full of research done to prove what was believed. Darwin spent 20 y doing it.
Gordo wrote:
,
You post the S-B equation, then fail to understand that the second term is the “back radiation” from the second body, such as a plate parallel to the first or the surrounding area, such as the bell jar or even the room. Thermal radiation is photons and they do not interact with photons from other sources. There’s no accepted physics of which I’m aware that makes the interpretation you give. There is no “gradient”, as in conduction thru a body, just two (or more) bodies at different temperatures each emitting thermal EM radiation. The only way in which the Green plate can influence the Blue plate’s temperature is for some of the thermal radiation from the Green plate to be absorbed by the Blue plate, since the vacuum has suppressed almost all of the convection.
Gordon Robertson
I read your posts.
There is a variation (if E. Swanson wants to run it) that will blow your elaborate fake physics into small pieces.
E. Swanson could use a highly polished metal or a good mirror instead of the green plate. Now if he measures the temperature of the green plate it will not rise much at all but the blue plate will increase in temperature even faster than with the green plate. How will you explain that situation with your fantasy physics.
You could also drill a hole in each plate and have a type of IR sensor that is aimed at each plate. With this you could easily prove you don’t have the slightest clue of what you are talking about and just making stuff up as you go along.
With such an infrared detector you first get a baseline reading for the blue plate at steady state temperature without the green plate. Then move the green plate in position so the hole allows the IR sensor to view the blue plate. You will see the IR actually shows an increase in the IR from the blue plate not a decrease as the blue plate temperature goes up. This is what actual scientists have known for many years and it is based upon actual experimental results. Increase the temperature of a surface and it radiates more.
If you get an IR camera you can do simple tests yourself and help you understand the REAL physics. Take the IR camera and point it at your hot burner. Now put a plate a few inches above the burner but leave room for you IR camera to view the burner. As the burner temperature goes up you will see more IR emitted by the burner (that is all your IR camera is able to pick up). The radiant energy loss did not decrease and cause the burner to heat up, the opposite is the case. There are other tests you can do. All of them would show E. Swanson’s understanding in spot on. He knows what he is talking about. You should listen and learn and not waste so much time making up fantasy science.
Man you really need to study real physics. You are way off!
Svante, Nate, E Swanson and Norman, please stop trolling.
E. Swanson,
Gordon is still one photon short of a net energy transfer when writing stuff like this:
“GHGs cannot affect the rate of heat dissipation at the surface.”
However his description of the impact of SB calculation here…
“If you mess with the To T gradient you change the amount of radiation it can emit and the temperature of the blue plate changes accordingly.”
…is correct. There is a temperature gradient between two bodies at different temperature regardless of being connected (conduction) or in a vacuum (radiation). If there was no gradient, there would be no net heat flux. Although both plates are warming, the net heat flux from blue to green decreases as the gradient decreases.
“The only way in which the Green plate can influence the Blue plates temperature is for some of the thermal radiation from the Green plate to be absorbed by the Blue plate, since the vacuum has suppressed almost all of the convection.”
Some of the radiation from the green plate will always be absorbed by the blue plate unless you have a way of keeping the green plate at 0K. Why not spend your experimental time figuring out why CO2 might not add any extra energy to the planet’s surface? I’ll help you with this attempt disproving the null hypothesis, if I can.
Mike,
I’m awaiting your review of the long sought testable GHE hypothesis.
entropic….”The last minimum during the LIA cooled the Earth by 0.3C….”
The LIA acted in two phases, both reducing the global average 1C to 2C.
Gordon Robertson says:
The LIA acted in two phases, both reducing the global average 1C to 2C.
Where are the data showing that, Gordon? You keep claiming it, but never produce any evidence.
Humboldt’s current is still very cold.
http://cr.acg.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat5_sstanom_1-day.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
Stratospheric polar vortex will never allow to melt ice in Antarctica. Even with high geothermal activity.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_sh.gif
For all those who feel inclined to appeal to authority in the form of NASA –
“Two years ago, NASA dismissed and mocked an amateurs criticisms of its asteroids database. Now Nathan Myhrvold is back, and his papers have passed peer review.”
Condescending and patronising mockery doesn’t make facts go away.
Thinking that NASA, NOAA,, the NSF, are devoted to the pursuit of knowledge using the scientific method may not be the smartest decision.
Facts are facts. Fantasy (the GHE, for example), is fantasy.
Cheers.
Wikipedia says:
In interviews with CNN, […] Myhrvold has discussed ways to reverse some of the effects of global warming/climate change by using geoengineering.[48] Myhrvold and other inventors working with Intellectual Ventures have proposed several approaches, including one that would use hoses, suspended from helium balloons 25 kilometers (16 mi) above the Earth at high latitudes, to emit sulfur dioxide, which is known to scatter light.[49][50] Another approach would stimulate the formation and brightening of marine clouds to reflect more sunlight back into space.[48]
S,
I’m not sure if you have a point.
If you don’t, your comment is not only irrelevant, but also pointless.
As usual?
Cheers.
You say no GHE, but your admirable free thinker is on the case with solutions???
25 km long hoses, of the required large diameter sound quite heavy.
The scale required sounds extreme. But who knows?
Who knows indeed!
With enough taxpayers cash forwarded to the respective Climate Scientists Im sure they will spend many happy years trying to figure it out!
This sort of geo-engineering proposal scares me more than anything else. We don’t know with any certainty what drives climate change … so screwing around with climate to try and alter it sounds completely insane, is at best immoral, and should be illegal with severe punishments.
Wow, 30 m. We better get pumping sea water onto Antarctica to freeze if we’re going to reverse that…
In past episodes of climate change, sea level changed by 10-20 meters for each degree C of temperature change.
Look at the last time we came out of the glacial maximum 23,000 years ago. 120 m of SLR for about a 5 C increase in global mean temperature. That’s 25 m/degC.
Sure, it takes a few millennia to get there. But once started there’s no stopping it, unless you geoenginner.
DA,
Think, David, think.
There’s not enough enough free water on Earth to fulfil your fantasies.
Not to mention things like plate tectonics, orogenics and all the rest of the things that dim witted alarmists remain sublimely ignorant about.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years years. Cherry pick away. Quote your peer reviewed articles, authored by the likes of Schmidt, Mann, Trenberth and the rest of the madly capering climate clowns.
Maybe you could rend your garments, and rush about proclaiming “Doom! Doom! Repent or die!”
How would that suit you?
Cheers.
MF the flapping troll complains about cherry picking as he cherry picks irrelevant factoids which are 4.5 Billion years out of date.
E,
Are you disagreeing with something I wrote?
If you are claiming that the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years is irrelevant, maybe you could provide some support for such a bizarre statement?
No?
I thought as much. Carry on heating things with heat sources. Not much point, is there?
Cheers.
Mike Flapper fails to understand that almost all of the cooling was essentially over billions of years ago. True, there’s still a very small residual heat flow, but that adds almost nothing to the surface temperature. From Wikipedia “Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust”. That heat flow is trivial compared with the energy from the Sun.
But, Mike Flapper knows this, he just wants to toss out another Red Herring to confuse those who don’t know the facts.
E,
“Essentially over”?
Any continuous outward heat flow shows cooling. That’s what cooling is!
Slow but sure. You just don’t know what you are talking about do you?
You admit the Earth cooled (CO2 notwithstanding) for billions of years, then you seem to be claiming it stopped, then miraculously started heating again (in spite of the fact that you say it is is still slowly cooling)!
You sound ridiculous because you are trying to defend the indefensible.
No GHE. No disprovable GHE hypothesis. No science – just more irrelevant pseudoscience.
Cheers.
Mike Flapper, No, I’m claiming that your reference to geothermal energy from radioactive decay is a straw man, since the energy which reaches the surface is tiny and has almost no effect on the temperature of the Earth’s surface. It has nothing to do with the warming due to greenhouse gases.
E,
Are you quite mad? I agreed out that you are correct. The Earth is losing energy. It is cooling. If you think that a body heats up by losing energy, you are probably stupid and ignorant enough to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter by blocking part of the Sun’s radiation.
The Earth has cooled since its creation. Very hot in the middle still. Even close to the surface, the hot stuff leaks out – Hawaii is but one current example.
Maybe you have a cunning idea to stuff all that heat back inside, but it won’t work. It’s gone. Forever. No amount of CO2 will bring it back!
What are you disagreeing with? Nothing? I thought so.
Cheers.
‘If you are claiming that the fact that the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years is irrelevant, maybe you could provide some support for such a bizarre statement?’
Well, the heat flowing from the Earth doesn’t seem to stop winter from coming to my neck of the woods. It happens every year.
And the cooling off of the Earth doesn’t seem to stop the warming we get every summer in my area.
So yes, it would appear to be irrelevant.
Nate, not to mention the warming and cooling in the Pleistocene ice ages, or the drop into and out of a couple of snowball Earths about 700 Myrs ago.
Mike Flapper, Of course the Earth is cooling, doing so when ever it rotates away from facing the Sun. But, while facing the Sun, the Earth heats up, even as energy continues to exit the TOA. On average, the Earth never cools enough to freeze the global oceans, nor do the ocean’s surface warm above 40C. And, CO2 absorbs some of the incoming solar energy before it reaches the surface, warming the atmosphere, while also blocking some of the IR exiting the the surface. The implication of your posts is just plain silly, yet you call me mad.
Your straw man comments are just give us yet another example of your Trolling for Fun and (perhaps) Profit.
E Swanson, please stop trolling.
DAVID- I has been stopped in the past every single time. That is why we are still here.
DA,
But 23,000 years ago that rise was natural. I guess by that I am referring to not man made (as if man is not natural)
Would you propose if we could go back in time, to geoengineer that increase away? Oh, and what is your explanation for that rise, and what was the CO2 level prior to that rise?
Why does it matter if the rise was natural? The planet warms, ice melts, water expands, sea level rises. Why will it be any different time?
You just don’t get it, do ‘ya Scott?
So the planet warms (before AGW) and it’s natural, but you are 100% sure that the current rise is because of AGW? Or might the temperature be rising naturally with a small addition from Man?
The fact that C02 has been higher than now while temps cooler in the past doesn’t give you pause for reflection?
Maybe the additional CO2 man has added to the temperature has caused some increase in temperature. Could that be helpful to our species (and others) in the event of a significant cooling event coming naturally as part of the normal cycle? These are valid questions don’t you agree?
swampgator says:
So the planet warms (before AGW) and its natural, but you are 100% sure that the current rise is because of AGW?
Because that’s what the science has concluded. There are no known natural factors that should be causing warming now. In fact, a slightly cooling sun and Milankovitch factors should now be causing a COOLING.
So some people say man is now causing 110% of the observed warming.
Or might the temperature be rising naturally with a small addition from Man?
Due to what?
The fact that C02 has been higher than now while temps cooler in the past doesnt give you pause for reflection?
When was that?
CO2 isn’t the only factor that determines climate. How many times must this be shoved in your face until you understand?
Tales of 30 m sea level rises due to Antarctic ice melting seem odd.
Fossilised remains of things like dinosaurs and trees are found at near present sea levels in Antarctica. At the time when Antarctica was ice free, either the present coast was much higher, sea levels were not much higher than now, or the alarmist GHE fanatics haven’t the faintest idea what they are talking about.
Humans are powerless to alter weather to order, and not much better at predicting the weather any better than a child with a straight edge and pencil. So much for so called climate scientists.
Antarctica used to be ice free. Good luck with stopping the same thing happening again, if Nature decrees.
Cheers.
” During Q&A, he mentioned how he had been teaching a climate class at his university for several years, and that he thought my skepticism was unwarranted.”
This is the depressing part of Dr. Roy’s story. What is this professor using for data? None of the temperature records show any long term warming for Antarctica. The recent estimates of ice mass show mass gain or trivial loss amidst overwhelming uncertainty. Are there college students that will accept his “belief” without any data to support it?
UAH LT v6 shows +0.31 C of warming for SoPol land.
http://www.climate4you.com/Polar%20temperatures.htm#Diagram%20Antarctic%20MAAT
I don’t see much change in these records.
But the data are very scattered; the R^2 value for a linear fit is just 0.01
Temperature change in Antarctica 1981-2007:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239
DA…”Temperature change in Antarctica 1981-2007…”
From article:
“Climate scientists who want to know how average temperatures on Antarctica might be changing must wrestle with the fact that ground-based weather stations are few and far between…”
The data comes from NOAA who have 1 surface station in the Canadian Arctic and none….zero…nada…zilch…in Antarctica. This article is just more in the line of the NOAA fabricated temperature series.
Gordon Robertson says:
The data comes from NOAA who have 1 surface station in the Canadian Arctic and none.zeronadazilchin Antarctica.
You’re lying again.
NOAA South Pole Observatory:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/spo/
+McMurdo Station
So that’s at least two operated by NOAA.
This page lists about 20 Antarctic weather measurement sites:
https://www.accuweather.com/en/antarctica-weather
20 whole? GTFOH…
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/multimedia/fall11/antarctica-US.html
How many stations are needed to get a good-enough measure of Antarctica’s mean surface temperature?
Enough to prevent spatial aliasing. A lot more than 20.
How many?
That data is wrong David.
WHY is that data wrong?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/historical-temperature-trends-in-antarctica/
TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN ANTARTICA.
“The Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a major warming over the last 50 years, with temperatures at Faraday/Vernadsky station having increased at a rate of 0.56 C decade^−1 over the year and 1.09 C decade^−1 during the winter.”
Turner, J., Colwell, S., Marshall, G., Lachlan-Cope, T., Carleton, A., Jones, P., Lagun, V., Reid, P., Iagovkina, S. (2005). Antarctic climate change during the last 50 years. International Journal of Climatology, 25, 279-294.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.591.9578&rep=rep1&type=pdf
DA…”The Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a major warming over the last 50 years….”
They are talking about a small section near the northern end of the Peninsula, closer to South America than mid-Antarctica. You won’t see anybody farming down there anytime soon.
0.56C/decade for temperature of -50C means it might warm to -45C in 10 years. Maybe.
When polar expert, Duncan Wingham, an alarmist, was asked if glaciers were melting in Antarctica, he replied that it was far too cold for that to happen.
Gordon Robertson says:
They are talking about a small section near the northern end of the Peninsula, closer to South America than mid-Antarctica. You wont see anybody farming down there anytime soon.
It’s the area most affected so far, calving off giant icebergs, potentially increasing the flow of land-based ice to the sea.
Much of the WAIS sits on the sea floor, with ice shelves that go out on top of water. It’s warmer ocean water that’s eating away at this base, and it’s not at -45 C.
The WAIS contains about 10% of Antarctica’s ice, or about 6 meters of sea-level equivalent.
The Past Few Decades
Doran et al. (2002) examined temperature trends in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of Antarctica over the period 1986 to 2000, reporting a phenomenal cooling rate of approximately 0.7C per decade. This dramatic rate of cooling, as they describe it, “reflects longer term continental Antarctic cooling between 1966 and 2000.” In addition, the 14-year temperature decline in the dry valleys occurred in the summer and autumn, just as most of the 35-year cooling over the continent as a whole (which did not include any data from the dry valleys) also occurred in the summer and autumn.
DAVID THIS IS WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN ANTARCTIC.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/so-what-is-really-happening-in-antarctica/
No agenda there…
You don’t like an agenda of doing good science and thinking about it?
I guess I’m not surprised.
The data doesnt matter hes on the taxpayer funded gravy train.
So long as he regurgitates the Alarmist lies he will get paid.
As always with the Alarmists, follow the money!
Since you think this of others, I’m assuming then that that’s also your modus operandi — you lie and cheat in your job in order to get ahead and get a better salary.
Yes?
David, please stop trolling.
David, just does not understand why /how the climate changes.
CO2/AGW has nothing to do with it. Zero.
The sun modified by the geo magnetic field has everything to do with it.
We have the TEST now DAVID.
Year 2018 and going forward.
Salvatore, don’t lecture me on how the climate works. Every single one of your numerous and endless predictions has been wrong. Clearly whatever ‘understanding’ you base them on is wrong. And yet you merrily breeze along and come here repeatedly to tell us what’s going to happen, next week or next month or next year, time periods you for some reason cannot grasp have nothing to do with long-term climate change. You have demonstrated you learn nothing and you know nothing and you reinforce that with every inane comment. I think it’s time for to stop commenting, sit down quietly for a few years and figure out why you’re always wrong and why nearly every one of the world’s scientists thinks CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas.
DA,
You don’t need to appear more stupid and ignorant than you are.
Name one of those scientists, and quote his “thoughts” – if you can.
Try and find even one who has written a scientific description of the GHE.
Thoughts are no substitute for facts. Anybody can think what they like – Nature doesn’t care. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer any hotter at all!
Maybe you need to think harder, or pray harder, or something.
Cheers.
SdP, MF, please stop trolling.
Dang. Posted in wrong place – correction follows –
Eh?
Moi? Quelle horreur!
Cheers.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
DREMT impersonator (neither comment is from the original DREMT), please stop trolling.
DREMT
Is this a game of process of elimination? Are you a regular poster and we are supposed to figure out who you are by process of elimination?
Who have you not trolled so far? And who is the impersonator?
Norman, I had no intention of commenting under this article, until I saw yet more comments under my name which I had not made. I consider that to be trolling (plus surely a breach of site commenting policy, to comment using somebody elses name).
DA…”Salvatore, dont lecture me on how the climate works”.
Somebody has to, you’re hopeless in science without some kind of guidance.
DAVID – has been taken in by the AGW SHAM.
David you have no understanding of the climate and this will be coming more apparent as the months go by and no further global warming takes place.
I can’t wait to see what your reasoning will be.
What happened to the test that we had in 2010?
What happened was the sun going forward from year 2010-2017 never met the two conditions I said it would have to meet in order to exert a more significant climate effect.
Now in year 2018 it is happening, which are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general followed by a period of time of very low average solar parameters equal to or greater in degree of magnitude change and duration of time that is associated with typical solar minimum between sunspot cycles.
ALL THE FACTORS ARE IN:
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
ALL THE FACTORS ARE IN YES DAVID I SAID THAT IN 2010.
David, I thought all the factors were in back then but I was wrong the solar factor which is the whole ballgame turned out not to be in.
However David in year 2018 the solar factor is in, my two solar conditions have finally been meant, and the climate test is on.
8 years later but it has arrived.
So if you were wrong then why should anyone think you are right now?
I cannot see a problem with sceptical climate science sustaining itself in the United States because it is based on far right ideology and hatred of the left. If you are on the left then you are responsible for the AGW movement even if you are not. You are subject to frequent rants from bloggers about how evil the left are not likely to make any on the left change there views on AGW and yet we are told by them that we must accept some AGW just to appease some. We did not have the political correctness that we have when I was younger and that is wrong because people have to be brainwashed into accepting the truth as believed by a certain group in society, educators and the media, and also being asked to pay for them to do this usually through taxation.
donald…”I cannot see a problem with sceptical climate science sustaining itself in the United States because it is based on far right ideology and hatred of the left”.
I’m a socialist and one of the biggest anthropogenic global warming/climate change skeptics you’ll find.
I don’t think global warming/climate change propaganda has anything to do with right or left, it’s strictly a warm and fuzzy feel-good feeling propagated by the politically-correct who think they know what is best for the world.
The Club of Rome is an exclusive club of the wealthy and privileged and a front-runner in global warming propaganda. Then you have Maurice Strong, the Father of Kyoto, who is a billionaire capitalist who fancies himself as a socialist. At the Rio Summit, his wife was running around with other hippies celebrating the good they were doing for the world.
Strong had some strange ideas about population control and a woman’s right to control her own body. He also suggested we’d be better of if our industrialized society collapsed.
Eh?
Moi? Quelle horreur!
Cheers.
Satellites show that the wind rules the climate. When the jet stream weakens over the oceans follows global cooling. It starts with a drop in sea surface temperature.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mimic-tpw/global/anim/latest72hrs.gif
The geomagnetic storm caused a sudden increase in seismic activity. Another earthquake above 5 Richter in the area of the Kilauea volcano.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00966/lowr8fh089jv.png
Roy…”I guess what was interesting to me is that the belief (his word) in catastrophic climate change….”
Not like the belief in particle physics about Higgs bosons and the likes. They likely still believe that the universe started with a Big Bang, based on the overwhelming evidence [sarc /off] that the universe seems to have a +3K residual temperature and that Doppler shifts in stellar spectra seem to suggest the universe is expanding.
Expanding from where? Where is the centre? How big is the universe anyway?
The universe is likely hyper-spatial (more than the 3 extended macro dimensions that we observe).
In terms of visualization, reduction to 2 dimensions allows our brain to make sense of this.
The part of the universe we can observe can be conceptualized as the 2D surface of a balloon, a rubber sheet expanding. In every direction we “look,” we see the rubber sheet moving away from us. The furthest points on the rubber balloon are moving away from us the fastest.
We can’t look thru the balloon sheet to the other side, our sight-line only extends along the rubber sheet surface. Looking thru the balloon sheet would violate GR, causality, and the speed of light in a vacuum.
So if you are living on the surface on an expanding balloon, where is the center? It is the observer. We live in a relativistic universe.
And people wonder why physicists things they are Center of the Universe. Sheeesh.
Expanding from where? Where is the centre? How big is the universe anyway?
Expanding from everywhere. There is no center. No one knows how big the universe is, but the observable part is now thought to be 91 billion light-years in diameter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Size_and_regions
We don’t know what makes up 95% of the universe.
I will guess STEVEN CHU because he has the nobel prize and is vocal about climate change, and has government/ political ties.
Is 70 elderly?
I wouldn’t call Dr. Chu a particle physicist, but maybe that’s just my take.
He was Energy Secretary in the Obama Administration, though, hence suspect.
Thanks for the interesting post. It sounds like you enjoyed yourself. I had a similar experience during my scientific career (in Switzerland) and the host even covered the expenses of my wife joining me for the event and touring the country afterwards!
As far as the NP winner goes I was immediately reminded of the Tolstoy quote: “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
“climate policy would not be able to move forward like it needs to until old skeptics like me die out.”
There is a lot of historical precedent to support that comment.
Plate tectonics, quantum theory, come to mind.
Nate
Science advances one funeral at a time.
― Max Planck
Robert has it right. This is why over the last year overall sea surface temperatures are falling.
Robert I. Ellison, SAYS
Power flux imbalances change from negative to positive on an annual basis. The average is 0.8W/m2 consistent with rates of ocean warming. The trend over the period of record is negative. Such large swings in imbalances cannot be due to greenhouse gases.
The result is a very large annual variation in energy from the Sun the energy in component. Annual variability has significant implications for ocean heat change. Ocean heat does not change slowly as a result of greenhouse gases and thermal inertia but warms and cools rapidly in response to the very large annual signal.
2W/m2 as I gave said to yet again below assumes no response in the system but the system has of course responded and the energy imbalance from greenhouse gases is not remotely 2W/m2. If there is energy equilibrium on an annual basis and there is the current greenhouse gas energy imbalance is at most 0.03W/m2. This is an order of magnitude less than obtained by assuming that all ocean warming is anthropogenic it is n
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Robert has it right. This is why over the last year overall sea surface temperatures are falling.
A natural variation. Not a long-term trend — the long-term trend is very much upward.
Yes David it is a natural variation which is all that we have natural variations.
The long term trend WAS.
So you don’t think CO2 ab.sorbs infrared radiation.
That’s an astounding result, Salvatore. Can you prove that? There will surely be (speaking of) a Nobel Prize in that for you.
Don’t you want a Nobel Prize, Salvatore?
If overall sea surface temperatures keep falling and the albedo ticks up ever so slightly AGW theory will no longer be viable.
This is happening as I speak. The climate is heading toward a climatic shift again like it did in the late 1970’s, natural nothing to do with wonder gas CO2.
Climate shift at the very least much less a climatic regime change.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
If overall sea surface temperatures keep falling and the albedo ticks up ever so slightly AGW theory will no longer be viable.
Did CO2 suddenly stop being a greenhouse gas?
D, PST.
It is rare for rainwater to form lakes in this part of the desert, which is known as the Empty Quarter. Sand composing dunes of all shapes and sizes, interspersed with salt flats, make up the majority of the landscape. According to news reports, this desert received on average 3 centimeters (1.2 inches) of rain per year. It has been about 20 years since rainwater last filled the flats.
The rainwater is expected to give rise to summertime vegetation. Al Arabiya reported that such vegetation will be a boon for camel owners, who expect to feed the animals on the plants for the next two years.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=92295
Stephen Hawking is not a Nobel price winner.
You are right HKan. But he did win the Novel prize, which pays better and provides more status. Makes me wonder if SHs stance on AGW late in life wasnt intended to influence the Nobel committee.
Hawking did not win a Nobel Prize.
Hawking never won a Nobel Prize.
The volcanic activity along the West Antarctic Ridge under the West Antarctic couldnt possibly have anything to do with the melting thats happening there, now could it!
http://www.plateclimatology.com/geologic-forces-fueling-west-antarcticas-larsen-ice-shelf-cracks/
Must be the CO2, then. //sarc//
Has that activity increased in recent decades? The melting has.
Roy,
“One also cant help but notice how Nobel Prize winners tend to also be experts in all disciplines after they win their prize. Stephen Hawking comes to mind.” Actually lots of them come to mind.
Sounds like you encountered Nobel Prize winner David J. Gross. But I suspect he will die well before you do.
I have noticed that renowned experts are generally correct when they discuss their field of expertise. However, they make assumptions about other matters outside of their knowledge and have a 50/50 chance of being correct or downright wrong about these.
It is then difficult to tell this esteemed scientist that he is talking b*****Ks but I’m afraid that he probably is.
I sometimes wonder whether the best response is to say that with respect, he is quite wrong. It may prompt these people to actually investigate their beliefs rather than assume them. If these people really are bright, they will realise that they are supporting assumptions without checking them out for themselves.
Like a broken record (if you’re in your 70s you know what that means), I keep equating current climate hysteria with the cholesterol hysteria that plagued my industry (cattle) for about 50 years. Finally now, the cholesterol scare is pretty much dead as far as the diet-cholesterol link goes – my MD used to promote vegetarian; Now, the same MD promotes meat, milk, eggs, turmeric and sunlight.
I’d even go so far as to say that the newer climate hysteria has replaced the old cholesterol hysteria, there being only so much room at the top for a current mainstream hysteria. No doubt there will soon be diagnosed a HDD — hysteria deficit disorder for all of us with sound minds and nothing to hate but hate itself.
Based on the cholesterol experience, expect about 50 years of climate hysteria, which means about 10 or 20 more years of climate hysteria — if we still have something akin to democracy by then and it’s still not against the law to speak one’s thoughts.
/
HCD
Dr. Spencer, send him this list of challenges. I’d love to hear his rebuttals. I can’t believe a particle physicist would believe such garbage. Having a Nobel Prize just shows how meaningless that award has become. The climate alarmist’s science is so bad a child should be able to identify it. None of the work from Michael Mann would pass in the physics departments of the world. There is no hiding the decline in physic models. Anyway, here is a link to the challenges of Michael Mann’s work. In any real science, you only need one unexplainable observation to reject the theory. There are plenty of answers the climate alarmists can’t defend in the below-linked article. My bet is you won’t get a response.
The Winning Strategy to Defeating Climate Sophist Michael Mann
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/the-winning-strategy-to-defeating-climate-sophist-michael-mann/
Your blog post, when youre not ranting and calling people names, says this:
The Progressive CAGW Theory is a giant house of cards, founded upon Michael Manns infamous Hockey Stick graph.
You have a big misunderstanding. The hockey stick is a reconstruction of PAST temperatures. It doesnt attribute a cause to them, it just deduces what they were. So it has NOTHING to do with AGW, or the future, or whats causing the warming. AGW is *not* founded on the hockey stick.
Major fail.
PS: The hockey stick has been replicated many times by now, and by methods using completely different mathematical techniques.
If you honestly believe that something that utilized unique researcher specific statistical techniques like Mike’s Nature Trick to hide the decline is reproducible and the fact that he ignored instrumental data prior to 1902 and the fact that there is nothing about the underlying physics of a CO2 molecule that would justify a dog-leg developing in a temperature chart that BTW doesn’t line up with the dog-legs in NASA’s new Sea Level chart, then there is no way you and I will ever agree. I’m familiar with dataset construction and if I ever did what Michael did, I would know I was doing it for all the wrong reasons. The only way to reproduce the Hockey Stick is to simply do exactly what he did with the data sets he used. That isn’t independent verification anymore than someone simply recopying computer code.
To Win The Climate Debate The Right Question Must Be Asked; How is CO2 the Cause?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/to-win-the-climate-debate-the-right-questions-must-be-asked/
CO2isLife says:
If you honestly believe that something that utilized unique researcher specific statistical techniques like Mikes Nature Trick to hide the decline
Obviously you don’t know what that phrase was referring to.
Hint: it wasn’t real temperatures, either globally or locally.
… The hockey stick is a reconstruction of PAST temperatures. It doesnt attribute a cause to them, it just deduces what they were …
As everyone knows by now the ‘hockey stick’ graph was a combination of an approximate linear trend line from ~1000 AD to ~1900 AD based on widely disparate temperature proxies with a plot of those, and only those, proxy samples that followed the general trend of the 20th surface temperature record tacked on.
To say it was the result of a deductive rather than an inductive progress is quite right, the authors started with assumed 20th century anthropogenic warming and deduced the result, the graph, from that premise.
… inductive process … (spell correct).
That should be inductive process.
Chris Hanley says:
June 18, 2018 at 3:53 PM
As everyone knows by now the ‘hockey stick’ graph was a combination of an approximate linear trend line from ~1000 AD to ~1900 AD based on widely disparate temperature proxies with a plot of those, and only those, proxy samples that followed the general trend of the 20th surface temperature record tacked on.
Are you able to give a valuable proof of what you pretend?
{ By ‘valuable’ I mean a source other than WUWT, Trickszone or the like. }
The hockey stick flaws have been exhaustively analysed by Steve McIntyre on his blog.
McIntyre published a paper or two that went nowhere, and now he’s become a conspiracy theorist. Meanwhile more and more research has bolstered the hockey stick result. And as I showed below, the hockey stick shape is required by elementary physics.
“A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years,” Marcott et al, Science v339 n6124 pp 1198-1201, March 8, 2013
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
A huge collaboration of several dozen scientists:
“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
Coverage of Tingley and Huybers, who used independent mathematical techniques:
“Novel Analysis Confirms Climate “Hockey Stick” Graph,” Scientific American, November 2009, pp 21-22.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever
Chris Hanley says:
As everyone knows by now the ‘hockey stick’ graph was a combination of an approximate linear trend line from ~1000 AD to ~1900 AD based on widely disparate temperature proxies with a plot of those, and only those, proxy samples that followed the general trend of the 20th surface temperature record tacked on.
Major misunderstanding.
There was no “linear trend” in the methodology, there was a reconstruction of past temperatures based on a variety of proxies. The 19-20th century proxies were used to calibrate the GMST from the proxies with measured temperatures.
Straightforward idea. (The math isn’t.) Nothing deceptive about it in the least.
Lots of followup studies give the same result. For example
“Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence.” Wahl and Ammann, Climate Change, November 2007, Volume 85, Issue 1, pp 33-69.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9105-7
And it’s very easy to show that the hockey stick is required by the laws of physics. The math is trivial:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-thing-is-hockey-stick-isnt.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-about-generating-hockey-sticks.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-even-easier-way-to-get-hockey-stick.html
The hockey stick is BS! End of story.
How about giving evidence when you make your pronouncements, Salvatore? Because your word is no good here.
Michael Mann’s opinions when it comes to the climate mean NOTHNG.
Many disagree — Mann is being invited to speak all over the place. And he keeps winning awards — I saw another one on his Facebook feed just yesterday, I think.
Here I made an attempt to understand the climate alarmism, it’s roots.
http://www.davdata.nl/math/mentalclimate.html
Dr. Spencer, here is another one to forward to your Physics Friend. BTW, in physics there is no “consensus” there are simply experiments and results. Imagine if all we had from our friends in the physics departments were “consensus,” “Peer Review,” and Computer models that didn’t model what they intend to.
Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/forensic-science-why-michael-mann-chose-only-the-past-1000-years-to-reconstruct/
Climate “Science” is Anti-Science; How do you Disprove a Consensus?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/10/climate-science-is-anti-science-how-do-you-disprove-a-consensus/
In your opinion, what is best proxy temperature indicating global land and/or ocean temperature from period of 1000 AD to 1900 AD?
Don’t have a good answer for that one, but CO2 blankets the globe, so the effect of CO2 doesn’t need measurements from all around the world.
1) Central England instrumental records go back to 1650, and there are other long-term records as well.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/climate-science-on-trial-temperature-records-dont-support-nasa-giss/
2) Ice Core data from Vostok would be void of any influence from H2O and the Urban Heat Island Effect
Once again, to isolate the impact of CO2 you need to isolate the data sets that isolate the impact of CO2. You don’t need records from all over the world. Warming can be due to plenty of things other than CO2.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/isolating-the-contribution-of-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/04/16/controlling-for-h2o-and-urban-heat-island-effect-greenland-validates-co2-doesnt-drive-warming/
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/06/co2-cant-explain-ground-measurement-variations/
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/04/ground-measurements-dont-implicate-co2-climate-scientists-are-using-the-wrong-data-sets-for-their-models/
–CO2isLife says:
June 18, 2018 at 3:43 PM
Dont have a good answer for that one, but CO2 blankets the globe, so the effect of CO2 doesnt need measurements from all around the world.
1) Central England instrumental records go back to 1650, and there are other long-term records as well.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/climate-science-on-trial-temperature-records-dont-support-nasa-giss/ —
Land has a different average temperature than ocean.
Land warms and cools at different “rate” than ocean.
Global average temperature is about 15 C.
Ocean average temperature is about 17 C
Land average temperature is about 10 C
Ocean higher average temperatures warm land’s cooler average temperature.
If Ocean average temperature was about 16 C, average land temperature would increase by much more than 2 C
If ocean average temperature was 18 C, average land temperature increase by much more than 2 C.
If land average temperatures were to warm or cool by 1 or 2 C, it does not have much effect upon ocean average temperatures.
Ocean warms land, and land cools ocean, but there is much more ocean area than land area [and other factors]. Much colder land and/or land over long period of time being cold do or can affect ocean temperatures.
Whereas changes in ocean surface temperature have a relatively quick affect [ie time period of weeks or months] on land temperatures.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zPmsIBNGdZ8/T-HSS-YYKRI/AAAAAAAAE5Q/WMNVXEtAcAc/s1600/Medeival+Warm+Period.jpg
That’s a cartoon, not a graph. And an outdated one at that.
What I sent is what is the real temperature changes over the past widely recognized.
I think the climate debate would be over if an understanding of enthalpy of water in its 3 phases was understood by influential ‘progressive’ proponents of climate disaster, like David Appell. Two things about Antarctica: warming up -50C by 3 or 4C does not water make. Second, the average height above sealevel of the entire continent is 2500m and that folks, need I say it, is above the ‘snowline’.
I’ll add a freebee: The reason glaciers calve or ice shelves break off over time is not warming, it’s snowfall on top of their sources in the interior of the continent that causes outward flow outwards toward the ocean. Non of this is controversial.Were progressives surprised that Antarctica was recently determined to have been icebound continuously through global temperatures much warmer 8 million years ago when CO2 was about what it is today. If progressives arent mystified that the Sierra Nevada gets 10s of meters of snow each winter and Kilimanjaro, and the Hindu Kush…them it should be easy to accept that Antarctica isnt going to give up its iciness anytime soon. Its just physics as they say.
Gary Pearse
The problem is not that snowfall becomes ice sheets which melt when they meet the sea. This is normal and, in the past, has been in balance.
The problem is that the rate of melt is increasing. Water is now melting out of Antarctica faster than snowfall is replenishing it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y
The net melting is increasing sea levels. Not a problem if you live on a hilltop, but a bit awkward if the sea laps your doorstep.
https://www.theinvadingsea.com/2018/06/17/the-dirty-word-in-south-floridas-watery-future-retreat/
entropic…”The problem is that the rate of melt is increasing. Water is now melting out of Antarctica faster than snowfall is replenishing it”.
It’s far too cold for glacial ice to melt on mainland Antarctica….Duncan Wingham, Polar expert.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/so-what-is-really-happening-in-antarctica/
Gary…”The reason glaciers calve or ice shelves break off over time is not warming, its snowfall on top of their sources in the interior of the continent that causes outward flow outwards toward the ocean”.
Let’s not forget gravity and ocean wave action. When the glacier flows downhill, it does so on a fluid form of ice due to the change of state produced by the pressure above. As you say, the ice pushes out over the ocean and it is partly supported by the water. Gravity acts as a force down the way and the water wave action works as a variable force up and down the way.
Eventually, something has got to give and it does. The oceans in the Antarctic region are some of the most fierce anywhere, with waves at times 100 feet high.
The ice flows in front of the ice ledges act as a buffer zone to absorb wave action but for whatever reason, the pack ice moves off, exposing the ledges to the full fury of the Southern Ocean.
Given that, what happens when the water is warmer?
The reason glaciers calve or ice shelves break off over time is not warming, its snowfall on top of their sources in the interior of the continent that causes outward flow outwards toward the ocean.
“West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreat driven by Holocene warm water incursions,” Claus-Dieter Hillenbrand et al,
Nature volume 547, pages 4348 (06 July 2017).
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22995
That is northern hemisphere.
And I assume land.
Gbaiki
The best modern proxy data for the last 10,000 years is Marcott et al 2013.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.full
Look particularly at Figure 3.
This is a joke, right? The problems that have been identified with Marcott are legion.
–This is a joke, right? The problems that have been identified with Marcott are legion.–
I think problem is where he spliced historical record with modern measured temperature.
Or if remove this wrong part, it seems pretty good.
If you got better one, I like to see it.
But rather 10,000+ years, I more interested in the time period between 900 AD and 1900.
I think that time period is particularly important.
Lack of “better” does not imply “good”. Nobody should rely upon any estimate that cannot be independently verified. I consider anything before the modern direct instrument era to be, at best, suggestive. At worst, entirely misleading.
What problems with Marcott et al, specifically?
n.h.
If overall sea surface temperatures stay around the levels we have now much less fall there will be no further warming.
and the planet’s been cooling since 2002.
What effect does CO2 have on tropical average temperature?
What effect changes tropical temperature, the most?
I do not think co2 has any effect on temperature because it changes in response to temperature.
If the oceans cool significantly CO2 concentrations will not keep increasing at the rates they have been.
Do you accept that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation? And that the Earth emits it?
Yes ,yes,yes! Plus I accept there is a GHG effect.
The difference is the whole GHG effect is governed by the environment whereas you say the GHG effect governs the environment.
That is essentially the difference ,that’s it but it makes all the difference n the world when one accepts or does not accept AGW.
So if you accept that CO2 is part of the greenhouse effect, why wouldn’t more CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect?
For the same reason that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer won’t make the thermometer hotter!
Belief versus reality. Fantasy versus fact.
Still no GHE (which is why you can’t even describe the GHE, can you?).
Next stupid gotcha?
Cheers.
“…why wouldnt more CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect?”
For the same reason increased alcohol consumption beyond a particular point does not make one more popular at parties: it’s a nonlinear function.
“…why wouldnt more CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect?”
Also, because feedbacks from any increase in IR active gases may be zero or negative. Richard Lindzen has a recent explanation which I will post below unless someone else already did.
I beseech you David Appell: Please do not post any of the references impugning Dr. Lindzen’s work. Don’t be a woose. Do your own research.
“It’s okay to be wrong, and [Lindzen] is a smart person, but most people don’t really understand that one way of using your intelligence is to spin ever more clever ways of deceiving yourself, ever more clever ways of being wrong. And that’s okay because if you are wrong in an interesting way that advances the science, I think it’s great to be wrong, and he has made a career of being wrong in interesting ways about climate science.”
– Raymond Pierrehumbert, http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/09/established-science.html
Bart says:
why wouldnt more CO2 enhance the greenhouse effect?
For the same reason increased alcohol consumption beyond a particular point does not make one more popular at parties: its a nonlinear function.
Being nonlinear does not imply an effect stops doing what it does.
And then there are the feedbacks….
You asked why it wouldn’t. Well, it wouldn’t if the functional dependence is not monotonic, one reason for which could be multivariate dependence upon confounding variables (a.k.a., negative feedbacks).
It’s not a given. There is no physical imperative that increasing concentration must result in greater warming.
David Appell,
I despise resorting to name calling. But you are a low life *ss. What are trying to compensate for? Are you short or just a little short somewhere?
David, PST.
CB: What name calling?
Your claims are almost always wrong. I’m going to continue pointing that out.
Bart says:
Its not a given. There is no physical imperative that increasing concentration must result in greater warming.
There is — conservation of energy.
Bzzzt! Wrong.
Perhaps, you misread. I sai he won the Novel prize.
J,
I say so too. You need to use a sledgehammer here sometimes – not just for walnuts, nuts of any type. Some people just do not appreciate that you can never have too much pun.
Cheers.
Gordon, I was relatively apolitical many years ago and voted on merit and apparent wisdom of the candidates. A number of my family are socialist no matter if candidates are capable or not. In recent years I have argued with family members that the party they think they are voting for no longer exists
The ‘new left’ came from the centre and have taken the space once held by old left. The old left at least had the economically disadvantaged as constituents. Today the new left gets voted in nationally but their constituency is outsourced to a Eurocentric UN global governance klatch which includes some of the people you mention, which I bet you identify as right wing. It gets weirder! Donald Trump supporters are the disadvantaged that have been disenfranchised an impoverished for years. If yours is the old party in name, you actually dont have a party.
Gary…”The new left came from the centre and have taken the space once held by old left. The old left at least had the economically disadvantaged as constituents”.
I no longer support any political party, even the politically-correct socialist parties in Canada, the provincial and federal NDP. A while back, they began supporting special interest groups and lost sight of the average Canadian. When they started openly supporting global warming propaganda I washed my hands of them.
People have to realize that the old left in North America were the true socialists. They came about it naturally, not through political philosophy. They were oppressed in the work place and they did something about it by organizing into unions.
As my dad pointed out from his life experience, when the UK Labour Party (socialist party), were dealing with people going through tough times, their focus was on helping those people. However, when times got better, their policies became downright stupid, being based largely on dogma and philosophy.
That’s what we are seeing today with the Left. Most of them have gotten fat and they lack the interest in justice they once had. They have replaced that pursuit with watered-down, politically-correct views.
That’s why the Democrats lost to Trump and no one was happier than me, even though I do not support Trump with his economic views.
There is a lot wrong with this world but the average North American no longer cares. Most are totally into themselves, begrudging the unemployed insurance or the poor a decent basic means of surviving.
Gordon says:
Thats why the Democrats lost to Trump
In fact, the Democratic candidate received 3 M more votes than Trump.
Only a flawed and archaic constitutional feature made Trump the winner. With a minority of the votes.
The “flawed and archaic constitutional feature” will make America great.
The politicians crafting constitution were somehow better politicians than we find in modern times.
I doubt any nation at present could be up to task of making a better kind of government. And none to date, have.
But I believe if you change things, it is possible to do this, and opening space frontier is what I would call changing things.
–Here I made an attempt to understand the climate alarmism, its roots.
http://www.davdata.nl/math/mentalclimate.html. —
Hmm, pretty long.
I say roots are primitive – as in primitive human.
All great religions are a step away from primitive human. The abandonment of the great religion is a step back to primitive human.
Mixing modern technology with primitive worship of nature is not a good thing.
So do you think the Earth doesn’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think CO2 doesn’t ab.sorb it?
DA,
So do you think bananas don’t emit infrared radiation, or do you think apples don’t ab.sorb it?
About as relevant, if you can’t even point out what your nonsensical comment is supposed to mean.
Stringing random sciency words together is fun, but otherwise pointless.
Cheers.
Mike Flapper wrote:
And we know you are an expert by your often repeated posts devoid of content.
Generally, your comments seem well-intended, if not worthwhile. But these juvenile retorts to Mike’s efforts are annoying. If you don’t like Mike’s comments, ignore them.
You’re not a troll. But you could be worse, an Appellite.
Sorry, E. Swanson.
That comment came from me.
Gordon Robertson says:
June 18, 2018 at 3:40 AM
The data comes from NOAA who have 1 surface station in the Canadian Arctic and none… zero… nada… zilch… in Antarctica. This article is just more in the line of the NOAA fabricated temperature series.
Robertson, you are a paranoid liar living in a nonsensical hatred of NOAA.
1. NOAA’s GHCN daily stations in the Canadian Arctic
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529360733166/001.jpg
Separated into 5 degree latitude bands
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529360856721/001.jpg
2. NOAA’s GHCN daily stations in the Antarctic
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529360935689/001.jpg
Sources can be found within
https://tinyurl.com/y8xyojfw
Why do you lie all the time, Robertson?
Thanks for that, Bindidon. Now watch Gordon completely ignore this information, and repeat the same lies again next week.
I took a look at the Antarctic daily stations graph and noted that there are probably 10 sites that have a long enough temperature history to be used for climate studies. But I’m assuming that those sites have been consistently active through the century. I could be wrong. The graph is not very informative.
SMS says:
June 19, 2018 at 5:01 PM
The graph is not very informative.
Well you have seen above where my life companion had his sources from.
There you see a somewhat bigger file
ghcnd-inventory.txt
In that file each station has a starting resp. ending date.
You might isolate those stations located in Antarctica busy with temperature measurements, and having produced measurements from 1954 till today.
The graph was intended to show Robertson’s lies, and not to inform you about all the rest.
Nate appears to believe that the GHE has been described scientifically, and that a disprovable GHE hypothesis exists. He wrote –
“Ok, Mike, one more try. Here is GHE hypothesis explained
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
First page under heading GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Have at it.
Second page: Test of the hypothesis is described.
The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets, which provide an ensemble of experimentsover a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars,Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse rates of 5, 5.50, and 7C km^-1, respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence
and order of magnitude of the predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3).
So Mike, unless you can clearly demonstrate what theyve done wrong, your oft repeated meme is proven FALSE.”
Nope. No description of the GHE – which is probably why you couldn’t actually quote it, reverting to the usual stupid and ignorant tactic of providing a link to a nonsensical piece of pseudoscience.
No need to demonstrate anything there – it doesn’t exist!
On to Hansen’s bizarre “explanation’ of the non-existent.
You might notice that his first “explanatory” statement is demonstrably ridiculous. The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years. No evidence that absorbed and emitted radiation balance. Jus the usual ratbag assertion from someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Keep trying. Look at other descriptions of scientific effects. Then you will start to appreciate why no such thing exists for the so called Greenhouse Effect.
Claims that purport to explain the non-existent are delusional.
By the way, assumptions and modelling are not experiments.
Cheers.
‘You might notice that his first explanatory statement is demonstrably ridiculous. ”
Tell us which statement, then demonstrate away, Mike.
‘ No evidence that absorbed and emitted radiation balance.’
Is that supposed to be the demonstration?
You mean the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to the Earth? Or do you mean its temperature is not stable, within a narrow range?
Its all very vague, as expected.
Mike,
Weak response, very weak. That all you got?
I expected more considering how often you plea for a testable GHE hypothesis.
Entropic, you didnt note my mention of the 8 million years+ of stability of the antarctic through warmer periods than now. New studies are already making last years “accelerating” sea level rise stuff obsolete, as it should for enthalpy reasons and because of ultra low temps, high latitude and elevation of the continent. Ice melting in the sea doesnt do much, shelves breakoff and glaciers calve but new snow makes new ice. This is not controversial science. Now if it stops snowing, yeah we have a problem, but healthy births of icebergs is a sign its all working fine. In Alaska, some glaciers have melted back inland for 10s of km because of reduced nourishment from snow over the last 250 years. Dont listen to the 20 to 100Gt crowd, it only seems like a lot and dont even read papers using numbers of olympic swimmingpools or hiroshima bombs worth of energy. This is intended as children’s literature.
At the end of the last glacial max, 51,000,000 km^3 of ice melted, that’s 51 million Gt, that’s 51 quadrillion tonnes of ice and sea level rise was 125 meters. This and enthalpy should quiet the fears of a thoughtful person. Coral grew to keep pace, as did river deltas which are very much larger today BECAUSE of this sea rise! A bit more isnt alarming. Notwithstanding your favorite politicians pronouncements, or Al Gore’s admittedly high quality productions or even an esteemed scientist disaster proponent, you are allowed to think for yourself and even to speculate that they could be mistaken from time to time.
Gary Pearse says:
June 18, 2018 at 4:54 PM
New studies are already making last years “accelerating” sea level rise stuff obsolete…
Could you provide your readers with a link to a paper?
Gary,
I rather like the way the NSF finally accepted that Archimedes’ principle still applies. Sea ice melt does not make sea levels rise.
Some climate clowns still express amazement when the ice pushed into the ocean by a flowing glacier eventually breaks off!
They seem unaware that ice is quite rigid, and the continuous flexing of the sheet eventually causes breakage. No miraculous heating rom underneath necessary!
All part of the rich but silly climatological tapestry – more hole than whole.
Cheers.
GAry,
‘. Ice melting in the sea doesnt do much, shelves breakoff and glaciers calve but new snow makes new ice. This is not controversial science. ‘
Do you really think scientists are not aware of basics?
If you read articles, you would see that it is the acceleration of the glacier flow that is being observed.
It is believed that the loss of massive floating ice shelves is facilitating this acceleration. Uncorking of the bottle.
Agreed
Last post -I was agreeing with Gordon’s fuller treatment of glacial outflow and adve tures in the sea.
Pango
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/14/even-gooder-news-east-antarctic-ice-sheet-the-big-one-remained-stable-throughout-the-pliocene
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/nasa-glaciologist-jay-zwally-puts-the-hammer-down-antarctica-is-gaining-ice/
Thanks GP
People a la Middleton are imho by far too polemic to be taken seriously.
I’ll therefore await Zwally’s conclusions going far away from his recent results (2015):
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
Wait and see I would say.
LaP,
Might, if, and think – mainstays of wishful thinking, unless backed by sound science.
You can’t even describe the GHE, can you?
Back to drawing brightly coloured pictures for you!
Cheers.
No, David. The scienciness isnt settled.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/upcoming-research-will-buck-the-consensus-and-show-antarctica-is-still-gaining-ice/
Also, as cold as it is in most of Antarctica most of the time, the ice doesnt melt. Ice loss is mostly due to sublimation into the cold DRY air blowing over it.
Gee, scientists don’t know that ice doesn’t melt when the temperature is far below zero. Right.
So why do you suppose they are still concerned about melting Antarctic ice?
Why haven’t you asked yourself that question?
DA,
Maybe because your “scientists” are stupid and ignorant?
Some of them are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that melting sea ice raises sea levels. The NSF reluctantly admitted they were talking nonsense – it took several years for them to admit they were in error. I suppose that the National Science Foundation knows something about science, but apparently not a lot.
Are these the scientists to whom you refer? Or are you specifically excluding scientists from the NSF, NOAA and NASA? Any others?
Why haven’t you asked yourself that question?
I understand, David.
Cheers.
DA…”Gee, scientists dont know that ice doesnt melt when the temperature is far below zero. Right”.
The idiots programming models would not know that. Or some geologists like Michael Mann, who concluded it has warmed in Antarctica since 1950.
Nor do they seem to get it that solar energy input is missing in the Arctic several months of the year.
Gordon, you lie about people and then blame them for not meeting your lies.
It’s despicable.
David, once again, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, once more, please stop trolling
Impersonator, once again, please stop being so lazy, and get your own idea.
just a thought says:
June 18, 2018 at 5:46 PM
The best methodology we have is to monitor tide gauges, which continue to show no acceleration in sea level rise, which is increasing at a similar rate to the 1920s to 50s.
*
When I read such Homewood blah blah, I have a problem in believing what he wrote above it upthread.
Did you ever download tide gauge data, jat?
SLR by tide gauges in mm/yr (CSIRO)
1880-1920: 1.3
1920-1950: 1.5
1950-1980: 1.5
1980-2013: 2.6
SLR by sat is actually at 3.2 mm/yr.
binny…”Did you ever download tide gauge data, jat?”
How many gauges do they have monitoring ocean levels? How do they average over the different tides?
How do they account for different ocean levels? Yes, the ocean levels can vary a foot between Australia and South America.
How much of the rise is due to humans dumping garbage in the oceans including several billions worth of poop.
Yuck!! I’m never swimming in the ocean again. Have you ever seen one whale bowel movement. Reminds me of a whole lot of alarmist propaganda.
Gordon Robertson
I did answer your question about poop on an earlier thread. I do not think you saw it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/sea-level-rise-human-portion-is-small/#comment-305276
Gordon Robertson says:
June 18, 2018 at 7:45 PM
Robertson
The Flynn guy calls everybody stupid and/or ignorant he wants to discredit or denigrate, and you call everybody an idiot you want to discredit or denigrate. David Appell you even named a dumb ass!
This your comment proves again that you are the perfect sum of all Flynn and you think about other people.
This your comment is of the same vein as your incredibly dumb and pretentious comments about GPS, time dilation, Lorentz, Einstein etc etc.
It is even worse than your repeated lies about NOAA’s presence in the Arctic or in the Antarctic.
How is it possible not to shame about writing such ignorant nonsense?
LaP,
If I call people stupid and ignorant, it is because they have shown themselves to be stupid and ignorant (as opposed to wise and knowledgeable).
If you can show me to be wrong, based on facts, I will obviously change my views.
You cannot, of course, which makes you stupid for misrepresenting me based on your unsubstantiated opinion, and ignorant for not being able to present facts to back up your opinion.
If people choose to feel offended, denigrated, or discredited, that is their choice. Blame me for your stupidity and ignorance, if it makes you feel better. I won’t mind.
Oh-so-sad that you believe in mythical concepts like the uindescribable GHE. Why do you care what anyone thinks? I certainly don’t – why should I? Why should you?
Oh well, feel as upset as you like. You obviously choose to, otherwise you would provide a fact or two to contradict what I write. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
June 19, 2018 at 3:57 AM
If people choose to feel offended, denigrated, or discredited, that is their choice. Blame me for your stupidity and ignorance, if it makes you feel better. I wont mind.
You behave exactly as dumb as does Robertson.
If there are here two stupid and ignorant persons, then these are Robertson and… Flynn.
La Pangolina, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, please stop trolling.
Impersonator, try not to be too upset that someone had the idea to call out the real trolls on this site. And try not to be so desperate that you have to post as another commenter because you realise how effective this idea is.
LaP,
Did you ever download the continental vertical displacement data – seeing as how tide gauges are generally attached to continents?
Maybe you could use lots of brightly coloured markers and make a graph?
Mt. Everest is going up, parts of US East Coast going down – can you graph the effects on sea level for me?
Cheers.
Mike Flapper, Scientists who analyze tide gauge data to study changes in SL have included local changes in land elevation in their work for many decades. Peltier’s work on relative SL comes to mind.
E. Swanson, what other factors contribute to SLR? Are the other factors accumulative?
IOW, isn’t SLR inevitable, even with no AGW?
JDHuffman says:
IOW, isnt SLR inevitable, even with no AGW?
Why? A little bit of land subsidence in some places?
SLR was 1 meter in 5000 years before the industrial era, an average rate of 0.2 mm/yr. Now it’s it’s 17 times faster — and 20 times faster if you take into account SLR acceleration.
David Appell, land masses erode continually. The eroded material ends up at ocean depths. It adds, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.
SLR is inevitable.
JDHuffman
YOU: “David Appell, land masses erode continually. The eroded material ends up at ocean depths. It adds, year after year, decade after decade, century after century.”
A PhD candidate geophysicist has already calculated the contribution and it is quite small and has nothing to do with the current sea level rise rate.
https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-sea-rise-can-be-attributed-to-sediment-from-surface-erosion
Well, anonymous Norman, even if you go with the “estimates” and “assumptions”, you end up with millimeters. Then add in the other contributing “estimates” and “assumptions”.
And these don’t go away. They add year after year.
JDHuffman
I think you misread the ballpark calculation on the link. The final amount was nanometers not millimeters. A nanometer is one million times smaller than a millimeter.
You would get a millimeter rise in a million years. The current sea level rise seems much greater so other causes must be responsible.
I hope you realize scientists are not so foolish that such a thought did not cross their minds already. They did calculations and found the amount caused by sedimentation is far to small to account for the current level of sea level rise. They can calculate that warming of the ocean will create expansion of water comparable to what they are finding so that would be a far more likely candidate. It is a process of elimination to find a likely cause.
Anonymous Norman, I did not misread the “ballpark” calculation. It was you that wasn’t able to figure out my comment.
Over the industrial era, even if you believe the “ballpark”, the SLR would be affected by millimeters.
Then, if you add in the other factors, the result is even greater.
Zealots do not like facts that counter their beliefs, but if all of Earth’s land were leveled, sea levels would be over 1 mile above the land.
JD,
No one else here seems to care that a poster is anonymous. Why do you? Why the need to make it personal at all?
It is their choice, isn’t it? They must have their reasons, which are ultimately none of your business.
JD,
A million years to reach 1 mm, that’s negligible. That means it should be ignored. Right?
Mike Flynn
Tide guages do indeed rise and fall with the land they are attached to.
The average isostatic movement is a rise of 0.3mm/year.
As a result, global sea level rise as measured by tide guages is 0.3mm less than as measured by satallite altimetry.
I’d like someone to explain the 10 km difference between the poles and the equator and how the sea level distribution is changing as the earth rotational velocity slows. It seems to me there should be water (and land too) migrating north and south as the equatorial bulge reduces.
La P, do you have a link to CSIRO’s data? Thanks.
Everybody should be able to search for that! Here is the very first link proposed by Google:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_data_cmar.html
Your comment was about tide gauges. That link isn’t.
–The best modern proxy data for the last 10,000 years is Marcott et al 2013.–
So that is global (someone complained 80% proxies were marine).
There is this to look at:
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/were-not-screwed
Gbaikie
“someone complained 80% proxies were marine”
Earth’s surface is 70% marine.
Gbaikie
Did you notice the author of the Financial post article.
Outside the clmate change denier community Ross McKittrick is not regarded as a reliable source.
Entropic man, no one outside your cult is regarded as a reliable source.
That should tell you something.
Huffman, you do not seem to realise that exactly the same holds e.g. for your friend the Robertson genius, who discards, discredits and denigrates evrything outside his cult.
Indeed, Huffman: That should tell you something.
La Pangolina, yes, it does tell me something.
It tells me that your obsession with Robertson far supersedes any rational interpretation of relevant facts.
LaP is right.
Kierkegaard:
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to
believe what isn’t true, the other is to refuse
to accept what is true.”
JDHuffman
I do belong to a cult. We are called scientists and we follow a ritual called scientific method.
My favourite description of Ross Mckittrick is at RationalWiki.
” Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist, best known for undermining global warming denialism by advancing a series of bizarre and implausible objections to mainstream science. ”
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
His contributions include:
No Hockey stick
No such thing as average temperature
Global warming does not exist because degrees are the same as radians.
Major population centres in Antarctica.
( I dont understand the last three either. 🙂 )
Entropic man, is attacking someone that doesn’t believe as you, part of your “scientific method”?
JDHuffman
I’m attacking bad science. None of McKitricks stuff makes scientific sense.
There are sceptics like Richard Lindzen who try to make a proper scientific case for lukewarm, which puts them in a minority but within the tent. They are regarded as mistaken by the consensus, but have earned respect.
McKitrick is outside the tent, pissing in the dark. He writes bullshit with no valid scientific basis and attracts somewhere between pity and contempt from climate professionals.
Incidentally, are you related to H D Huffman? He wrote a hypothesis to explain the temperature on Venus without GHGs. Unfortunately it violated the 1st law.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
No relation, but it’s interesting that you are researching me.
Maybe that’s why you can’t use your real name. Too much to hide?
There is no hockey stick. Average temperature is an ill-defined quantity. The rest are no doubt intentionally garbled to poison the well.
This is just a red herring argument, specifically, your fallacy is: argumentum ad hominem.
–Incidentally, are you related to H D Huffman? He wrote a hypothesis to explain the temperature on Venus without GHGs. Unfortunately it violated the 1st law.
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
—
Why do you think it violates 1st law?
I think sunlight warms Venus clouds and the sun heated clouds warm the air. Do you think that violates 1st law, also?
JDHumffman, Gbaskie
Just curious. The name was familiar and AGW denial tends to run in families. Witness the Idsos and the Pielkes.
It is not unusual for scientists to use a nom-de-plume when commenting on threads like this one. It separates their unofficial comments from their official statements.
I use a nom-de-plume because my children asked me to. They became embarrassed when a Google search revealed my secret identity as “Speaker to Weirdos”.
Why does Huffman violate the 1st law?
Venus receives solar insolation of 2601W/M^2. With an albedo of 0.77 Venus reflects 2002W/M^2 and absorbs 599W/M^2.
To make his maths work Huffman assumes that all 2601W/M^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere. This is creating energy from nowhere, which is a 1st law violation.
Entropic man, since you’re seeing 1LoT violations, see if you can find same with your “standard forcing equation”.
Bart says:
“Average temperature is an ill-defined quantity.”
= (1/A)*[surface integral over the surface]T(r dA
where A = area and T is temperature.
Harry D Huffman’s results came from setting planetary albedos to zero. Pure junk.
Why does Huffman violate the 1st law?
Venus receives solar insolation of 2601W/M^2. With an albedo of 0.77 Venus reflects 2002W/M^2 and absorbs 599W/M^2.
To make his maths work Huffman assumes that all 2601W/M^2 is absorbed by the atmosphere. This is creating energy from nowhere, which is a 1st law violation.
From what he says, he allows for reflection.
Things that reflect can get quite hot in space, but stuff that reflects, don’t absorb as much energy.
Anyway, it is assumed the clouds [of Venus] reflect most of the sunlight.
What if the clouds didn’t exist, what effect do you think that would have on Venus temperature?
Or slightly different question, how much would Venus atmosphere reflect without having any clouds?
“best known for undermining global warming denialism ”
What if he was “best known for undermining global warming beliefs?”
David Appell @ June 20, 2018 at 3:43 PM
What, physically, does it mean? Temperature is an intensive quantity.
Average Temperature of near-surface air. Why is it hard?
Because it’s not particularly physically useful. Temperature is an intensive quantity. It does not tell you how much energy there is unless coupled with heat capacity of the environment in which it is measured. So, when you average temperatures of environments with different heat capacities, you cannot connect it directly to the store of energy.
It’s like averaging the number of crates of apples you have, regardless of the size of the individual crates. It can’t tell you, on that basis alone, how many apples you have.
‘Not useful’
It is useful if you care about temperature where humans live. (air has same heat capacity worldwide…with some variation due to rel humidity).
Maybe more useful to look at average global enthalpy of near surface air.
If you care about energy increase, ok, OHC contains by far most of it, and is being measured. It shows a strong upward trend, and can be used to test models.
“It shows a strong upward trend, and can be used to test models.”
And, even if one entertains the conjecture that it is possible for LW radiation to produce heating of the skin layer that then mixes with deeper waters, it would be far, far, far less powerful a heating force than SW radiation, completely in the noise. It’s ridiculous, really.
Moreover, the heating is on the order of 100ths of degrees, due to the much greater heat capacity of the oceans, and you can’t heat the air by 10ths, much less ones, of degrees with a body that has only heated by 100ths.
Dr. Spencer has shown it is possible experimentally to thermometrically detect an increase in the temperature of a tub of surface temperature equilibrated water at ~6″ depth from increased LW night time radiation from added cirrus over tub of water that is not in the cirrus view.
As I recall a few tenths of a degreeF in accord with his heat capacity calculations and using the LW IR load measured from a reasonably nearby NOAA ESRL station. Search on: roy spencer experiment
I cannot find your reference. However, I hardly think such a crude experiment, without complete isolation from other sources of heating, is dispositive.
It simply beggars belief. LW at CO2 wavelengths does not penetrate hardly at all. I mean, we’re talking microns if that, with almost immediate release via evaporation.
SW, on the other hand, penetrates much farther, and there has been a marked uptick in solar activity within the past half century.
http://i68.tinypic.com/2z850s4.jpg
Dr. Spencer builds a surface night time high cirrus cloud detector:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/
Experiment is better learned from than assertions like:
“LW at CO2 wavelengths does not penetrate hardly at all. I mean, we’re talking microns if that, with almost immediate release via evaporation.”
Of course, there are more than just CO2 wavelengths from the added cirrus atm. column incident on the one water tub.
“Experiment is better learned from than assertions…”
Right, and demonstrations of perpetual motion are better than clinging to some capricious dogma like conservation of energy.
“Of course, there are more than just CO2 wavelengths from the added cirrus atm. column incident on the one water tub.”
And, the tub is subject to influences from all sides. As I said, crude, and not at all dispositive.
“the tub is subject to influences from all sides.”
The tubs are double insulated on all sides save the top water in view of the sky. Would you think triple or quadruple insulation would change the result? Not me but only way I’d be convinced is to try it.
A) sytrofoam is a good insulator, but not a great one.
B)… save the top water… is rather a substantial weakness. Different interface to the air means different heat dissipation characteristics via convection.
Pro tip: if a result appears too good to be true, it probably is. That is why sanity checks are so important.
Does it make sense that radiation that can’t even penetrate a micron is going to make a substantial heat difference? No, it does not. The experiment needs better controls.
‘Does it make sense that radiation that cant even penetrate a micron is going to make a substantial heat difference? No, it does not. The experiment needs better controls.’
Uggh , this has been debunked here a number of times.
1. 1st law. Where did the energy absorbed in the first micron go? Disappeared?
2. Any of you can try the experiment at home, that I did, or the one Roy did. Water can be heated by pointing a ceramic IR heater down at the surface of a bowl of water. One can even block convection with a layer of saran wrap. Either way, it works fine.
3. In the ocean there is lots of mixing of surface water.
4. In most cases the NET flow of IR is from the ocean surface to the atmosphere or space. The DWLWR is simply reducing this NET.
‘Moreover, the heating is on the order of 100ths of degrees, due to the much greater heat capacity of the oceans, and you cant heat the air by 10ths, much less ones, of degrees with a body that has only heated by 100ths.’
You are cherry picking the temps of the lower ocean depths. Near the surface we are talking ~ 1 C. It naturally decreases going deeper. The measurements are integrating the total energy, and it is increasing, as expected.
“Does it make sense that radiation that can’t even penetrate a micron is going to make a substantial heat difference?”
Yes it does make 1LOT sense. You are such a naysayer, geez.
The added radiation is absorbed by the water in the tub, doesn’t matter the exact depth, with the water free to evaporate given the surface conditions. Simple calculations show the measured amount of temperature change at depth due the resonably nearby measured incident radiation variation is in accord with basic theory.
If you think the double styrofoam going to more layers, or different insulation, or something else is important, prove it by test not assertion. Informed, critical readers will not believe you have any kind of point until you do so.
This is such a ridiculous discussion. The things people will believe…
Uncontrolled experiments with non-representative excitations and many unquantified extraneous inputs on scales many orders of magnitude less than that of the system they are meant to mimic prove precisely diddly squat, guys.
Simple inspection shows you are wrong Bart, this is obviously a controlled experiment with not only representative excitations but the very excitation of interest and sufficiently minimized unquantified extraneous inputs on the same exact scale of interest as the system of interest to prove the science & even accompanied by calculations supporting the results.
Yours is such a ridiculous discussion Bart. The things people will deny…
‘This is such a ridiculous discussion. The things people will believe’
Bart, you made the assertion. We and science disagree, and cite theory and experiment.
You cite neither, and wildly wave hands about.
We await your evidence or experiments.
Pro tip: if a result appears to disprove his assertions, Bart will find a flimsy excuse to blow it off.
Usually with this technique: https://giphy.com/explore/wacky-waving-inflatable-arm-flailing-tube-man
What is your excuse for each of my points 1-4 above, Bart?
Let me add a #5.
5. If you point an IR thermometer at the surface of warm water, it will accurately measure its temp. Try it at home, please.
What does this mean? It means that water is a good black body radiator in IR, emissivity ~ 1, which is well known.
It means water can effectively exchange heat to another object via radiation.
It means the rad. heat transfer eqn applies to ocean surface.
It means radiative heat flow from the ocean DEPENDS on the temperature of the ocean surface and the temperature of the lower atmosphere.
QED
BTW, you guys are constantly saying stuff like
‘LW at CO2 wavelengths does not penetrate hardly at all. I mean, were talking microns if that”
Let’s put that to bed once and for all:
The HEAT penetrates via just conduction much more than microns.
Heat applied to the surface of water will penetrate this far in time t:
https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/heat-penetration-calculator#|timeinput_60
t = 1 minute, 6 millimeters
t = 1 hour, 45 millimeters
t = 6 hours, 111 millimeters
“…this is obviously a controlled experiment with not only representative excitations but the very excitation of interest…”
No, it isn’t. The interface with the convective environment at the top is a major uncontrolled variable. The styrofoam is permeable over the hours-long timeline. The materials are not uniform, the sensors are not calibrated. There are dozens of uncontrolled aspects.
“The HEAT penetrates via just conduction much more than microns.”
Conduction is very weak, and evaporation carries much of the heat away before it can penetrate. There is no chance whatsoever that LW radiation on the water has greater impact than the SW radiation that penetrates deeply. And, SW radiation on the oceans has been increasing significantly over the past half century or so.
http://i68.tinypic.com/2z850s4.jpg
The interface with the convective environment at the top is every much the same as any calm night over water.
The styrofoam is twice the amount which keeps ice frozen over similar nights and beverages cold as any camper knows.
The materials are as uniform as ever occurs in nature.
The sensors were well calibrated.
There are dozens of aspects similar to every natural backyard such as this one.
Conduction is operating normally, and evaporation causes some enthalpy change at the top and some of the enthalpy change can penetrate several inches deep as shown by the recorded temperature log overnight.
Sure SW has greater effect than LW on water of this depth as SW has more power per m^2 per sr and that would be shown in the T log if the experiment was allowed to run through dawn to say hi noon.
Bart,
‘Conduction is very weak and evaporation carries much of the heat away before it can penetrate’
Quadrupling down?
‘Weak’ means what? ‘Much of’ means what? 60%? 20%? 5%? How do you know?
Heat clearly is able to penetrate quickly via conduction to depths of ~ cm. It is a quantitative fact, an experimental fact. Heat having penetrated a cm is no longer causing much evaporation.
And that is neglecting the mixing effect of wind and waves.
C’mon Bart, sometimes you just have to let it go, learn, and move on.
“The interface with the convective environment at the top is every much the same as any calm night over water.”
It is different for different coverings.
“The styrofoam is twice the amount which keeps ice frozen over similar nights and beverages cold as any camper knows.”
Most campers know the ice will melt substantially within a few hours.
“Weak means what?”
It means it penetrates with diminishing impact with depth. With a material with poor heat conduction like water, it diminishes rapidly.
It is a flea compared to the SW elephant. It is ridiculous to suggest LW has greater impact. Not even remotely in the realm of the possible.
“ice will melt substantially within a few hours.”
Substantially? Few? And Bart is the commenter with “the sensors are not calibrated.”
Bart is clutching at straws, has not established his asserted counterpoints with experiment, Dr. Spencer’s experimental results & calculations still stand despite Bart’s “pro” efforts to suggest it is not reality.
‘It means it penetrates with diminishing impact with depth. With a material with poor heat conduction like water, it diminishes rapidly.’
You do not seem to understand what a quantitative argument is and why it is important in science. You keep making qualitative, hand-waving, unsupported statements. Unpersuasive.
“It is a flea compared to the SW elephant. It is ridiculous to suggest LW has greater impact. Not even remotely in the realm of the possible.”
Again no numbers, just assertion, nothing to support it.
This is like arguing with the fanatics on the other side that R.W. Wood’s crude experiments do not falsify the GHE. You desperately want it to be true, so you cling to any tenuous rationale that it might be true.
C’mon, guys. LW radiation in the CO2 band is not heating the deep oceans. Deal with it.
‘C’mon, guys. LW radiation in the CO2 band is not heating the deep oceans. Deal with it.’
Ahh, the time-tested denier technique. Can’t prove your point, just say it more emphatically!
Bart, you seem quite determined to wreck your credibility as an intelligent poster.
‘ It is ridiculous to suggest LW has greater impact. Not even remotely in the realm of the possible.’
Look, the point is SW is always a NET input, and LW is most often a NET output.
With AGW, the LW output (and convective) are simply reduced a tiny bit.
So I don’t really know what your problem is.
“..any tenuous rationale..”
Experimental data on the actual atm. is not a “tenuous” rationale Bart, the evidence is solid.
Added icy cirrus LW at night is shown to affect the temperature thus cooling rate of ambient surface water free to evaporate at last on the order several inches deep in accord with calculation. Deal with it.
“Look, the point is SW is always a NET input…”
By that, I suppose you mean net zero, i.e., constant. It isn’t.
http://i68.tinypic.com/2z850s4.jpg
Your fallacies are: argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad hominem.
If only you were as good about disproving claimed fallacies as you are at labeling them.
Did you notice the author of the Financial post article.
Nope. but good to know.
“Outside the climate change denier community Ross McKittrick is not regarded as a reliable source.”
Ross was involved with a Congressional investigation of “hockey stick” and I read some of his stuff, but I don’t know much about him.
Do you know what the meaning of reliable source, means?
I would say he is not someone you want to listen to, if you want to cling to beliefs.
re Antarctica….
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/antarctic-ice-flow-and-arctic-sea-ice/3401828
From Duncan Wingham…polar expert….
“Duncan Wingham: It’s extraordinary, this idea that Antarctica is melting. I think it is in the popular press and in the popular mind, and so when you point out something that is true, namely it’s too cold in Antarctica for the ice to melt, everyone is rather surprised, but it is just a fact. The most northerly part of Antarctica, the tip of the peninsula, is unusual in that it is far to the north of most of the continent and the temperatures do actually reach the melting point in summer in the peninsula. For the most part Antarctica is just too cold.
So what actually happens is it breaks off, literally, into large icebergs which then float around in the Southern Ocean where they do indeed melt. Before 1992 there were no satellite data and as a matter of fact we knew very little about what the Antarctic ice sheet….”
The ice isn’t melting where it’s too cold to melt, it’s melting where it isn’t.
“While West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula has been losing ice for a long time, East Antarctica has experienced a mix of ice gain and loss, which some has cited as a reason not to worry about global warming. The latest study emphasizes that the variations in East Antarctica are not nearly enough to make up for the rapid loss throughout the rest of the continent.”
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a21577520/antarctica-melting-way-faster-anyone-expected/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/08/14/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-lying-beneath-antarctic-ice-sheet/#7eb7044824d1
Did you read your own link?
“It does not appear any of the volcanoes are to blame for the recent melting of ice sheets in Antarctica.”
but
“A concern among scientists is the potential impact these volcanoes could have on further melting and destabilizing the Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
Boilerplate disclaimer. You have to issue one, or you don’t get published.
boiler plate?
You guys are being illogical.
Discovery of buried-in-ice volcanoes in a remote location.
Buried deep in ice that has been there for eons, implies old and not very active.
The act of discovering them does not make them become active.
Bart thinks that quoting what the researchers is “boilerplate.”
Bart doesn’t know what “boilerplate” means.
“Buried deep in ice that has been there for eons, implies old and not very active.”
Non sequitur.
“Bart doesnt know what boilerplate means.”
I suggest you look it up.
‘Buried deep in ice that has been there for eons, implies old and not very active.
Non sequitur. ”
If it doesnt follow if you are either plain dumb, or being willfully ignorant. I assume the latter.
It does not follow. It implies nothing of the sort. It simply implies nominal balance has been struck between activity and freeze state.
You have a habit of leaping beyond the evidence to your preferred interpretation. Science is hard precisely because human intuition has proven so unreliable as a basis for understanding complex phenomena.
‘ It simply implies nominal balance has been struck between activity and freeze state.’
Hmmm. Would that be possible with a ‘very active’ volcano?
What does ‘very active’ mean to you?
To me, very active is Kilauea, or I’ll give you Iceland with its hot lakes.
You are being ridiculously nitpicky.
In another discussion here, a paper reported measurements near a Antarctic volcano heat flux of 200 mW/m^2. Thats milliWatts!
Not remotely close to a Kilauea or Iceland.
‘You have a habit of leaping beyond the evidence to your preferred interpretation.’
Possibly.
But you have a habit of leaping to conspiracies, to explain disagreeable results.
Case in point ‘Boilerplate’
From the study –
“We find large variations in and among model estimates of surface mass balance and glacial isostatic adjustment for East Antarctica, with its average rate of mass gain over the period 19922017 (5 46 billion tonnes per year) being the least certain.”
Modelled? They don’t fancy the gaining result, so it gets ignored
Best climatological practice – if you don’t like the result, just discard it!
Even imaginary model results!
Cheers.
Anyone want to bet a simple bet for fun.
What will the Temp be for June 18 from the May 18 value of 0.18C?
I guess up to 0.23C. My guess is based on La Nina patterns plus a lag, but the amount is really just a guess because data noise is often greater than monthly values.
good guess, then I’ll take 0.24
A somewhat interesting comparison:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/thermal_expansion_ocean_heat_timeseries.html
Lastly, and possibly most damning, is that the Hockey Stick suffers from extreme heteroscedasticity. The distal variation is much higher than the proximal variation. In the year 1,000 temperature variation ranges from -0.8 to +0.4, in the year 1902 temperature variation ranges from -0.8 to -0.2, and then post 1902 the behavior totally changes with the introduction of instrumental data. Remember, there is nothing about the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule or GHG effect that would explain a temperature dog-leg of accelerating temperatures. (Click Here) Why this is so damning is that the extreme variation identified in the Hockey Stick occurred with extremely stable CO2 levels. CO2 levels between the year 1,000 and 1902 ranged between 275 and 285 ppm. CO2 simply cant explain the extreme variation of the past 1,000 years. CO2 was essentially a constant, yet temperatures variations were much higher than today. Temperature variation around the year 1350 had a range between +0.5 to -1.0. If you substitute data that has been controlled for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O, temperatures post-1920 are stable, even though CO2 has increased over 30%. If Michael Mann understood his own chart he would understand that it does far more to rule out CO2 as the cause of warming, than it implicates CO2.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/the-winning-strategy-to-defeating-climate-sophist-michael-mann/
Exactly CO2 IS LIFE.
If CO2 is life, why isn’t there any life on Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% CO2?
That’s like telling a person in the desert dying of thirst that it would be too dangerous to give them water because they might drown. As I recall, Venus has 230,000 times as much CO2 as we have on Earth. Yet, we are fretting that we might see 2x what the pre-industrial level was (around 275 ppm). It has been estimated that during the glacials, plant life was very stressed at 200 ppm or below. We are seeing global greening as life is now breathing more freely with more CO2.
Your use of Venus as an example is disingenuous. On Earth, CO2 is indeed necessary for life, and there is abundant evidence that more has been, on the whole, better.
I agree!
That was the point, Roy — CO2 also makes the world warmer. The “CO2 is life” people never mention that.
You can’t just say CO2 is good for plants without also considering that it increases temperatures and changes precipitation patterns. Or without considering that warmer temperatures increase the prevalence of many diseases, weeds and insects. Or that the nutritional content of plants decreases.
“Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any supposed positives.” Smith et al. PNAS (2009), http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf
And the 200 ppm argument is a canard. A lack of anthropogenic CO2 would not have atmospheric CO2 now at that level. Even 350.org argues for 350 ppm, not 280 ppm let alone 200 ppm.
CO2 also makes the world warmer.
Yes but this is not even necessarily detrimental to life on Earth. It’s all a matter of how much and we don’t know for sure, yet. Science cannot tell.
And there is also no science that shows that 280 ppm of CO2 might be an optimum in any respect.
So I find the catastrophist rant on one side of the fence as absurd as the denial of the CO2 GHE on the other side of the fence.
And, yes, IMO one cannot rule out that warming eventually turns out to be catastrophic but it is actually vain to invoke a precautionary principle. Simply because it is a delusion to believe that we are even remotely in a position to really take action and curb rapidly the CO2 emissions. This is technically not yet possible at appropriate scale anyway.
Roy,
Or like saying “If drinking as much water as we can is good for us, why not just live under water.”
David Appell, do you have any of your own research or more than two sentences of your own thoughts that shows an increase in CO2 causes warming?
Idiot tracker says:
CO2 also makes the world warmer.
Yes but this is not even necessarily detrimental to life on Earth.
There have been extinctions when climate changed too much too fast. Sometimes an entire “extinction event.”
So I find the catastrophist rant on one side of the fence as absurd as the denial of the CO2 GHE on the other side of the fence.
I’ve never argued there will be a catastrophe. It’s not a scientific term. Why don’t you define it first?
Chic Bowdrie says:
“….do you have any of your own research or more than two sentences of your own thoughts that shows an increase in CO2 causes warming?”
It’s a scientific fact the CO2 causes warming. Why don’t you go read some papers that established that fact, and a few textbooks, then get back to me when you do.
D, PLEASE stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team, PLEASE stop trolling.
Impersonator, stop being so lazy. Get your own idea.
Remember, there is nothing about the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule or GHG effect that would explain a temperature dog-leg of accelerating temperatures.
Actually it’s very easy to derive a hockey stick from very basic physics and some algebra:
1) temperature change is proportional to change in radiative forcing
2) RF is proportional to log(CO2)
3) CO2 was flat before about 1850, has been increasing exponentially since.
This implies temperatures should have been flat before 1850, and increasing linearly after 1850, viz a hockey stick.
CO2 has not increased exponentially. It has, at most, been quadratic in the modern era. Moreover, concentration has not tracked emissions. The rate of change has, however, tracked temperature anomaly.
“The rate of change has, however, tracked temperature anomaly.”
Not even close to true. Just look at satellite data, Dr. Chrisy’s Chart, or any data set controlled for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O. Temperatures clearly trace ocean cycles and CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans, visible radiation does.
Oh yes, it is a remarkably good fit:
https://tinyurl.com/ycvd2k9o
I think you have misunderstood, though. As it is a rate of change relationship, the arrow of causality is temperature to CO2, not CO2 to temperature.
It’s not at all clear that temperature is leading C-dot:
https://tinyurl.com/yblzp4zz
And here we see again how nonsensical these little WFT games can be:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1958/derivative/plot/gistemp/scale:0.27/offset:0.05/from:1958
GISS LOTI and CO2 perfectly match on many peaks (around 1973, 1987, 1998, 2016), and that means… NOTHING.
There can’t be imho any computable match between temperatures and CO2 concentration within short periods, as it mainly depends on how much the oceans accept CO2 intake during these periods.
And WFT always seems out of date. Its data source for UAH LT points to v5.6, not the latest v6. (There are some big differences.)
UAH NSSTC Lower troposphere temperature
Source: UAH National Space Science and Technology Center
Data URL: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/
Reference: John Christy, NSSTC, University of Alabama in Huntsville (formal reference unknown)
“There cant be imho any computable match between temperatures and CO2 concentration within short periods…”
This is CO2 rate of change, and there is a really good match.
“Its data source for UAH LT points to v5.6, not the latest v6.”
Both are available. Look farther down the pull tab.
David Appell says:
June 19, 2018 at 6:14 PM
And WFT always seems out of date. Its data source for UAH LT points to v5.6, not the latest v6. (There are some big differences.)
How could anybody trust in what a person says and writes when this person has such a superficial view on things that s/he isn’t even able to detect such trivial matter?
What a quark soap indeed!
Why don’t you explain how you manufacture the fit, Bart, and see if others agree with your approach to the analysis?
It’s plainly obvious. I use the WFT site to get the data. I numerically differentiate the CO2 data and then average it over 12 months to eliminate the yearly cycle. I add an offset for the arbitrary temperature anomaly baseline, and then I scale the data to account for the different units, and they lay right on top of each other.
Effectively, since the baseline is arbitrary, it is a single parameter fit using a simple scaling factor.
La Pangolina: To whom is your comment referring? He’s wrong. v6 is available, and that is what I used.
Why not look at the record back to 1959? Thats what most people would do.
Why not average T over 12 mo as well, to be fair. Thats what most people would do. But it no longer fits.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/from:1958/derivative/plot/gistemp/mean:12/scale:0.6/from:1958
Bart says:
Its plainly obvious.
Petitio principii. It’s obvious — on this graph, there are several points where CO2 peaks before temperature.
https://tinyurl.com/yblzp4zz
Nate –
“Why not look at the record back to 1959? Thats what most people would do.”
Because we do not have good temperature records that far back. However, there are solid indications that the relationship has held at least that long:
https://tinyurl.com/l4r6ex7
“Why not average T over 12 mo as well, to be fair.”
Your neurosis regarding how you think the data should behave in no way negates the fact that there is an excellent match here:
https://tinyurl.com/ycvd2k9o
David –
It’s plainly obvious how I produced the fit, which was the question asked, so no, sorry, no fallacy here.
As to the other, these are not deterministic data, and your criticism is fatuous.
in this graph you made another adjustment of 12 to 24 mo. average in order to achieve a ‘fit’.
Why do you need make that adjustment? How do you explain it?
When I make logical choices for parameters (same filter cutoff), I get no fit at all.
A second parameter is clearly needed to be adjusted, filter cutoff.
So its clearly not what you you said prior ‘it is a single parameter fit using a simple scaling factor.’
Its just a house of cards.
“Why do you need make that adjustment? How do you explain it?”
The data are lower quality compared to the satellite data, and require more smoothing.
“When I make logical choices for parameters (same filter cutoff)…”
That’s not a “logical” choice. That is you impressing your own biases upon the data. It is ignoring the fact that one is a spatially fixed point measurement, while the other is an average over the entire globe.
The relationship is what it is, and it is powerful and compelling. Figuring out why the relationship exists in the form it does is what science is all about.
‘The data are lower quality compared to the satellite data, and require more smoothing.’
Obviously you just adjusted the filter until it looked like a fit to you. Now after the fact you make up BS (quality?) to justify it.
That is nothing more than a second adjustable parameter. You are lying.
The data, prior to your two year smoothing clearly does not have the frequency-independent relationship you desire.
What to do? Filter to manufacture a fake frequency-independent relationship.
It is just bleeding obvious
“The relationship is what it is, and it is powerful and compelling.”
Only to willfully ignorant people looking only for confirmation of their beliefs.
You are clutching at straws.
Bart says:
“CO2 has not increased exponentially. It has, at most, been quadratic in the modern era.”
As usual, no analysis to back up your claim.
CO2 has risen exponentially because the economy rises exponentially.
Moreover, concentration has not tracked emissions.
CO2 has certainly risen with emissions. It doesn’t duplicate it because the carbon cycle also responds to natural variations.
The rate of change has, however, tracked temperature anomaly.
Define “tracked.”
This shows C-dot peaks coming both before and after temperature peaks.
https://tinyurl.com/yblzp4zz
If dT caused C-dot, annual C-dot wouldn’t peak in May while annual temperatures peak months later.
“It doesnt duplicate it because the carbon cycle also responds to natural variations. “
No, it doesn’t duplicate it because it isn’t significantly dependent upon it.
“This shows C-dot peaks coming both before and after temperature peaks.”
Amazing how many people think we’re dealing with a deterministic system here.
“If dT caused C-dot, annual C-dot wouldnt peak in May while annual temperatures peak months later.”
Temperature anomaly has no annual peak.
Bart repeats his logical errors over and over again.
False dicotomy-
All variation in CO2 must be explained by emissions, else no variation can be explained by them.
‘Temperature anomaly has no annual peak.’
Earths spatially averaged temp oscillates on an annual basis, with a peak in July.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
CO2 der. reaches a minimum in July, clearly anticorrelated with Earth temp.
Makes sense, the maximum in NH biosphere growth then.
Throws a monkey-wrench into the all one mechanism theory.
Your fallacies are: straw man, ignoratio elenchi.
BS, every legitimate counterfactual you label a strawman.
Bart says:
Amazing how many people think were dealing with a deterministic system here.
Hilarious. You make a claim, and then as soon as it’s challenged you say, oops, I didn’t mean THAT.
Temperature anomaly has no annual peak.
For what physical reason would the C-dot be proportional to the temperature anomaly but not the temperature?
“…counterfactual …”
That word does not mean what you think it means.
“You make a claim, and then as soon as it’s challenged you say, oops, I didn’t mean THAT.”
It appears you are not very familiar with stochastic systems.
“For what physical reason would the C-dot be proportional to the temperature anomaly but not the temperature?”
Because it would be sensitive to departure from normal conditions which had brought it to its present state. Surely, you have done perturbation analysis at some point in your technical career?
It should be apparent that CO2 varies naturally for at least three reasons, the seasonal cycle, for which it is anticorrelated to temp., to ENSO for which it is correlated to central pacific temp, and to global temp, which it is correlated as seen during ice ages.
This makes perfect sense for a complex system with several carbon sources and sinks.
Do you still want to assert that there must be singular mechanism?
I’ve never asserted a singular mechanism, just a dominant one. And no, I do not see any of your reasons as compelling when I can look at the plot, and see the series lying virtually right on top of each other in affine similarity.
“Americans ‘under siege’ from climate disinformation – former Nasa chief scientist
Thirty years after a former Nasa scientist sounded the alarm for the general public about climate change and human activity, the expert issued a fresh warning that the world is failing “miserably” to deal with the worsening dangers. While Donald Trump and many conservatives like to argue that climate change is a hoax, James Hansen, the 77-year-old former Nasa climate scientist, said in an interview at his home in New York that the relevant hoax today is perpetrated by those leaders claiming to be addressing the problem. Hansen provided what’s considered the first warning to a mass audience about global warming when, in 1988, he told a US congressional hearing he could declare “with 99% confidence” that a recent sharp rise in temperatures was a result of human activity.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/19/james-hansen-nasa-scientist-climate-change-warning
Was that the meeting where Hansen “adjusted” the room thermostat. to make the room warmer?
That wasn’t Hansen, but (allegedly) Congressional staffers. Or is it an urban myth?
PS: NO.AA data shows 0.54 C of warming since Hansen’s testimony.
And, Hansen’s net worth has risen to multi-millions.
It has? What’s your source for that?
Nowadays, it is not unusual for retirees to be worth over a million dollars.
Hansen deserves at least 2 million given his accomplishments.
He shared $25M with Veerabhadran Ramanathan just recently. He’s been cleaning up.
Trump may be correct about the News. Sad! I looked up the Net worth of James Hansen and 3 sights gave wildly different results.
Low was $300,000 up to $8 million. Too much variation to be good news.
Here are the three sites:
https://celebritynetworthwiki.org/richest-celebrities/james-hansen-net-worth/
https://net-worths.com/net-worth/james-hansen-net-worth-6/
https://networthpost.org/net-worth/james-hansen-net-worth/
And this matters why??
Hansen’s science stands on its own merits-ad homs are irrelevant.
You guys are the ones all into conspiracy theories about climate skeptics being in the pay of some evil entity, usually the oil companies or the Koch brothers. There are allegations floating about that Dr. Spencer, in accepting travel reimbursement of some piddling amount for speaking at some conference or other, is doing the bidding of his paymasters.
Well, Hansen’s making real money. Real BIG money. So, why aren’t the money-is-the-root-of-all-evil crowd going after him?
We all know why.
a. Does he not have the right to be rich? Weird.
b. If you think he’s done by sketchy means-shows us the evidence.
c. If so, so what?
Isaac Newton was a dick and played dirty. So what? His work stands on its own.
$8,000 isn’t “piddling,” and it’s a lot more than travel expenses.
But I don’t have a big problem with it.
Bart says:
Well, Hansens making real money. Real BIG money.
You still haven’t said how much.
Or the source for your claim.
Nate – I will remember you said so the next time you try to impugn the integrity of a skeptical scientist.
David – Wikipedia lists several of his honoraria, including the $25M Tang Foundation prize to which I referred. And, 8000/12,500,000 = 0.064%. Please. I don’t think it was $8K either, more like < $2K.
25 million!!
Bart, the Tang Prize is US$1.34M, with a research grant of US$0.33M.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Prize#Laureates
OK so, the entry was:
“In June 2018, Hansen was named joint winner, with Veerabhadran Ramanathan, of Taiwan’s Tang Prize Foundation prize. Hansen’s prize had a total value of NT$25 million.”
I missed the “NT”. Current exchange rate is 30.33, so that is $0.82M.
A million here, a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
Bart says:
A million here, a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
Where is the second million, and the third, and….?
Bart says:
I missed the NT.
I hope you’re not an accountant!
Hawking was a theoretician. The Physics Nobel committee tends NOT to award prizes to theories as theories can be proven wrong a few years later. Experiments, well done with good statistics, are most often awarded the prizes. Einstein didnt get a Nobel for the relativity theories, but only for a theory explaining the photoemission of electrons experiment.
So your one example is someone getting a Nobel Prize for theory.
Also Kip Thorne, David Gross, Frank Wilczek, and David Politzer, Gerald ‘t Hooft, Martinus Veltman, Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, Salem, Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga, Thouless, Haldane and Kosterlitz, Eglert and Higgs, Nambu, Glauber, Abrikosov, Ginzburg and Leggett, and more.
By my count 7.5 of the NPs in Physics since 2000 went to theorists.
Kip Thorne was awarded when gravitational waves were confirmed. Higgs received the award in 2013, after the Higgs boson was detected in 2012.
Some of the others could be argued to be purely theoretical, but I don’t think your list really negates RJ’s point.
He wrote, “…as theories can be proven wrong a few years later.”
That’s not been true for any Nobel Prize winning theorist, who are not as rare as he claimed.
He said “tends”, and he is right. The Nobel committee, at least for the serious prizes, does not like to take chances, as they shouldn’t. Those pure theorists who have won have generally been of the sort who solved various mathematical or physical dilemmas that bedeviled already successful theories, so can essentially be considered already successful on that basis.
No, it doesn’t “tend” for theorists who won the Nobel Prize. Their work hasn’t gotten corrected later on.
One More Post for your Nobel Prize Winning Friend
Michael Manns Hockey Stick Rules out CO2 as Cause of Global Warming
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/19/michael-manns-hockey-stick-rules-out-co2-as-cause-of-global-warming/
Sure, sure.
Nobel Prize laureates do not read non peer reviewed blather.
Actually I’ve read several of his rants/posts, and pointed out their errors. They are basic and copious. Too many and too wrong to ever need to read him again or take anything he says seriously.
I’ve never heard of a Physicist refer to peer review. They refer to experimentation and reproducibility. When you have neither, you argue consensus and peer review. You can’t fake an experiment, you can easily rig Peer Review. Glad to hear you support the anti-science of science by authority. I’m still trying to figure out how to reject a peer review or consensus. They never taught that in science classes I’ve taken.
Peer review doesn’t mean a paper is right — it means it’s not obviously wrong, it acknowledges relevant previous work, and it adheres to basic scholarly standards.
I dare you to submit your claims to a good, peer reviewed journal.
That might be interesting. I encourage anyone needing a paper to publish, feel free to borrow any of the arguments detailed on the CO2isLife website. I’d love to see why they reject the criticism of the Hockeystick. Nothing on CO2isLife is original work, I simply connect the dots and review the science.
I told you twice why I rejected your criticism of the hockey stick: it has nothing to do with climate drivers, it’s simply a reconstruction of past temperatures. It doesn’t find or attribute any cause to the temperature changes.
Right?
“Right?”
Not right, at least in the original HS paper since possible forcings of the shape were discussed. Less than a minute of research found from MBH98:
“Attribution of climate forcings”
“We take an empirical approach to detecting the possible effects of external forcings on the climate. The reconstructed NH series is taken as a diagnostic of the global climate, and we examine its relationship with three candidate external forcings during the period 16101995 including (1) CO2 measurements as a proxy for total greenhouse-gas changes,(2) reconstructed solar irradiance variations and (3) the weighted historical ‘dust veilindex’ (DVI) of explosive volcanism (see Fig. 31.1 in ref. 40) updated with recent data.”
But that analysis is independent of and in addition to the hockey stick itself. The hockey stick is a reconstruction of temperatures, regardless of the cause.
Of course, anyone is going to attribute its blade to, mostly, CO2.
CO2, why wouldn’t you write up your own brilliant arguments and submit them to a journal yourself? No confidence?
CO2, here’s a good example of where you’re wrong; up above you wrote:
Forensic Science; Why Michael Mann Chose Only the Past 1000 Years to Reconstruct
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/15/forensic-science-why-michael-mann-chose-only-the-past-1000-years-to-reconstruct/
but you don’t know the research:
Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global surface temperature over the past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (15), 1820, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003
DAVID questions you will have to answer.
As overall sea surface temperatures keep falling what do you think the global temperatures are going to be doing going forward?
As overall sea surface temperatures keep falling what do you think the reason could be?
Why is not the CO2 effect keeping the sea surface temperatures from falling?
That is what you and all that support AGW may have to come to terms with.
Good Luck you will need it.
Answers:
SSTs won’t keep falling.
CO2 doesn’t make natural variations disappear — they still exist. Short-term trends are a combination of both.
Columbia’s IRI is predicting a 65% chance of a moderate El Nino this (northern hemisphere) winter.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
What does EL NINO have to do AGW?
I thought ENSO was a natural climatic factor.
How come AGW has to hi jack naturally occurring climatic factors to prop itself up?
What does La Nina have to do with AGW. Yet the relatively cold waters of the two back-to-back La Ninas have had you proclaiming AGW is dead every month now.
I have never said that.
What I have said is overall sea surface temperatures cooling will result in the climate cooling.
It might cool slightly until the SSTs increase again. Warming has been the dominant trend for decades, despite some downward SST variations that invariably fool people like you.
Salvatore,
The CO2 warming theory is just that the added CO2 should cause some push of the climate in the warming direction. That’s about it. It doesn’t mean the climate must warm. In fact, it doesn’t even mean the net anthropogenic influence is warming.
So CO2 pushes the climate towards warmer, but doesn’t cause warming. Sure.
How’s this David, a little clearer, more specific for ya’?
So CO2 pushes the climate towards increasing global mean lower atm. thermometer temperatures, but global mean lower atm. brightness temperatures don’t always increase month to month in UAH TLT series as there are many other independent forcings. Sure.
OK, so CO2 does cause forcings.
And it’s known that it, and other human GHGs, is the dominant forcing:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigSPM-5.jpg
But that doesn’t mean the climate must warm. It may or it may not.
Yes, it does mean the planet must warmed. Just as CO2 has caused in the past.
–David Appell says:
June 20, 2018 at 3:24 PM
Yes, it does mean the planet must warmed. Just as CO2 has caused in the past.–
We live in world which has an icebox climate.
I like your optimism.
A icebox climate has a cold ocean.
Colder oceans hold more CO2.
We live in a world which has a amazing shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere, this shortage of CO2 in atmosphere is a blinking sign which says, life could be on this world.
This blinking sign does not tell you a lot, other than a clue that must be reason for this shortage of CO2
Our extreme shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere, is due to the cold ocean [and other factors].
Roy wrote:
The fact is that I can’t account for the lack of Hawking’s Nobel Prize at the moment, and it is a travesty that I can’t.
The problem was that Hawking never proposed something new that was then found by experiment or observation. Hawking radiation, what he’s best known for, is too feeble to detect anytime soon — and you’d have to be verrrrrrrry near a black hole’s event horizon and risk getting pulled in!
Richard Lindzen on feedbacks and the “iris effect”:
“Im not sure what you mean by spearheading [the iris hypothesis, according to which increased sea surface temperature in the tropics does result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earths atmosphere]. In 2000 I published a study of upper level cirrus behavior in the tropics as a function of surface temperature (together with two colleagues at NASA). As you note, we found that the areal coverage of tropical cirrus (which result from the detrainment from deep cumulus clouds) does decrease with temperature, and that this effect was
sufficient to more than cancel the commonly assumed water vapor feedback which is essential to predictions of high climate sensitivity.”
“There immediately followed a series of papers that criticized our work. Each of these criticisms was easy to dismiss, and we did so in published responses. However, subsequent papers inevitably referred to our paper as discredited, and never referred to our responses to the criticism. However, the fact that upper level tropical cirrus shrinks with increasing surface temperature has been confirmed in several subsequent papers. Moreover, since the water vapor feedback is only relevant in the absence of upper level cirrus, one cannot actually separate the iris effect from the water vapor feedback. The combined feedback is more accurately referred to as the long-wave (i.e., infrared) feedback, and direct measurements confirm that this feedback is zero or even negative.”
“Interestingly, there is a problem called the Early Faint Sun Paradox. This refers to the fact that about 2.5 billion years ago, the solar constant was about 30% less than it is today, but the evidence is that the climate was not greatly different from todays climate. My student, Roberto Rondanelli and I showed that the simplest explanation was the iris effect. In summary, the iris effect still seems eminently viable.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/18/a-conversation-with-prof-richard-lindzen/
The Iris effect is still very much an unproven hypothesis.
“Careful analysis of data reveals no shrinkage of tropical cloud anvil area with increasing SST.”
Hartman, D.L.; M.L. Michelsen (2002). “No evidence for iris”. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 83 (2): 249254.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477%282002%29083%3C0249%3ANEFI%3E2.3.CO%3B2
“feedback is zero or even negative.”
Looks like the opposite is true:
https://tinyurl.com/ybo3coub
What has global ocean heat content got to do with putative atmospheric temperature rise feedback?
That’s a very detailed plot of non-existent observational data and if valid would represent a temperature anomaly at 700m of about 0.1C – 0.2C.
Just be grateful it’s not going the other way.
The earth accumulates energy, the iris hypothesis says no.
Exactly, Svante.
Of course the planet accumulates energy — at times.
And dissipates energy at other times, it’s never in perfect balance.
Svante says:
The earth accumulates energy, the iris hypothesis says no.
So why has the planet been accumulating energy for decades?
http://tinyurl.com/dbjrlr
–David Appell says:
June 20, 2018 at 3:23 PM
Svante says:
The earth accumulates energy, the iris hypothesis says no.
So why has the planet been accumulating energy for decades?
http://tinyurl.com/dbjrlr —
Global temperature has been increasing for more than century and increasing for the shorter period of decades.
A significant accumulation of energy generally occurs over centuries as does significant loss of energy occurs over centuries.
Depending on time period you pick, it is either accumulating or losing. And since Little Ice Age, it is accumulating energy.
And since Little Ice Age, it is accumulating energy.
Why? Due to what?
DA…”And since Little Ice Age, it is accumulating energy.
Why? Due to what?
I’m sure gbaikie means it is accumulating wrt the lower energy level during the LIA. It’s a relative accumulation whereas the LIA represented a relative loss.
Why is energy accumulating since the LIA?
And do those hypothetical sources explain what has been observed since then?
“So why has the planet been accumulating energy for decades? ….”.
Search me, do have an easier question — why wouldn’t it, why shouldn’t it?
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, according to the IPCC more than 50% of the warming since ~1950 (> 0.4C or >0.6C/cent) is most probably due to human CO2 emissions.
gbaikie says:
“Depending on time period you pick, it is either accumulating or losing. And since Little Ice Age, it is accumulating energy.”
Quite right, it looks like this:
https://tinyurl.com/ydynpfy5
I found skepticalscience.com only good for humor.
I found a lot of links to science there.
The graph is based on Shakun et al., Marcott et al., and the instrumental record.
Marcott said we are not yet past the Holocene maximum. That was in 2013, three years later we might have gone past it.
The Holocene is 11,650 years.
You can move that hockey stick blade down if you like, or tilt it with the UAH data. The message is the same.
Svante,
This graphic is seriously flawed, it’s illusionism and not science.
1. Mixture of data of different and inconsistent natures without mention of this inconsistency.
2. Use of different smoothings according to periods and types of data.
No validity.
1. So you want to join them with a gap?
2. You think the current excursion is normal? Evidence?
Svante,
1. It is not a question of gap, the data are anyway floating because they are only anomalies. No, the fundamental problem is that the proxies used are not consistent with the instrumental temperatures. Moreover, in the particular case, the last value of Shakun-Marcott is just a sinister joke. See for example here:https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/
2. It is impossible to say whether the current excursion is singular or not based on this graph. With the smoothings used, comparable past excursions would not appear.
phi,
1. The Marcott uptick is not robust, the paper says so. There is other evidence for it though.
2. In 200 years we have seen a change that matches the entire Holocene average variation. Short excursions could have gone unnoticed. I say that is highly unlikely, and the cause would have been different. You can disagree if you like, this is about probabilities.
Svante,
In 200 years we have seen a change that matches the entire Holocene average variation.
No, nothing like this is observable. The proxies whose dependence on temperature is demonstrated does not indicate any particular behavior for these last 200 years.
phi says:
There are other papers on that, for example the one we discussed before:
https://tinyurl.com/y7usxf4f
I haven’t done the proxy homework you suggested. How do you think the real fig. 3 should look?
Svante,
To give you an idea of the situation, there is, to my knowledge, no quality proxy that reports higher temperatures for the decade 1990-2000 than for 1940-1950. However, I have been looking for almost 10 years! If anyone has anything, I would obviously be very interested.
On these graphs you can find four examples of good proxies (TLT, 2 MXD, glaciers):
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/atsas.png
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/polar2.png
We can add this graph which gives an idea of the general problematic:
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/anom_thn.png
Thanks, that clarifies what you mean.
I think your MXD graph has a diverge problem:
https://tinyurl.com/y9b9ddl3
As for the glaciers, your reference says:
Svante,
If you are looking to determine a parameter and you have 50 measures. 49 are consistent and only one diverges.
Are you gloing to build 49 different dubious explanations for 49 divergences because it’s the 50th value you like?
You should read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Phi, I have a lot of faith in Occam’s razor.
Your graphs have the 50th value which is the MXD with the well known divergence problem.
No, Svante.
These graphs show precisely that instrumental curves are the lamb duck.
More difficult to restore the sight to the blinded than to the blind!
And no sea level rise?
Same thing. Observations of sea levels are consistent with proxies but not with station temperature curves.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/slide061.png
My proposal is still valid:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2018-0-18-deg-c/#comment-306467
Sea level works like a global thermometer, but your graph shows acceleration, not absolute levels.
It is never on the negative side though.
Here’s a graph of sea level, how’s that for a proxy?
https://tinyurl.com/y7kfpjl8
Svante,
Sea level works like a global thermometer
No, absolutely not in the time scales represented. Here the rate of change is a global thermometer because it depends on the ice melting which is itself a function of temperature.
If temperatures varied around a zero anomaly there would be no sea level rise, right?
No why ?
An anomaly is an arbitrary value. What we do know is that in the nineteenth century we experienced global temperatures corresponding to a stagnation of the sea level. These values were briefly found around the 1970s. This corresponds to a balanced level of continental ice volumes.
For our purposes, let’s put the zero global temperature anomaly where the sea level is steady.
Now look at the graph again:
https://tinyurl.com/y7kfpjl8
Are we above or below the zero anomaly?
The slope is indicative of a given temperature. From 1930 to 2000, this slope is fairly regular on average, no general acceleration. So no significant rise in temperature that can be inferred. It’s consistent with all other proxies.
phi says:
So coming up from the last ice age, no significant rise in temperature can be inferred:
https://tinyurl.com/hc4bpt3
We can not compare these two time scales. In the long time scales counted in thousands of years, the ocean level is the thermometer because ice volumes have time to reach equilibrium. For short times scales counted in tens of years, the relation temperature – melt anomaly is almost linear and it is the rate of variation which is the thermometer.
So what would you infer from this:
https://tinyurl.com/ycskz8zb
Ok, seen. you are right.
My opinion is that this reconstruction suffers from the same defects as those of temperatures. Change of coverage, resolution and method at the point of behavior breakdown.
But if you have the raw data, I’m interested.
From the paper :
We assess the relationship between temperature and global sea-level (GSL) variability over the Common Era
Estimates of global mean temperature variability over the Common Era are based on global, statistical metaanalyses of temperature proxies
In other words, this graph is constructed on the basis of hockey sticks temperatures reconstructions.
Sorry, no validity.
You misunderstand. First they estimate global sea level, then they compare with temperatures.
Your first quote continues:
Sea level proxies, not temperature proxies.
Your second quote is about other studies, not this one.
Ok, seen. you are right.
My opinion is that this reconstruction suffers from the same defects as those of temperatures. Change of coverage, resolution and method at the point of behavior breakdown.
But if you have the raw data, I’m interested.
I would like to take you up on your offer to look at raw data, but I’m afraid I don’t have the time in the foreseeable future.
Chic Bowdrie
Perhaps CO2 concentrations above 5000ppm had something to do with it?
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/1-anotherlinkb.jpg
Using the standard forcing equation ∆f=5.35ln(C/Co), 5000ppm would produce a forcing of 5.35ln(5000/280)= 15.4W.
Applying the IPCC mid-range sensitivity of 3, the forcing becomes 3*15.4=46.2W.
Applying the IPCC warming effect, 3.7W/ degree C, the temperature change becomes 46.2/3.7=12.5C.
30 % less insolation would be 1360*0.7=952W.
This would produce a temperature reduced as the 4th foot of the relative insolation change, from the present temperature of 287K.
That is 4th root(952/1360)*287= 280.7K or 7.7C.
Not that for at least the Last 600 million years temperatures have been around 5C warmer than the present, about 292K or 19C.
Using these figures, without CO2 a weaker Sun would produce a global temperature of 7.8C. Add 5000ppm of CO2 and the temperature warms by 12.5C to a hothouse Earth temperature of 20.3C, 6.3C warmer than the present. This is comparable to the paleoclimate estimates.
Bog standard CO2 theory produces figures which match reality.
For comparison, please show your calculations using the iris hypothesis.
Entropic man says:
Applying the IPCC mid-range sensitivity of 3, the forcing becomes 3*15.4=46.2W.”
Climate sensitivity gives a temperature from a forcing, not another forcing.
A climate sensitivity of 3 C for a CO2 doubling is equivalent to 0.81 degC/(W/m2). Then 5000 ppm would bring 12.5 C of warming.
However, this equation for the radiative forcing of CO2 doesn’t extend to 5000 ppm. A paper I wrote about here
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/03/what-if-co2-gets-really-high-say-1000.html
calculates that the forcing goes like the constant*ln(CO2)+constant*ln^2(CO2), which is somewhat higher.
Plus of course the feedbacks would be huge.
David Appell
3/3.7 is 0.81. Our calculations of the effect of climate sensitivity are equivalent. I just did in two steps rather than one.
Note also that the climate sensitivity includes feedbacks.
We seem to be using different definitions of climate sensitivity. Yours is the temperature rise produced by a given forcing. Mine is the forcing +feedbacks/direct forcing
I find you paper unconvincing. It produces calculated values why are too high when compared with paleo data.
You wrote:
Applying the IPCC mid-range sensitivity of 3, the forcing becomes 3*15.4=46.2W.
You wrote that a forcing becomes a forcing. That’s not correct.
BTW, the second doubling of CO2 is unlikely to cause the same effect at the first doubling, since most of the ice is melted in the first doubling and there ice-albedo effect is less for the second doubling.
In other words, climate sensitivity is unlikely to be a constant function of CO2.
Chic Bowdrie
You were asking if increase in CO2 would raise global temperature. The portion of your post was that the IRIS effect would cancel the Water Vapor Feedback.
From your link:
“Grégoire Canlorbe: It is commonly admitted that temperature increases follow the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels—and not the other way around. In this regard, fossil fuels emissions are easily believed to be the most plausible origin of contemporary increasing CO2 levels. Do you question this dogma?
Richard Lindzen: I’m not sure what you are saying. In point of fact, increasing CO2 should cause some warming, but increasing temperature can also increase CO2 (for example CO2 follows temperature during the cycles of glaciation). That said, it is not unreasonable to claim that the observed increases in CO2 over the past two centuries are mostly due to fossil fuel emissions, cement production, and land use changes (i.e., man’s activities).
The question is can this increase in CO2 produce much in the way of climate change. Increases in CO2 have produced about a 1% perturbation in the earth’s energy budget. This impact was so much smaller before around 1960, that almost no one (including the IPCC) claims the impact was significant before that date. Even a 1% change is no greater than what is normally produced by relatively small changes in cloud cover or ocean circulations which are always carrying heat to and from the surface.”
NOTE: “I’m not sure what you are saying. In point of fact, increasing CO2 should cause some warming,”
Norman
If you would first put info you copy from somewhere into this tool’s upper window
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
and pasted the bottom window’s contents into this blog’s comment window, your explanations would be more readable.
La Pangolina,
“…explanations would be more readable.”
Don’t bother reading his explanations. He doesn’t understand the science well enough to even know what the questions are.
I wasn’t asking if an increase in CO2 would raise global temperature. I’m asking where is the data that shows it? Lindzen says what most people stuck in the oversimplified GHE model hypothesize: “In point of fact, increasing CO2 should cause some warming, ….” Unfortunately there is ample evidence that any slight effect from CO2 is masked by natural factors. Lindzen explains:
“Even a 1% change is no greater than what is normally produced by relatively small changes in cloud cover or ocean circulations which are always carrying heat to and from the surface.”
There is more evidence supporting the Iris effect than there is for more CO2 causing global warming. Again from Lindzen:
“In 2000 I published a study of upper level cirrus behavior in the tropics as a function of surface temperature (together with two colleagues at NASA). As you note, we found that the areal coverage of tropical cirrus (which result from the detrainment from deep cumulus clouds) does decrease with temperature, and that this effect was sufficient to more than cancel the commonly assumed water vapor feedback which is essential to predictions of high climate sensitivity.”
“The combined [iris effect and water vapor] feedback is more accurately referred to as the long-wave (i.e., infrared) feedback, and direct measurements confirm that this feedback is zero or even negative.”
The bottom line is that any temperature effect claimed from increasing CO2 will be confounded by natural thermostatic cloud and iris effects designed to keep the planet temperate. The master designer at work.
Chic Bowdrie
You make the claim that “Don’t bother reading his explanations. He doesn’t understand the science well enough to even know what the questions are.”
Rather annoying post from you. I quite understand the science. The sad thing is you read the article, post more and still don’t understand the topic. Really a sad fact on your ability to comprehend what you read.
From your own post form the WUWT interview:
LINDZEN: “As you note, we found that the areal coverage of tropical cirrus (which result from the detrainment from deep cumulus clouds) does decrease with temperature, and that this effect was sufficient to more than cancel the commonly assumed water vapor feedback which is essential to predictions of high climate sensitivity.”
You have to increase the temperature of the tropics to create an IRIS effect. It is not saying that CO2 will not cause warming, he states the amplification of feedback is what is questioned.
You also fail to grasp what he is saying about he 1%. So far it seems all posters accept that there are multiple factors governing global temperature. Lindzen points out cloud cover changes or ocean circulation can compare to this 1%. The difference is those effects are temporary, which you can see in Roy’s graphs on global temperature. The 1% change from CO2 increase would be a constant. It can be swamped by other effects but will always remain in the background.
Chic Bowdrie says:
The bottom line is that any temperature effect claimed from increasing CO2 will be confounded by natural thermostatic cloud and iris effects designed to keep the planet temperate.
So why didn’t that happen during the PETM?
Chic Bowdrie says:
June 20, 2018 at 5:49 AM
Dont bother reading his explanations. He doesnt understand the science well enough to even know what the questions are.
Bowdrie, I don’t need any remarks of that kind, and especially not from an arrogant person like you.
David is trying to use natural climatic events to prop up AGW which he has to do because it does not exist.
Salvatore, I was making fun of you, with your 3-month long graph from Ocean Tidbits that you think shows AGW doesn’t exist.
oh.
But I have the data from last summer which shows overall oceanic temperatures back then running around +.35c deviation.
https://tinyurl.com/y7xpfqax
So from last summer- through today we are off by -.25c give or take .That is significant and I do not think it is over not if I am correct on what influences the overall sea surface temperatures.
Which is weak visible near UV/UV LIGHT.
“from last summer” = natural variations.
So the question is DAVID how strong, and for how long does this natural variation become going forward?
I say if solar is in the tank it is going to become stronger and last long in duration ,with or without CO2 influences.
Salvatore, natural variations always exist. And they invariably fool people like you:
https://tinyurl.com/ya65jlqc
http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/newsletter/2012/07/images/graphic_lightpenetration.jpg
It shows to what depth various light waves from the sun penetrate the ocean surface.
It is known during prolonged solar minimum UV light can decrease by 6% or more and since this penetrates the oceans to significant depths it must have a temperature effect.
Also Near UV light penetrates the ocean surface even more but it’s percentage change is not as great as UV light.
Some say visible light in some range of the spectrum actually increase when solar activity is low while all other wavelengths(all in agreement )decrease.
The take away is UV light/Near UV light decrease at times of solar minimums and penetrate the ocean surface to great depths (several meters) which results in the oceans receiving less energy and thus cooling.
The ocean heat content will follow overall sea surface temperatures down over time.
Well, you got my wondering about UV.
So was looking at stuff. Apparently they can measure TSI {Total Solar Irradiance] better now, with accuracy of .01 watt and is suppose degrade less over mission time.
And here, there reconstruction of TSI over a few centuries:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
And a graph:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png
That is not about UV, just something I ran across looking for data about UV.
No the measurements are still not reliable.
Why aren’t the measurements reliable?
I had similar question, but I would change it, to how reliable to they need to be.
{Or for what purpose do they need to be more reliable so they are reliable, enough}.
More decimal places costs money. It’s always a compromise.
I’d like Salvatore to tell us why he thinks the data aren’t reliable.
Science is a painful process.
There other expenses which costs lot of money, I don’t begrudge the cost of accuracy.
down over time
A century? Or two?
Please Salvatore, calculate the energy stored at oceans’s surface, and compare that to their total heat content down to 2,000 meters.
I guess: factor 1,000 at least.
By over time I mean now moving forward. The sun and only the sun determine overall oceanic sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content.
What matters for the climate is overall sea surface temperatures and they have fallen .25c in less then a year with more to come.
That will effectively end AGW.
A graph made especially for Salvatore:
https://tinyurl.com/ya65jlqc
I think I said 2018 is a transitional year not 2017, or 2016 , or 2015 etc
And when it doesn’t happen in 2018, you’ll say it will be 2019. Then, for sure.
“I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of the solar cycle maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.”
– Salvatore Del Prete, 7/13/2013
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/07/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-june-2013-0-30-deg-c/#comment-84963
Solar TSI peaked in Feb 2015, according to LASP daily data.
UAH LTE v6 peaked in Feb 2016.
Einstein only won 1 Nobel Prize in 1921 – and strangely it was for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect… Relativity, what’s that?
Some say that the general relativity didn’t really conform to the Nobels will, where he said to award the money “…to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind”. The benefit and even correctness of the GR was not obvious back then (single, albeit correct prediction validated by eddington is not really a foolproof validation), and it was way too bizzare and hard to swallow, some people still have issues with it. In the end, it didn’t benefit anyone till the development of GPS in the 80s so no, it didn’t qualify. As for the special relativity – yeah, weird, some say it was possibly due to antisemitism. Others may speculate that the einstein’s contribution to the special relativity was more of teh conceptual rather than substantial as the theory itself had in mathematical sense already been contained in the maxwellian electrodynamics, and just needed to be extracted and re-thought and applied to the physics as a whole.
Sounds well to me: plain and unpretentious.
coturnix19…”The benefit and even correctness of the GR was not obvious back then (single, albeit correct prediction validated by eddington is not really a foolproof validation), and it was way too bizzare and hard to swallow….”
Nothing has changed. Today, we have an advantage over Einstein in that we know definitively that time does not exist. In the days of E., psychology was in its infnacy and no one was challenged the thought processes of humans.
Early in the 20th century, Jiddu Krishnamurti began an exploration into that domain outside the field of psychology and his conclusions had the likes of Aldous Huxley and George Bernard Shaw, clamouring for more. Even physicist David Bohm joined K. to discuss his observations.
If time does not exist, then there is no such thing as space-time. I am not in any way claiming that the work of Einstein was all for naught, I am merely pointing out that nothing can change based on time therefore his theories about time dilating and dimensions changing at the speed of light are sheer nonsense.
No one has ever tested that and the experiment of Eddington during an eclipse sounds pretty Mickey Mouse when you consider that the Sun is a huge ball of electrons and protons with a huge EM field and electric charges. That alone should bend light.
Einstein admitted there are no good tests of his theory and that Newtonian physics could cover most of it.
Gordon Robertson says:
“…when you consider that the Sun is a huge ball of electrons and protons with a huge EM field and electric charges. That alone should bend light.”
Why? Photons have no charge, so how would an electromagnetic field affect them, Gordon?
And why do you think the Sun has a net charge??
DA…”Photons have no charge, so how would an electromagnetic field affect them, Gordon?”
Protons have an equal and opposite charge to the electron. It’s the equal and opposite charge that holds atoms together.
DA….”And why do you think the Sun has a net charge??”
Doesn’t need one with all those electrons and protons running around. Protons and electrons making up the solar wind interact with our magnetic field, so why should the EM fields of light passing close to the Sun not interact with the solar wind and/or charges in the Sun?
coturnix…”it didnt benefit anyone till the development of GPS”
GPS does not rely on relativity theory. There are certainly no requirements for the bogus notion that time dilation is a factor.
GPS electronics cannot detect time dilation since time does not exist. The GPS satellites operate on a different time base that the ground stations and that information is transmitted in the signals from the sats, along with altitude, velocity, etc.
Relative position could be worked out by trial and error if required.
Gordon Robertson says:
GPS does not rely on relativity theory.
Another lie from Gordon.
Gordon, what do you think you’re gaining by denying reality?
Gordon Robertson says:
June 20, 2018 at 2:17 PM
GPS does not rely on relativity theory.
Robertson, you’ve been shown so often how ignorant and unconscious you are about GPS and time dilation.
You know nothing, arfe an expert in nothing whatsoever and are the scientifically most uneducated commenter this web site has ever experienced.
Even the Flynn guy tried to explain you in a previous thread how wrong you are, but he was not courageous enough to go to end with that.
Why are you lying all the time, Robertson? Why don’t you try to learn a bit instead of lying?
How can you be so dumb to deny science like this?
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.7951
La Pangolina
I posted this video to Gordon Robertson on a previous thread. He ignored it.
Your paper would be too daunting for Mr. Robertson. That is why I use this nice video. It is basic, not real complex and demonstrates time dilation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZkTfCHKFJQ&t=2113s
My strong feelings is that Gordon Robertson is a troll. When you present him with facts he ignores them and pretends you never showed him the facts.
I am sure this troll will make an strong effort to ignore this video because he won’t be able to make up his own physics to dispute it.
He only responds when he can make up some garbage science. Even the skeptics realize he is clueless but that does not deter this troll.
Where is the Dr. Roy’s Emergency Moderation Team when it comes to Gordon Robertson?
Nice video clip, Norman, but it won’t make a bit of difference. Gordon doesn’t accept real world experiments and measurements — he lives in Gordonland, where he is the smartest person in the world and knows more than Einstein, Planck, Clausius, and any other scientist you’d care to name.
Gordon is interesting, but for the wrong reasons.
Gordon says “GPS does not rely on relativity theory”.
Then David Appell, La Pangolina, and Norman (afraid to use his last name) all jump out to insult Gordon.
So how about you three each write why Gordon is wrong. No links, just in your own words. You like to write, you’ve just proved that. Tell us why Gordon is wrong.
JDH, we’ve all written about this several times already on other posts. But it goes into one of Gordon’s ears and out the other, because there is not a rational person between.
Is that right? Can you link to such examples?
Otherwise folks might think it is just in your imagination.
Of course I can link to such examples.
But it’s not worth my time.
JDHuffman
I have not done tests no time dilation myself so why should I make up physics like Gordon Robertson does.
I linked to a video of an actual experiment proving time dilation of mesons.
What would my words matter? I think the science stands on the evidence. If an issue comes up I will try to find evidence for the topic.
So I am not sure why you decided, at this time, to request own words proving Gordon Robertson is wrong about time dilation.
Can you elaborate? What are you seeking?
You say I insult him. Not at all, if I called him ugly or fat that would be an insult. I point out he is probably a troll (which seems very likely). I point out he makes up physics which he has done numerous times. What exactly is insulting about pointing out the reality of a pretend poster? Why should his behavior be praised? If you can explain why peddling made up physics and pretending to be some type of genius authority is a good thing I will reconsider what I think of this poster. I will await your response.
Nameless Norman, hiding his real name, now tries to back peddle out of it.
David Appell, who spends hours here, suddenly doesn’t have time to back up his words.
La Pangolina, so far, is MIA.
And these three like to call others “troll”!
JDHuffman
I kind of gave you the benefit of doubt since I had not interacted with you much before (unless you are a previous poster who is using a different posting name).
Reasoning with you is a waste of time. You are a whiner about last names (if I posted it it would not make any difference as to what I post). I think it is just a stupid tactic on your part in an attempt to discredit a point because you do not have knowledge to refute it, you are not a very bright person (as seen in some of your really stupid posts above and your continuation of stupidity after people spent time explaining it to you).
You claim I “back peddle”. That is stupid nonsense. What backpeddle? You requested a really stupid thing (use my own words to tell why Gordon is wrong about time dilation) rather than use a valid tested experiment. Since you are so far gone from understanding science (you think any opinion is good) then why should I waste any time with the likes of you? What value to scientific contribution do you offer? You know very little and offer you own opinionated points with zero supporting evidence and think such is better than valid science.
Anonymous Norman, the reason we have not interacted much is because I do not comment often.
You are hiding so that you can maliciously attack others. This is a perfect example. You have written about 500 words, just in this subthread. You have attacked, insulted, and denied. But, you have not presented the science of why Gordon is wrong, in your own words.
JDHuffman
I do not hide to maliciously attack others. You just use that as a tactic. You are a disrupter. You have zero interest in science and come here to disrupt things. You still wouldn’t know me if I gave you a last name, you could look it up on the internet I guess but you still are not a friend of mine.
You post as JDHuffman. What does that mean. There could be thousands of JDHuffman’s. I know on more about you than if you posted as Oliver Twist. The posting name is not that important. What matters is the content of the posts.
I did appeal to your reason but you fail to provide any. The experiment I linked to demonstrates Time Dilation of Mesons. What more is needed? The experiment shows he is wrong. What are you defending?
Also I know you are a disrupter with zero scientific knowledge with an interaction with you above about view factor. Both I and Tim Folkerts explained it to you and you failed to even try and understand the concept or what was being talked about. You made the foolish assertion that we were avoiding the question about fluxes adding. Nothing of the sort, we were explaining very clearly why adding ice will not increase the energy to a surface. That you are just a disrupter with no interest in learning or science was confirmed by that interaction.
And now down here you are still a foolish person trying to disrupt by rejecting a actual scientific experiment and pursuing a stupid point about needing to explain a point in one’s own words rather than showing experimental proof.
I think soon I will quit responding to you. I kind of like dorky Gordon Robertson so I will probably continue with debates with him. You are very unreasonable and intentionally disruptive without real reason to be that way.
In another exchange above I gave you a calculation about sedimentation and you tried to attack the link with stupid points about “estimation” and “assumption” like these are bad things for a general idea on something.
You have demonstrated that you are one to avoid. I am really glad you don’t post often here.
Anonymous, and now belligerent, Norman, you continue to sling insults, deny reality, and avoid writing why Gordon is wrong. Your link to the YouTube is just a distraction. You cannot say, in your own words, why Gordon is wrong.
If you decide to run, you can join David Appell and La Pangolina, who were also unable to support their own words.
JD…”So how about you three each write why Gordon is wrong…”
I have explained it several times to them and not one has rebutted with an indication they understand the issue.
Satellites remain in orbit due to their momentum, which is essentially mass x velocity. They are launched at an altitude at which the force of gravity acting against that momentum, which wants to take the sat on a tangential course, gives a resultant course which is the orbit.
Time has nothing to do with that momentum, it was created by a force from the rocket engines flying the sat into orbit, strictly a force and mass situation. However, once in orbit, the sat has telemetry to detect its altitude, velocity, etc. It also has an onboard atomic clock which provides a local time source for the sat and its equipment.
BTW…the atomic clock is actually a very regular frequency generator where the frequencies are a measure of the result of atomic forces. Nothing to do with time. It was we humans who divided down the frequency to synchronize with out invention, the second. People don’t seriously think an atom’s frequency of vibration is generated based on a human clock, do they?
The sat transmits that data via a communications signal and when it sends the signal, it send reference pulses for the ground station, which is running on a separate time source. No problem, it’s a matter of sorting out the reference pulses to sync the ground station to the sat data. Once that’s established, it’s a matter of communicating via electronic communication.
Where would time dilation come into that scenario, especially at velocities which are a small fraction of the speed of light? You can throw out the ‘c’ parameter altogether and go with straight Newtonian relativity.
This is all done using electronic communications and the system behaves like a normal servo system. There are reference values and error correction circuits, no time dilation sci-fi required.
And yes, time dilation is sci-fi. I have explained in detail how time was derived (invented) from the regular rotation of the Earth hence there is no reality to time. How can something lacking a physical presence dilate?
norman…” That is why I use this nice video. It is basic, not real complex and demonstrates time dilation”.
*********
But far too complex for you to begin understanding the utter nonsense being foisted on you by these relativity wannabees.
They begin the video by claiming clocks run at different rates as they approach the speed of light. Can you seriously not see the hole in that argument? It’s big enough to drive a semi-trailer through it.
What drives the average clock? With the older ones, it was a wound up spring driving gears. For digital clocks, it is a crystal oscillator that has it’s frequency of oscillation divided down to usable frequency and the pulses are counted by a counter which has been designed to roll over when it reaches 60 seconds, then 60 minutes. The minutes counter then rolls over every 60 minutes to give an hour.
An atomic clock, as I have explained several times, has a natural frequency of vibration CONTROLLED BY ATOMIC FORCES. Nothing to do with time. We use it’s frequency because it is very stable and we can use that as a base for out INVENTED second.
Tell me…please…how any of that can change as the velocity of the clock reaches the speed of light?
Some idiots think humans would age at different rates if some remained on Earth and others traveled at the speed of light. What utter garbage. Humans age due to issues in cell division and cell division has no clock built into it.
In your video, where two scientists are dressed like loggers, and think like loggers, they are claiming mu-mesons are clocks. It’s the same argument as the atomic clock scenario. Mu-mesons are driven by forces, not time.
They don’t even begin to get their inherent stupidity. They tell you that the clocks are related to human observers. The human observer is holding the clock and doing the measurements and if he/she is on a platform moving relatively to motion on another moving platform, he/she will experience SOMETHING changing as the relative velocity increases.
This is a problem inherent in human observation and is related to distortion in the human mind. Time dilation to the human mind is an illusion based on the relative motion between the human mind and the real world.
Einstein SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT. He missed it and lead the science world on a sci-fi mystery tour. In his treatise on relativity he DEFINED time as the position of the hands on a clock. Everything he has done with relativity is based on observations from the human mind, not what is actually going on with the observed phenomena.
In a nutshell, the observed phenomena involves masses driven by forces. The human mind sees changes in position of an object due to that action of the force on the mass, and in order to quantify the motion, he invented a clock, the basis of which he derived from a fraction of the Earth’s period of rotation.
There is no relationship whatsoever between the force-mass system and the human invention of time. The human mind has imposed its invention on real phenomena and completely misinterpreted what is observed.
I cannot speak for what Einstein was thinking, I don’t think he was someone who would miss something so obvious. However, those following him have seriously added to the problem to the point where everyone seems to have accepted time dilation as a reality.
It is not.
I might add that time dilation comes down to an APPARENT shortening of intervals (measurable distances)due to illusions in the human mind. It’s like passing a moving train while you are in a train going in the other direction. The windows in the other train go by in a blur of motion, with an entire coach seeming narrower never mind each window.
That’s an illusion of the human mind, not an actual change in the coach/window dimensions.
If you want to observe true relativity, you need to get the human mind with its foibles out of the equation. Put detectors on what is being observed and feed the data back to a computer so it can track the changes and show them visually as static amounts. In that case, I can assure anyone that no time dilation will occur.
You could attach a sensor to each body to measure a set distance and another sensor to track the clock speed, and I guarantee you no change in either will be detected. It’s the human observer who creates the changes, in his/her mind.
binny…”How can you be so dumb to deny science like this?”
How can you be so dumb as to search through Google for an article supporting your position without knowing what the article is about?
This is not an article about time dilation its an article about people who don’t understand time. They are observing Doppler-shifted spectra and translating the shifts as time dilation.
Doppler shifting occurs when one body emitting light of a known wavelength shows up as a wavelength shifted in the EM spectrum. What does that have to do with time?
When a body is traveling away from us, the waves of light reaching us are affected by the velocity of the body. They stretch out producing a longer wavelength which translates to a lower frequency. The wavelength appears shifted toward the red end of the spectrum and is referred to as red-shifted.
What does time have to do with that? The velocity of the body is the result of an applied force at an earlier time. Time plays no part in the motion of the body and it appears, once again, you are content to appeal to authority rather than think out the problem for yourself.
Don’t feel badly, the researchers in your article don’t get it either. Not one of them has questioned what they are measuring.
DA…”he lives in Gordonland, where he is the smartest person in the world and knows more than Einstein, Planck, Clausius, and any other scientist youd care to name”.
You forgot to mention that I’m the most handsome as well.
Gordon Robertson
I know you try to sound intelligent with a philosophical point about time, and I do like your attempt.
I do think you are a moron to make claims about scientists that are several IQ points above your level. These are some very bright minds you denigrate out of sheer frustration that you are unable to even grasp the ideas they talk about. You reach out for a few points to attack without having a clue about the content. I realize you never will understand it.
Here you can do the experiment yourself, they even tell you how. You can see if the brilliant scientists in the video are as dumb as you claim.
http://www.teachspin.com/muon-physics.html
Go for it Gordon. It will be good for you to do real science instead of making it up. Maybe you will learn something. Don’t get scared by the fact you will find out you were wrong about everything. It is a painful state that can only be alleviated by learning the truth.
“The Truth is out there” Don’t be afraid to prove yourself wrong and all your opinions just hot air. You will build upon the ashes a strong scientific background no longer based upon deluded fantasies and internet crackpots.
Gordon Robertson
We need to talk about this again. You did not understand my point on a previous thread.
YOU: “In a nutshell, the observed phenomena involves masses driven by forces. The human mind sees changes in position of an object due to that action of the force on the mass, and in order to quantify the motion, he invented a clock, the basis of which he derived from a fraction of the Earths period of rotation.
There is no relationship whatsoever between the force-mass system and the human invention of time. The human mind has imposed its invention on real phenomena and completely misinterpreted what is observed.”
Again, a mass changes position driven by a force. Humans observe that there is a rate of change of position. Did they invent this rate of change of position? Even without a clock the human could compare one rate to another, say a running cheetah moving and a person walking. They might use a term like the cheetah moves faster than the person. You confuse an actual rate change to the units used to describe the rate change, to give it a measurement so it can be used in calculation. The actual rate change exists outside the units of measurement. The rate of change was not invented by man. The units for that rate (meters/second…miles/hour) are what man created NOT the rate.
So this rate of change, a chemical reaction. The concepts are all related, time, mass, energy, space. Man did not invent any, man put units of measure on them. I wish you would understand this point. I don’t think you can.
Gordon Robertson
This is for you to read.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html
Gordon Robertson, anonymous Norman is trying to change the topic. The topic is your statement “GPS does not rely on relativity theory”, which is absolutely correct.
I challenged anonymous Norman, La Pangolina, and David Appell to state in their own words why they accused you. Of course, I knew they could not.
(I worked in GPS implementation for about 7 years.)
Feel free to refer to this comment thread the next time any of the three clowns insults you. Not that you will need to. You seem overly qualified to handle clowns.
norman…”Humans observe that there is a rate of change of position. Did they invent this rate of change of position?”
Humans have no means of observing a RATE of change. Humans have no in-built clocks, they need an external clock. Furthermore, if time was real, they would only have to tap into the time source and use that to measure rates of change. If you can find one, not invented by humans, that measures in hours, minutes, and seconds, let me know.
Of course, humans can observe change, even a change in a rate of change, such as the difference between velocity and acceleration. There is even another rate of change called a jerk factor, which is the rate of change of acceleration. You might see it in a good sprinter who slow accelerates out of the block then rapidly accelerates.
Humans cannot measure the rate of change, therefore we invented time to enable quantifying the rate of change. We invented the second, based on a small fraction of the period measured for one revolution of the Earth in its orbit.
David Appell will be along to claim that a period is evidence of time, but it does not have to be. I can build a clock-like device with one hand that measures from sunrise to sunrise. I can verify it by running it again, as many times as I like. The measurement of that one-handed clock is the period of the Earth’s rotation and it has not yet been divided into hours, minutes and seconds.
Gordon Robertson, please stop trolling
Impersonator, stop being so lazy. Get your own idea.
The Real DREMT
I think your impersonator is only providing balance to the blog. You single out scientific minded people and call their points trolling while never questioning the irrational and unscientific claims of so called skeptics.
I think it is great that the two of you are active to provide balance to the force.
If you were to proceed uncontested the DARK SIDE of the force would take over this blog. The unscientific, irrational, illogical and made up science would sink the blog into a realm of fake physics.
Is that what you really want? Are you a Sith poster?
I call out people who are trolling, when they are trolling. My impersonator is simply lazy.
coturn: there are no physicists who deny general relativity, which has passed all experimental and observation tests presented to it.
Strawman detected. I didn’t say physicists deny it, i said some have issue with it. Justgoogle how many there is preprints on arxiv studying possible extensions and modifications to it.
Who has an issue with it?
Those preprints you mentioned take GR as a *starting point*, and are looking to add on to it (“extend”) in order to explain dark matter or dark energy or quantum gravity or some such.
But they don’t doubt GR. In fact, they’re hoping their theories reproduce it in some limit. Because they know GR has never made a bad pre- or postdiction.
Uhm, it, the general relativity has been validated quite well – now (except for gravity probe, galactic rotations and incompatibility with equally well validated qft), mostly by ruling out its numerous competitions, BUT back then it was indeed beautiful but mostly speculative theory that just started to be explored. R u sure ure not confusing general and special relativity?
BTW, i think the sheer genius/luck of einstens, who discovered correct and beautiful theory from pure reason served very badly to the 20th century science, where countless scientists have been since taking einstens path, trying to discover new theories usingreasoning and beauty criteria. Theoretical physics nowdays suffer from this immensly, with hundreds of thousands of expensive intellectual effort directed into developing super complicated theories not rooted in reality (string theory for example, wink-wink, nudge-nudge). Climatology btw suffers a bit from this as well, albeit for a good reason.
That’s because there is a lack of experimental data — particle experiments are now so costly that experimentalists don’t even know where too look but where theorists tell them.
Read “Lost in Math” by Sabine Hossenfelder. You’ll probably like it. I just finished it and it’s all over this topic.
But science requires experimental data, and/or multiple independently verifiable observations. Without it, it is not really a science – it is just applied math. Which you may consider science, but it is not a natural science.
What theoretical particle physicist doing today is a lottery: they guess and hope they would be right some time in the distant future. Einsten bet 10 man-years and won. Modern string theorists probably bet hundreds of thousands of man-years, and they are losing badly. I blame einstein – bad example indeed. no wonder they didn’t award him nobel prize for that one of his theories.
Theoretical physics nowdays suffer from this immensly, with hundreds of thousands of expensive intellectual effort directed into developing super complicated theories not rooted in reality (string theory for example, wink-wink, nudge-nudge). Climatology btw suffers a bit from this as well, albeit for a good reason.
Climatology has absolutely nothing to do with this. I’s just applied physics and not at all a “theory”. Nor has AGW which is based on ordinary well established and experimentally tested physical principles.
There is presently really a deep “crisis” in theoretical physics but this has not the slightest impact on climatology. Quantum loop gravity, string theory, etc are various attempts to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics and work out a “theory of everything”. The phenomena at stake are rather out worldly (very high energy physics, black holes, cosmology, etc) and candidate theories difficult to test. String theory is indeed a nightmare.
coturnix…”the general relativity has been validated quite well”
I am not debating that truth, I am questioning side issues such as time dilation and dimensions of bodies changing due to them traveling at the speed of light.
Einstein admitted that Newtonian physics could cover most issues dealing with relativity since the velocities are so low compared to the speed of light that the velocity of light factor can be neglected. In that case, a person could work out relativity problems with a slide rule and a stubby pencil.
He also mentioned that little in the way of experimental proof had been offered, IMHO, that applies particularly at speeds significant wrt the SOL.
There’s also an issue with the Lorentz equations, which were forced on relativity issues. One might say they were established based on the theory related to the distorted mind of a human observer, not the reality of the process being observed.
I regard relativity issues relating to time dilation as something that takes place in the human mind, not the real world. Regarding your comment on string theory, astronomer Wal Thornhill claimed it works in every universe but our own.
Hope Lubos Motl does not drop by at this time. ☺
+idiot tracker
Climatology has a different problem that makes it somewhat similar to the theoretical physics, namely that it is also purely theoretical. This is because the climate is a singular, real-time highly nonlinear system, hence it is not possible to perform any real experiments on it, while it takes as long to observe it as to check the predictions. Predictions? Those cannot be tested and proven, unless you wait for it to happen but such a prediction is useless.
As a result, there is not way to actually scientifically study the climate here and now, one can only build speculative models of it or try to infer its behavior from paleoclimatology.
The climate system of course is made from multiple subsystems, each of which can be studied scientifically, and some of them are quite well understood (others – not so much, but they are slowly being studied as well). But you can’t study climate as a whole the same way, except for studying its past by looking through the fossil record. This latter part of the climatology is science, but the predictive modeling is just a speculative applied numerical math (basically, computer games) – and that’s what makes it similar to the string theory as such. In fact string theory is more scientifically accurate since it operates with precise analytical math rather than computer games. And I’m not saying that it is not possible to know, describe or discover the correct theory of climate – it is quite possible I believe, as, apart from the question of the general navier-stokes equation solution existence, the climate is based on known physics, but what I’m saying is that there is no way to scientifically (that is through observation and experiments) know or prove that the solution you have is real and correct one.
coturnix…”Some say that the general relativity didnt really conform to the Nobels will…”
My understanding is that Nobels are handed out for new research. Although E’s relativity may seem new, he admitted himself it is covered significantly by Newtonian physics.
E. did add a new wrinkle but maybe it was not viewed as being sufficiently new to merit a Nobel.
they used to be handed for current research (as worded in the nobel’s will). Today they don’t do it anymore.
“Lack of better does not imply good. Nobody should rely upon any estimate that cannot be independently verified. ”
I had question about what one thought was best (for period 1000 to 1900 as) but that could changed to “another which equally adequate” if that is better question. But main thing is recently but not after 1900 AD.
Because just want what proxies and only proxies indicate in terms of global temperature. And not the splicing which generally, is badly done.
Why is the splicing “badly done?”
Even Mann knows splicing is bad, and claimed he didn’t do it.
Source? Citation?
goggle search: mann hockey stick spliced
First hit:
–Apparently holding the same incorrect belief as Steyn (misinformation tends to spread when nobody corrects errors like Steyn’s), Mann responded:
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.–
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2017/06/splicing-right-or-wrong/
continuing:
Mann said this in late 2004 so I can’t fault him for being unaware of what would happen after 2010, but given the response Mann shows to this accusation, I find it strange this practice would be an accepted one a mere ten years later. Plus, I thought it was interesting nobody has pointed out any recent examples of it happening despite at least one being easy to find.
And:
Some people, including Steve McIntyre, claim this shows Mann spliced instrumental temperatures onto reconstructed temperatures. The caption for it does say:
Relationships of Northern Hemisphere mean (NH) temperature with three candidate forcings between 1610 and 1995. Panels, (top to bottom) as follows. ‹“NH, reconstructed NH temperature series from 16101980, updated with instrumental data from 198195.
Which certainly supports that interpretation. However, the “splice” is clearly identified in the figure’s caption, and if you look closely at the top chart of the figure, you can see the instrumental data is plotted differently than the reconstructed data. It takes a careful eye to see, but it is there. One might be concerned about using spliced data like this for calculations like those used in correlation coefficients in the bottom chart, but at least the splicing is made rather clear. That’s not the case in some examples.
….–
But it was spliced they met at nearly the same spot, so whether you clearly mark it, it is still a splice, though indicating it is different is better, than not indicting this. The story was there was data from proxy for later period, but wasn’t included, and this was called Mike’s trick [not by “deniers” but by his “friends”/”peers”].
Second:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
and third entry:
https://climateaudit.org/2009/09/25/spot-the-hockey-stick-n-2/
gbaikie…”Even Mann knows splicing is bad, and claimed he didnt do it”.
He eventually did admit it and wondered what was wrong with splicing modern data onto proxy data. A question that should have concerned him was why the proxy data was declining when real data was rising.
Outside the skeptics, you have the deluded and dishonest.
Thanks gbaikie for your honesty!
And be happy that I make a strong difference between sound skeptics and those I call the pseudoskeptics.
A pseudoskeptic is what?
Someone pretending to be skeptical but knows the truth.
Or are wearing tee shirt proclaiming, I am a skeptic, but is clueless of what a skeptic is.
Definition
1. a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.
2.
PHILOSOPHY
an ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.
I am a skeptic [def 2} in many ways, but I am particularly skeptical about politicans
But I agree all political systems are evil, but so far democratic systems are or at least seem, less evil.
gbaikie says:
A pseudoskeptic is what?
Someone pretending to be skeptical but knows the truth.
I would say someone who claims to be “skeptical,” but without knowing or acknowledging the science.
In truth there are very few skeptics around — most here are deniers. Which is a shame, because science and climate policy definitely needs skeptics. But much better ones.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/04/un-ipcc-expert-reviewer-dr-vincent-gray-there-is-no-correlation-whatsoever-between-carbon-dioxide-concentration-and-the-temperature-at-the-earths-surface/
This I think show there is no CO2/TEMPERATURE CONNECTION.
Pretty clear cut.
Salvatore…”This I think show there is no CO2/TEMPERATURE CONNECTION”.
The author of the article, expert reviewer Vincent Grey, forced the IPCC to acknowledge that climate models are unvalidated therefore they can predict nothing. The IPCC had since stopped using the word predicted and have begun using the word projected.
Since the IPCC has no proof that humans are causing the warming, everything spewed by alarmists in that regard is opinionated tommy-rot.
http://www.klimanotizen.de/2008.07.12_Gray_Spinning_the_Climate.pdf
Climate models can’t predict, ever.
All models of the future can’t.
A model is only as good as its assumptions.
Gordon, would you please specify the annual CO2 emissions out to 2100? The changes in solar irradiance? Volcano eruptions?
That’d be a good start. Until then models can only project, based on assumptions about the future.
Obvious.
DA…”Until then models can only project, based on assumptions about the future”.
Then why has the IPCC tied their wagon to climate models and passed it off in their glossy literature as truth?
Do you accept that climate models can’t predict?
And so Appel demonstrates Lindzen’s observation. In 2018, responding to a comment citing Dr Lindzen’s contemporaneous interview, Mr Appel cites a 2002 paper, but not the rebuttal. Apparently this is like modern big city politics, keep (re-)counting until the right side wins, then stop.
Add Robertson and Flynn, build the inverse of the sum, and you are not that far from… Appell.
binny…”Add Robertson and Flynn…”
Being singled out by binny is comforting. It means our (Mike Flynn and myself) are trashing his/her propaganda and fudged graphs so well that he/she is rendered speechless and reliant only on ad homs.
JohnC: the fact is, there just isn’t any support for Lindzen’s hypothetical iris effect in the scientific community. Scientists weren’t convinced. And still aren’t. There are lots of rebuttal papers. But I doubt you’ll pay any attention to them, because your needs require something, anything, no matter what, that denies AGW.
Ah, yet another Argumentum ad populum. Popper would be so proud.
I present papers, and that’s not good enough. I make informed judgements, and that’s not good enough. Deniers will reject any and all arguments, or else they would explode.
And straight to Ad Hominem, true to form.
Are you paid to do this? Have you disclosed all of your funding sources to the denizens here?
As for the rebuttals, are these controlled reproducible experiences that find for the null? Or model simulations? Or just opinions? I would be happy to read an example that you trust.
Here is a paper I wrote to refute your claims:
http://scigen.csail.mit.edu/scicache/786/scimakelatex.350.swampgator.swampies+friend+Joe.Someone+who+disagrees+with+David+Appelle.pdf
Clearly you don’t know what “ad hominem” means.
ad hominem
ˌad ˈhmənəm/Submit
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
“vicious ad hominem attacks”
DA, IMO “denier” labels are attacks against the messenger, no?
Maybe you have a more nuanced understanding?
this from WIki:
Gratuitous verbal abuse or “name-calling” is not on its own an example of the argumentum ad hominem logical fallacy.[2][3][4][5][6] The fallacy occurs only if personal attacks are employed to devalue a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker; personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument are not ad hominem attacks.
People who deny are “deniers.”
It was a perfectly good word before the Holocaust, and it still is after the Holocaust.
Ok, DA, how about the disclosure of your funding sources? You knida skipped over that (simple) part.
How do you earn a living specifically?
My disclosures: Pharmacist and SB owner. Own 3 ICE vehicles, 2 are trucks with V8s. Also, longtime Tesla fan and Model 3 reservation holder. Weird, huh?
I’m hopeful you will be so transparent good sir.
Since you can’t disprove the science I present here, you opt for a different track and fall to the personal level. Classy.
I’m a writer. I get paid for what I write.
“Im a writer. I get paid for what I write.”
This is hardly an answer. It’s like saying “I’m a scientist, I get paid to do science”
If that scientist is paid for example by the sugar industry and his research is regarding carbohydrate metabolism, this would be good to know.
If you are paid to write on blogs like this by interested parties that would be good to know. According to your own website you wrote 5 articles last year. They must pay big bucks for each article!
I suspect you are paid to go on climate related blogs and refute posts by those not fully on board with CAGW theory.
Nobody pays me to write on blogs. How ridiculous.
Does anyone pay you to write to write on blogs?
Now if you’re done attacking me personally, how about addressing my points, with logic, science and reason.
DA…”JohnC: the fact is, there just isnt any support for Lindzens hypothetical iris effect in the scientific community. Scientists werent convinced. And still arent…”
By scientific community are you referring to Climategaters like Trenberth, Mann, Jones, Schmidt et al?
I’m referring to everyone I know, all the scientific journals I track, and to the 22,000 or so people at the twice annual AGU conferences.
You believe Linden only because you want to believe him, not for any scientific reason. I doubt you’re ever read a single one of his papers.
John…”citing Dr Lindzens contemporaneous interview, Mr Appel cites a 2002 paper, but not the rebuttal”.
David Appell does no like to confuse matters by getting both sides of a story. He interviews only climate alarmists, the more dogmatic the better.
Gordon, so who should I talk to or read to get the “truth?”
Who did you talk to or read to get it?
Salvatore…”AGW theory will no longer be viable”.
Was it ever viable? Strikes me as a populist notion which is short on science and high on opinion.
This from the most backward country on AGW:
“…70 percent of Americans now accept that global warming is occurring, and 58 percent agree that it is mostly caused by human activities….”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/global-warming-now-brought-you-your-local-tv-weathercaster-n884831
AND DAID 99% of the population has no idea of what we discuss on this site, and would not understand it.
Most people know next to nothing about the climate , and I do not mean if you support or don’t support AGW.
They just do not know.
People aren’t as stupid as you seem to think, Salvatore.
I think public is aware we live in warming world and are happy about it.
This has always been the case, that people have wanted a warmer world- how else can term tropical paradise, makes sense, and why do they vacation at such places?
Who and since when has a warmer world been desired?
Do the 3B people in the tropics want a warmer world?
What about those cities on seashores?
Do farmers want a warmer world? Northern people?
Or do YOU want a warmer world, but refuse to move, and you don’t care what happens to anyone else?
“What about those cities on seashores?”
Because of 7″ per century rising sea level??
“Do farmers want a warmer world? Northern people?”
Do we care about farmers or northern people?
“Or do YOU want a warmer world, but refuse to move, and you dont care what happens to anyone else?”
I have moved, I believe the tendency is for people to move.
{I moved to a warmer place, and then moved to high desert [which cooler that I thought it would be, but seems to be warming up in last few days- probably due to summer}.
gbaikie says:
What about those cities on seashores?
Because of 7″ per century rising sea level??
You’re assuming SL acceleration is zero. It isn’t.
DA…”70 percent of Americans now accept that global warming is occurring,….”
That’s what it is all based on…opinion.
Do you expect 70% of Americans to numerically solve the Schwarzschild equations using ab.sorp.tion data from HITRAN?
They’re wise than you are.
No it was never viable, it was a made up scam.
Salvatore again denies the molecular properties of CO2, whose ab.sorp.tion spectrum was first measured in 1859.
DA,
Unfortunately for such as yourself, CO2 only absorbs around 1800 times as much IR as oxygen and nitrogen, but there is more than 1800 times as much oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere.
Are you now claiming that reducing the amount of enrrgy reaching a thermometer only makes it hotter if the reduction is due to CO2?
You are a funny little fellow, aren’t you? Next you’ll be claiming that slow cooling is really heating!
No GHE. A myth designed to extract money and respect from the gullible. You certainly seem to have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
You are just wrong and then some. You are basing your knowledge on a very simplistic setup by Tyndall many years ago. Do you not think scientists have come up with better instrumentation to get better data? Do you think the computer you use to post on this blog are the same as the ones 30 years ago?
I made a graph based upon atmospheric abundance.
https://tinyurl.com/ya3ldhh2
You can see the Y-Axis is exponential. You can see that CO2 absorbs at least 1 million times more IR than N2 or O2.
Based upon what we see about you is that you have no clue what you are talking about and probably post as a troll to illicit some reaction. Too bad you waste your time trying to annoy posters instead of trying to really learn some science and physics. It is hard, I know, posting nonsense is much easier and for a troll like yourself, much more fun. But the rewards of learning far outweigh the pleasures you get from trolling blogs.
N,
Maybe you could link to something that is freely accessible.Typical foolish Warmist diversion, otherwise.
Precisely what frequencies are you talking about? Do you think that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter?
Or do you believe in magic? I suppose the fact that you cannot actually describe the GHE, or propose a disprovable GHE hypothesis, leaves magic as your only option.
So sad, too bad. Still no GHE.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
This idea worked on a previous thread. I download the Hitran graph to this sight and link to it.
I used wavelength rather than frequency. I used 2 to 50 micron range.
I can try to see if I can make a workable link later.
Maybe you can make your own graphs and explore some science on your own.
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
Reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer will not make it warmer. But the solar flux has very little IR at the 15 micron range and this 15 micron range IR is emitted much stronger by CO2 to the thermometer than is absorbed by it from the Sun’s energy.
You already know I have shown you this numerous times on numerous threads when you ask the same question.
Anonymous Norman, now you are trying to twist around the challenge presented by Mike Flynn.
Suppose you have a perfect emitter that is emitting peak 15 photons, directed at the thermometer. What is the maximum temperature the thermometer could achieve, with no other energy?
Answer: About -80 C.
Next, try to heat Earth with that -80 C thermometer.
(Also, a physical location is “site”, not “sight”. The first time you used it I thought it was just a typo. But, repeated usage indicates you just do not know. Now you do.)
JDHuffman
You have given an example of Wein’s Displacement Law.
Interesting and it does at least demonstrate you have a little scientific background. However you are not being very rational with your point.
Your point has zero to do with Flynn’s comment about CO2 and a thermometer.
The amount of energy CO2 will emit is based upon its concentration and its temperature. The concentration of the gas will give you an emissivity, the temperature will give you a rate of emission of IR based upon its temperature using Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Here look and see.
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
Exactly what are you trying to describe?
I will attempt and explanation with you. If you have a -80 C radiating source it will radiate some energy to the surface which the surface absorbs. With no other energy added the surface will reach a steady state temperature of -80 C (if the atmosphere remains at that temperature). If you add energy to the surface from another source it will reach a higher temperature than -80 C.
Now if you think it through with logical rational thought process.
If you had an atmosphere at -150 C the surface would only get to -150 C.
If you add energy from another source it will go above -150 C but it could still be well below the -80 C atmosphere steady state temperature.
N,
A cup of hot coffee is hot.
Now add some ice, radiating at 300 W/m2. You have assuredly added hea5 energy to the system.
You are probably silly enough to say the coffee will get hotter!
Off you go, Norman, tell us all about adding energy making things hotter. Does colder CO2 have magical climatological properties, perhaps?
Cheers.
Norman hides his identity so he can hide from reality.
Mike Flynn
You are a Mr. Strawman.
What I highly dislike about attempting to communicate with you is your total lack of rational logical thought.
I make a really valid and good point. You are hopelessly devoid of reasoning ability to even attempt to grasp it, then you come up with a stupid stawman and attribute my highly intelligent thought to a stupid absurd creation of yours that I never claimed and would never claim.
Your stupidity and illogical thought process are legendary on this blog. Why you are like that no one knows. I doubt even you could explain to yourself why you are so illogical and unable to reason.
Hiding his identity, and also hiding from reality, anonymous Norman now launches his personal attacks.
JD, you’re anonymous too.
Or did I miss an identifying link you posted?
Fox News, on Hansen’s 1988 testimony:
“Thirty years later, its clear that Hansen and other doomsayers were right.”
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/06/19/nasas-chilling-30-year-old-warning.html
Well isn’t that ironic 😉
DA arguing from Authority using Foxnews as the Authority. I’m loving it!
Just pointing out that the deniers are running out of excuses.
DA,
Who are these deniers, and which excuses are they running out of?
Are you quite bereft of even a semblance of logic, or merely stupid and ignorant?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
They are not correct at all. All of the warming over the past 30 years was natural.
Due to what cause(s)?
High solar through end of year 2005, lack of major explosive VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, ENSO , and a more ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION.
High solar equating to overall sea surface temperature rises and a slightly lower albedo result warmer climate.
Since 2005 things have changed but lag times of 10+ years have to be taken into consideration.
Salvatore, where is your data and evidence?
Solar irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s. Data here:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
So that claim is no good.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
and a more ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION.
What does this mean, please?
DA…”Fox News, on Hansens 1988 testimony:
Thirty years later, its clear that Hansen and other doomsayers were right.”
That’s interesting for two reasons.
1)10 years after his 1988 alarmist spiel Hansen admitted he had been wrong. He blamed it on his climate models.
2)during the 30 years, we’ve had an 18 year flat trend and little or no warming.
Gordon can’t prove either of these claims. They just more lies.
Another marking the 30th anniversary:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/20/the-thirty-year-war/
Swampgator,
In your link refuting David Appell’s claims, you may have overlooked an egregious error in fig. 3.
It is obvious that David Appell’s claims are worse than we thought.
We are all doomed! Woe, woe, thrice woe!
Cheers.
Indeed sir!
More zonal atmospheric circulation means the global wind patterns are more west /east and less north/south which tends to keep Arctic air locked up in the Arctic.
Then why is the Arctic warming even faster than the sub-Arctic?
Because over the past several years the atmospheric circulation has become less zonal.
–Who and since when has a warmer world been desired?–
Well, Europe and China have a low average temperature, these regions average temperature is about 9 C, and they were a degree or two cooler, so now that they warmer, it is nicer.
And warmer periods in past generally include adjective of optimal. Cooler periods are associated gloomier adjectives, Little Ice Age, other than including “little” is less nice.
–Do the 3B people in the tropics want a warmer world?-
They are in warmer world, and even though they get a fair amount of rainfall, they might want more of it. And if they moved out of tropics, they may not like the cold. Though people spend a lot of time indoors, and that they would need spend more time indoors, is probably what is more of disadvantage, rather than difference of temperature.
gbaikie says:
Who and since when has a warmer world been desired?
Well, Europe and China have a low average temperature, these regions average temperature is about 9 C, and they were a degree or two cooler, so now that they warmer, it is nicer.
You make value judgements here — “low,” “nicer.” Whose definitions of these terms are you using here? Do you have any evidence that your interpretation of these terms implies all Europeans and Russians and Chinese and Canadians and Americans agree with you?
Do the 3B people in the tropics want a warmer world?-
They are in warmer world, and even though they get a fair amount of rainfall, they might want more of it. And if they moved out of tropics, they may not like the cold. Though people spend a lot of time indoors, and that they would need spend more time indoors, is probably what is more of disadvantage, rather than difference of temperature.
Who elected you to tell us what all these people think?? And how do you know, anyway?
“I would say someone who claims to be skeptical, but without knowing or acknowledging the science.”
I would say, a requirement for science is willingness to be skeptical. Or skepticism is a requirement for science to exist. And skepticism predates and includes more than being limited to a science or scientific
matters.
Scientists are the biggest skeptics in the world. They thrive on skepticism. But intelligent skepticism, of which there is almost zero here.
I thought they thrive on government grants, given on an implicit but strong condition of studying the dangerous globalimate warmange
Do you lie and cheat and commit fraud in order to get a higher salary at your job?
Most people would do it if their boss asked them, which is what the analogy is
David,
I haven’t seen any proof that you have not lied, cheated, and committed frauds to get a higher salary.
Are you a lying, cheating, fraud or not?
Why would you think anyone would believe you, anyway? Facts are more persuasive than unsubstantial assertions – like the existence of a GHE, or a disprovable GHE hypothesis.
Carry on with stupid gotchas – it suits you.
Cheers.
coturnix says:
Most people would do it if their boss asked them, which is what the analogy is
They do??!!
Maybe you do. What says “most” people would do the same?
And who says the “bosses” of climate scientists (who are who, exactly?) are asking them to commit fraud?
DA,
The self styled “climate scientists”, (no such science, of course – climate is just the average of old numbers), are frauds merely by pretending to be something which they are not. Gavin Schmidt, undistinguished mathematician, for example.
Cheats. when at least one suggests that the whole bumbling crew should conspire to subvert the scientific peer review process, to prevent being shown up for the hucksters they are.
Liars by claiming honours they have not earned, or using “tricks” to lie about their inability to honestly present results which don’t support their bizarre claims.
The “bosses” of this crooked crew don’t need to instruct the recipients of the funding to do anything necessary to keep their snoughts in the bosses’ trough. What possible motive would they have to abandon their rapacious behaviour?
Keep supporting the unsupportable. Toss a fact or two in, from time to time, if you get sick of “gotchas” and irrelevant ad-homs.
Cheers.
Uhmmm…. i believe it is more of a collusion rather than ‘order to tamper with data’, such is the zeitgeist. As for people – yes, people WILL commit crimes if authority tells them to. ever heard of Milgram experiment? i don’t believe that there are people posting on politicized topics who didn’t. Although of course there’s always limits to how much evil a person is ready to do at any point. I don’t think it is a quantifiable information… i mean, in 1933 germans weren’t ready to kill jews – but by 1940 they were.Bu the point is – if somebody either absolves one from responsibility or convinces them that wrong is right, people will commit crimes and other bad things? most of them. They do it all the time on small scale, examples abound.
coturnix…”i believe it is more of a collusion rather than order to tamper with data…”
It does seem to be a disillusioned Good Samaritan syndrome, people lying and cheating as a means to an end. They really think they are being helpful for the good of humanity by lying and cheating about science.
It’s the political correctness that bothers me and the pressure put on other scientists to conform. In the Climategate email scandal, top level IPCC scientists were seen to be colluding with other scientists to influence scientific outcomes.
The Milgram experiment was a fraud:
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication
coturnix says:
They do it all the time on small scale, examples aboun
So all the scientists in the world are in on this fraud, and all the journal editors, and all the national academies of every nation on Earth?
And they’re all giggling when they get together at the hoax they’ve pulled off?
If you have evidence of this, please please please call me so I can break the story.
They’re not giggling, they’re trembling, wfearing of losing their funding. proof? hockey stick.
re Richard Lindzen, a real climate scientist as opposed to the wannabee kinds like the modelers and alarmists.
A resume of Lindzen’s publications 1965 – 2014:
https://academictree.org/meteorology/publications.php?pid=287615
https://tinyurl.com/y79sn538
Most ancient civilizations were in the tropics, a lot people live in the tropics, despite the tropical land area being small portion of all land area.
Other than grassland becoming the Sahara desert, in terms of climate, the tropics has remain stable. It is outside of tropics which has greatest changes of temperature and climate.
You can not have a higher average global temperature without significant warming in polar regions.
And only way to warm polar regions is by having warmer water get to polar regions.
A warmer world is a world with a higher ocean surface temperature. Which as said is on average 17 C.
And to increase this average, requires that water outside tropics become warmer.
Tropical waters are already warm, and because they are warm, much energy is evaporated by the tropical oceans and this evaporation limits how warm these water can get.
So a warmer world is not a hotter tropics, rather it is a warmer world outside of the tropics. And it not even a hotter world outside tropics, rather it is more moderate temperature changes with higher average temperature.
Again, you’re assuming what you think is what everyone else in the world thinks.
Excuse me if I reject that as patent nonsense. And also as stunningly myopic and selfish.
Cooling would mean a reduction in land available for growing food. Given a choice between eating and not eating I would choose warming. So would most of us.
So I do indeed, Ken.
But… please manage to keep that nice warming such that the Thermohaline Circulation in the North Atlantic doesn’t get disturbed.
I wouldn’t appreciate Southern Spain suddenly experiencing siberian winters :-))
binny…”please manage to keep that nice warming such that the Thermohaline Circulation in the North Atlantic doesnt get disturbed”.
Nothing to worry about, no significant warming the past 35 years.
Where’s the data showing that?
Most ancient civilizations, at least those that went on to contribute a lot to us today, were located in the sub-tropical climate and/or in tropical higland temperate climate – places with either moderate temperatures, or with cool season but without constant winter frosts. But not in hot tropics! the only exception i’m aware of being the mayans; if you know any others, plz name them.
The tropics do not form small fraction of all land area, the’re actualy quite hefty, taking ~40% of earth surface, and ok, the land are in the tropics is probably smaller as the averaged land is shifted towards the pole, but saying it is a small fraction is simply not correct.
“coturnix says:
June 21, 2018 at 7:01 PM
Most ancient civilizations, at least those that went on to contribute a lot to us today, were located in the sub-tropical climate and/or in tropical higland temperate climate places with either moderate temperatures, or with cool season but without constant winter frosts. But not in hot tropics! the only exception im aware of being the mayans; if you know any others, plz name them.”
Not sure what you mean by hot tropics, but you suggested Mayans was hot tropics. So going to first find “mayans” “climate”: wiki:
“The Maya civilization occupied a wide territory that included southeastern Mexico and northern Central America. This area included the entire Yucatn Peninsula and all of the territory now incorporated into the modern countries of Guatemala and Belize, as well as the western portions of Honduras and El Salvador. Most of the peninsula is formed by a vast plain with few hills or mountains and a generally low coastline”
So, say Guatemala:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/guatemala
Showing an average temperature of a bit less than 24 C, with mean highs of 29 C and means low of about 18.5
And Egypt is average of 23.5 C, with mean high of 31 and mean low of 16.5 C:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/Egypt
So has nights a bit cooler
Looking for hotter I clicked on Yucatn Peninsula:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/18.48N-91.27W
26.5 C average, mean high 32 C and mean low 21.5 C
Which is roughly, couple degrees hotter.
How India, Delhi- one oldest most significant:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/28.13N-77.27E
Average: 26 C, mean high 32 and mean low 19 C
{but that is outside tropics by a bit- and has cooler nights than location I clicked on somewhere in Yucatn Peninsula}
Babylonian Empire/Mesopotamia
Or just pick Baghdad, Iraq:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/locations/32.95N-45.00E
Average 24 C, mean high 31, mean low, 17 C
Tropics are defined as places where mean monthly temperature never falls below 18C. Neither egypt nor northern india fall into tropics category, they both have cool winters. Arid climates fall in a separate category, as the notion of climate is mostly derived from natural vegetation and deserts have none.
The tropics are defined as the between Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, which lie at about +/-23.5 degrees.
that’s a lame, nearly-useles definition
The tropics do not form small fraction of all land area, there actualy quite hefty, taking ~40% of earth surface, and ok, the land are in the tropics is probably smaller as the averaged land is shifted towards the pole, but saying it is a small fraction is simply not correct.
Tropics is 40% and tropics ocean area is about 80% of tropics:
So 510 million square km divided 40% is 204 million square km of
Area. And 20% of 204 is 41 million square km of land in tropics.
Total land area of Earth is about 148, so less than 1/3 and more than 1/4. Canada is 9.985, so tropics is more than 4 Canada and more that twice US and Canada combined total area. But US, Canada, Russia and China is bigger area.
Probably should said smaller fraction or less than 1/3. US is small fraction and France is a tiny fraction.
Rather than insults, you could provide your view (which probably is generous and all encompassing)
How large is the insult of assuming what the rest of the world’s people want based no evidence whatever, but only your biases and prejudices?
“How large is the insult of assuming what the rest of the world’s people want based no evidence whatever, but only your biases and prejudices?”
Small?
If wanted a poll of people living in tropics, you could have asked that:
“WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although India has emerged as a key player in global climate negotiations, the average Indian remains unaware of climate change. ”
https://news.gallup.com/poll/125267/indians-largely-unaware-climate-change.aspx
You might also note that most people move south (in the US) when they can, at retirement. Why, to be warmer? Less taxes? The reasons are many, but relatively few move north – although here in NC we have many half backers – those who moved to Florida, found it too… and moved half back.
gbaikie: David has little to offer other than pre-adolescent comments, which he hopes are stinging enough to affect those he attacks. (He’s really not that good, lacking the understanding that to insult someone, that someone has to care what the purveyor of insults thinks) He has a very difficult time accepting the fact that there are those who disagree with his conclusions, even seeing the same facts.
It is the mindset of a true-believer – and no more need be said.
Which advice I fail to take because I find him entertaining to aggravate.
David doesn’t believe that Earth will become like Venus, and such people are the real true believers. But apparently it seems those people are in short supply.
It seems David think the tropics is going to get really hot, an interesting question is what is the hottest the tropics has ever
got.
Hmm what the highest air temperature in tropics.
“The highest maximum temperature was recorded as 50.7 °C (123.3 °F) at Oodnadatta on 2 January 1960, which is the highest official temperature recorded in Australia. The lowest minimum temperature was −8.0 °C (17.6 °F) at Yongala on 20 July 1976.”
But that is just outside the tropics: 27.5423° S, 135.4203° E
And this:
“Why is the Earth hottest at the tropics, and not at the Equator?
Short answer: The answer to this question lies in the difference between the heat of dry air and moist air. Sunlight falling on the Equator generates rising air currents that help in the formation of clouds over equatorial regions, which then cause rains and thunderstorms. This is why the areas lying on the Equator experience lower temperatures, and are not the hottest on the planet (contrary to what you might assume about the equatorial regions).”
https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/why-are-tropical-regions-hotter-than-equatorial-regions.html
But still, what is hottest in tropics?
“There are two reasons why tropical weather is different from that at higher latitudes. The sun shines more directly on the tropics than on higher latitudes (at least in the average over a year), which makes the tropics warm (Stevens 2011). And, the vertical direction (up, as one stands on the Earth’s surface) is perpendicular to the Earth’s axis of rotation at the equator, while the axis of rotation and the vertical are the same at the pole; this causes the Earth’s rotation to influence the atmospheric circulation more strongly at high latitudes than low. Because of these two factors, clouds and rain storms in the tropics can occur more spontaneously compared to those at higher latitudes, where they are more tightly controlled by larger-scale forces in the atmosphere. Because of these differences, clouds and rain are more difficult to forecast in the tropics than at higher latitudes. On the other hand, temperature is easily forecast in the tropics, because it doesn’t change much.”
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/tropical-weather-84224797
Hmm, well there there is pretty warm area in India where lots of people live, it is just outside tropics, Delhi. How about what highest temperature recorded in Delhi. Wiki:
“Summer is certainly not the best time to visit Delhi. It starts in early April and peak in May, with average temperatures near 32 °C although occasional heat waves can result in highs close to 45 °C (114 °F) on some days and therefore higher apparent temperature. The monsoon starts in late June and lasts until mid-September, with about 797.3 mm (31.5 inches)[2] of rain.” and:
Extreme temperatures have ranged from −2.2 °C to 48.4 °C.
Over at Berkeley Earth:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/delhi
The average temperature has increase and yearly is just about 32 C, and since records were keep starting in 1880, the trend has never been below 31 C, with yearly spikes almost getting to 29.5 and as high as almost 33.5 C [looks like around 1988}.
And if look mean lows, it been a pretty steady rise from 1880, and going from just below 18 C and almost reaching 19.5 [or rise of about 1.5 C} and of course yearly having spikes higher and lower.
And looking at mean high it’s gone up about .5 C, since 1880, and from 1880 peaked around 1950, fell a bit for 30 year, then rose to highest levels near present time.
Anyhow 48.4 C in F is 119.12 F which is a pretty warm day.
“And who says the bosses of climate scientists (who are who, exactly?)”
I remember railroad engineer who was a fairy.
But good question, I will check to see who is the latest and greatest.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
DA,
You don’t seem to have much idea about anything, do you?
Have you thought of asking for answers, or do you prefer to wallow in your swamp of stupidity and ignorance?
Oink, oink?
Cheers.
–Hoesung Lee (born December 31, 1945) is a South Korean economist and current chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is professor in the economics of climate change, energy and sustainable development in the Graduate School of Energy, Environment, Policy & Technology at Korea University in the Republic of Korea. Lee received his B.A. in economics from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. in economics from Rutgers University. Lee began his career as an economist working for ExxonMobil.–
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoesung_Lee
ExxonMobil seems to have a lot of good leadership.
At present, El Niño and Hurricanes in the Atlantic will not be created.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/mdrssta.png
What we have which is great is two competing thoughts on what the direction of the climate will be from now going forward based on completely different theories.
What makes it even better is nature is cooperating with each of the theories. Low solar for those who believe that one, and increasing CO2 for those who believe AGW theory.
I say it doesn’t get any better. What the climate does will determine (I would think so DAVID) which side is correct or most correct.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“What the climate does will determine which side is correct or most correct.”
No, you have to work out why.
You can be quite right about your solar effect even if it is counteracted by something else.
Svante I have explained in DETAIL why.
I have nothing to work out if I am correct.
You don’t know until you have formulas and calculations with numbers confirmed by measurements.
Here’s some factors for you to put numbers on:
Ozone
Strat. H2O
Aerosols (direct)
Aerosols (indirect)
Black Carbon
Snow Albedo
Volcanos
Solar Intensity
Land Use
CO2
CH4
NAtl. Oscillation
Pac. Decadal Osc.
Southern Osc. Index
Pacific Nino 3.4
Salvatores solar effect
Salvatore,
Dude, you’ve got to stop making predictions already. No one knows what’s going to happen.
How many times do you have to be wrong to realize you don’t know?
RW you like some others have never once listened to what I have said.
I HAVE NEVER BEEN WRONG.
Reason being my predictions on global cooling were based on two solar conditions , which have not been present since the DALTON until year 2018. The only wrong was I thought solar activity was going to be much lower then it was from 2010-2017. I was wrong on solar not the climate impacts of low solar.
LET’S TRY AGAIN.
I said in order for solar to have a climatic impact sub solar activity has to be present for 10+ years(started in 2005) followed by a period of time with average value solar parameters equal to or greater in degree of magnitude /duration of time which is typically associated with solar minimums between typical sunspot cycles. This has not happened until year 2018.
The upshot being this is the first time post Dalton that the sun is quiet enough in degree of magnitude /duration of time where it should result in the climate cooling.
If the climate does not cool from here moving forward then you can say wrong.
Dear Salvatore, the following sentence
If the climate does not cool from here moving forward then you can say wrong.
in the comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-308721
has been bookmarked in my browser :-))
Buona notte
Fair enough.
Salvatore says:
What the climate does will determine (I would think so DAVID) which side is correct or most correct.
No, Salvatore, the science is already in — the world will keep warming. But maybe not by next Tuesday.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
MEI INDEX – a very good barometer of what is happening in the tropics is favorable for a slight warming trend or cooling trend within the same climatic regime.
How does the MEI predict future trends?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2018_v6.jpg
Now when you look at the satellite temperature data versus the MEI INDEX the correlation is quite strong.
MEI INDEX AVGERAE FROM YEARS 2010-2013 = -.2732 slightly cool trend
MEI INDEX AVERAGE FROM YEARS 2014-2017 = +.883 warming trend.
ALL OTHER ITEMS BENG EQUAL WHICH COULD EFFECT THE CLIMATE.
Dr Spencer
I spend 3 or 4 months a year at my holiday home in the south of France and know well the pleasures of spending time there. I wouldnt get to depressed with an elderly physicist having a crack about climate deniers dying out with the baby boomers, baby boomers have no intention of dying out
Talking to my childrens friends I have also noticed a bit of a back lash against the climate religion in the under 25s starting to apear so we will have to see where it goes
Regards
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
ARCTIC SEA ICE COVERAGE- INCREASING.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 21, 2018 at 2:14 PM
Sorry Salvatore, but as so often you are simply wrong.
Here are graphs comparing the seasonal behavior for Arctic sea ice extent, area and thickness (volume).
1. Arctic sea ice extent (15+ % ice)
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529620061870/001.jpg
2. Arctic sea ice area (pack ice)
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529620180943/001.jpg
3. Arctic sea ice volume
http://4gp.me/bbtc/152961895868.jpg
As you can see, only the volume shows less decrease compared to extent and area. But there is no increase whatsoever.
Sources
1,2: SIDADS by Colorado University, Boulder
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
3: DMI
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt
Your in denial. Fine.
Why are you always reflecting in the past?
You do not even look at the present much less the future.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 21, 2018 at 5:12 PM
Why are you always reflecting in the past?
Which past do you mean? Please compare 2018 and 2017, from January till May.
1. SIDADS, Column 3: extent, 4: area, in MKm2 each
2017 | 1 | 13.17 | 11.30
2017 | 2 | 14.11 | 12.25
2017 | 3 | 14.27 | 12.56
2017 | 4 | 13.76 | 12.23
2017 | 5 | 12.62 | 10.95
2017 | 6 | 10.72 | 8.56
2017 | 7 | 7.90 | 5.61
2017 | 8 | 5.47 | 3.61
2017 | 9 | 4.80 | 3.30
2017 | 10 | 6.71 | 5.24
2017 | 11 | 9.46 | 8.02
2017 | 12 | 11.75 | 10.22
2018 | 1 | 13.06 | 11.64
2018 | 2 | 13.95 | 12.22
2018 | 3 | 14.30 | 12.61
2018 | 4 | 13.71 | 12.25
2018 | 5 | 12.21 | 10.77
No real increase here.
2. DMI, column 3: volume, im MKm3
2017 | 1 | 18.21
2017 | 2 | 20.13
2017 | 3 | 21.97
2017 | 4 | 22.80
2017 | 5 | 21.99
2017 | 6 | 18.05
2017 | 7 | 10.00
2017 | 8 | 6.11
2017 | 9 | 6.20
2017 | 10 | 9.42
2017 | 11 | 13.16
2017 | 12 | 16.30
2018 | 1 | 18.90
2018 | 2 | 20.89
2018 | 3 | 22.73
2018 | 4 | 24.12
2018 | 5 | 23.78
Here indeed, there is a little increase. All months in 2018 show an increased volume compared with the same months in 2017.
That was clearly visible in my DMI graph above.
No, Salvatore: I am not in any denial. Data is data.
binny…”Sorry Salvatore, but as so often you are simply wrong.
Here are graphs comparing the seasonal behavior for Arctic sea ice extent, area and thickness (volume)”.
More home made Excel graphs by binny.
Excel is a very good tool for basic graphs. And also those not so basic.
Do you know how to use Excel, Gordon?
The data shows this year Arctic Ice is higher then the recent past and the trend is increasing.
Data is data as you say and the data I showed shows Artic Ice increasing this year.
Look again, it went down yesterday.
Salvatore, what did the ice do between 10:00 am this morning and 10:30 am?
Pick any time zone you wish.
Yes, if that graph you linked is viewed upside down.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“ARCTIC SEA ICE COVERAGE – INCREASING.”
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
I see, you use a magnifying glass and compare with 2016, which was warmer than now.
The use of the word collapse.
In my opinion it is a building crumpling by an earthquake, something that takes seconds or may be an hour.
You should not use that word for anything that just melts away over thousinds of years.
In that use of the word, NYC will also collapse.
I fact anything might collapse in some time.
Mike Flynn says:
June 20, 2018 at 6:14 PM
Unfortunately for such as yourself, CO2 only absorbs around 1800 times as much IR as oxygen and nitrogen, but there is more than 1800 times as much oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere.
*
CO2 indeed is much rarer than O2 and N2, namely by an average factor of about 2,500. But it absorbs in comparison by far more than the two.
According to
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
you see here a few plots showing how their respective absorp-tion differ (I included H2O, because this trace gas actually still is, as you know, most relevant).
All plots were generated with scaling by atmospheric abundance.
1. H2O
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529614507914.jpg
2. CO2
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529613085873.jpg
3. O2
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529613182612.jpg
4. N2
http://4gp.me/bbtc/152961327346.jpg
You clearly see the highly different absorp-tion levels.
As you easily can see, the scaling intensities stored in the HITRAN database are, in the mean, as follows (in cm-1/cm):
– H2O: 0.005 i.e 5E-3
– CO2: 0.0005 i.e. 5E-4
– O2: 5E-10
– N2: 3E-13
This means that CO2 absorbs about :
– 1E6 (one million times) more then O2
and
– 1.7E9 (nearly two billion times) more than N2.
*
But I wouldnt wonder about you silently discarding this comparison, and endlessly repeating your elder nonsense.
Feel free to do, Flynn! I’m completely indifferent to that.
La Pangolina
Thank you for making up and posting the graphs of gas absorb(tion) at atmospheric abundance. I was trying to do just that but was not quite able to make it work. Someday Mike Flynn might start to think. We can only hope. But not this day! Not this day! (Borrowed from Lord of the Rings).
Norman says:
June 21, 2018 at 4:36 PM
I was trying to do just that but was not quite able to make it work.
Oh it is quite simple: you just need to choose scaling by ‘atmospheric abundance’ instead of by ‘raw intensity’.
Below 5 microns, O2 absorbs quite a lot, but that takes place in the mesosphere, about 80 km above surface.
N2 is nearly inert.
A clear hint to alarmists is that within the atmospheric window where Earth’s IR peaks, no trace gas shows any relevant presence.
If that was not the case, we certainly wouldn’t be here to discuss the point.
Most radiation is going at about 30 degree angle or less, is factor somehow included in these calculations?
The problem with people like you, gbaikie, is that if you have a thought, you automatically assume that nobody on earth has ever had it before.
LaP,
What is your point, if any?
You need to try harder if you are attempting to be gratuitously offensive.
Cheers.
No, I have a thought and I ask a question.
That radiation at 30 degrees cancels by symmetry. So does any radiation at any angle except the normal. At least in the ideal case. Climate models account for horizontal movement though, I think.
binny…”you see here a few plots showing how their respective absorp-tion differ ”
More home-made graphs from uber-alarmist Bindidon.
No, Robertson the liar!
All plotws you see in my comment were not made out of Bindidon’s data, but copied and pasted directly out of
http://www.spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
You wouldn’t even be able to use that site!
LaP,
Infrared is all light with wavelengths longer than visible light. You are just being silly when you talk about ab.sorp.tion without considering total energy ab.sorp.tion, or, indeed, what happens to the energy after it has been absor.bed!
Part 1.
LaP,
Your graphs, like most of the irrelevant diversionary nonsense you post, are meaningless in the context of the non-existent GHE. If you think that the GHE exists, you should be able to describe it, but of course describing the non-existent is in the realms of fantasy.
So, maybe you could address what I said, rather than misrepresenting my statements into something of your own desire.
Part2
LaP,
So, maybe you could address what I said, rather than misrepresenting my statements into something of your own desire.
As I point out, reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. If around 30% of the total energy from the Sun does not reach the surface, claiming that the proportions due to a particular component makes a difference is completely pointless.
Part3
Mike don’t worry the climate going forward should put this ridiculous theory to bed once and for all.
“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
LaP,
Maybe you should figure out a GHE definition – then you might be able to sound less stupid and ignorant than you do at present. I am sure you are indifferent to inconvenient fact – but that is your choice.
Part4
LaP,
No GHE, no disprovable GHE hypothesis – just endless assertions that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes thermometers hotter – due to some form of climatological magic!
Don’t bother trying to think – it might give you a headache.
Cheers.
Phew!
And I still don’t know what the problem was!
Cheers.
Ask your Schäferhund, Flynn! It might teach you pretty good about useless redundancy.
JDHuffman says:
June 21, 2018 at 10:56 AM
Anonymous Norman, now you are trying to twist around the challenge presented by Mike Flynn.
Challenge? Which challenge, Huffman?
Flynn manifestly refers to values observed 150 years ago, and has been contradicted often enough concerning that.
John Tyndall was a marvellous scientist, I love to read his lectures again and again:
https://archive.org/download/cu31924012337741/cu31924012337741.pdf
But the technical support he used for his observations lacked the accuracy of today’s techniques, whose development started in the 1940’s, probably due to USAF’s interest in IR detection.
*
By the way let me add that your repeated complain about Norman’s wish to keep anonymous is very interesting, Huffman.
Simply because you seem to be blind on the ‘right’ eye, as you never complain about other people keeping anonymous as well, e.g. ‘Phil’, ‘Skeptic Gone Wild’, ‘Bart’, ‘gbaikie’, ‘Laura’, ‘John’, etc etc etc.
Very interesting.
La Pangolina, before you puke all over yourself again, perhaps you should clean up the mess you left here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-308580
binny…”But the technical support h [Tyndall] used for his observations lacked the accuracy of todays techniques, whose development started in the 1940s, probably due to USAFs interest in IR detection”.
Then there’s the eminent scientist/researcher R. W. Wood, with such expertise in IR theory that Neils Bohr consulted him.
Wood could not see IR warming the atmosphere as claimed, he thought it far more likely that the atmosphere absorbed heat directly from the surface and retained it over some time because gases like N2/O2 are poor emitters.
That statement came from him well after Tyndall’s experiments, after quantum theory was established.
Gordon, physics were already in severe decline by Woods time.
Aristotle said that smoke rose away from the Earth because in terms of the 4 basic elements it was primarily air (and some fire), and therefore the smoke wished to be closer to air and further away from earth and water.
Gordon Robertson
Another eminent scientist in the same magazine Wood’s published his idea challenged Wood’s idea and Wood’s did not write up another follow up claiming this scientist was wrong. Links have been posted to you by others about this. That you ignore them indicates you have no desire to learn the truth and only report on your bias.
What century was this again?
Gordon, as Roy pointed out here, Woods’ experiment was fatally flawed:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/revisiting-woods-1909-greenhouse-box-experiment-part-i/
LaP,
And you still cannot describe your non-existent GHE, can you?
As to John Tyndall, he estimated the total attenuation of the Sun’s energy by the atmosphere to be around 35%. Go on, tell me how incorrect his figure was. Use your latest technological miracles – consult your graphs and models as much as you like.
Still believe that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter?
Or does CO2 have magical properties?
No GHE. No disprovable GHE hypothesis.
Off you go now, buy more brightly coloured markers. Have fun!
Cheers.
JDHuffman
Above you posted this about sea level rise.
YOU: “Anonymous Norman, I did not misread the ballpark calculation. It was you that wasnt able to figure out my comment.
Over the industrial era, even if you believe the ballpark, the SLR would be affected by millimeters.
Then, if you add in the other factors, the result is even greater.
Zealots do not like facts that counter their beliefs, but if all of Earths land were leveled, sea levels would be over 1 mile above the land.”
I did some more research on the topic.
Here is the data based upon better science tools.
http://re.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Long%20term%20stability%20of%20global%20erosion%20rates.pdf
Using this source you can look at page 212 graph d. It is the sedimentation rates over long periods.
The come up with modern sedimentation at around 20 meters/million years.
If you convert this to millimeters/year
20 meters x 1000 = 20,000 millimeters.
20,000 millimeters/1,000,000 years gives a rate = 0.02 millimeters/year.
The current rate of SLR is 1.8 millimeters/year. So sedimentation would contribute about 1% of SLR. You would still need to look for the cause of the other 99%.
Anonymous Norman, don’t you owe me an answer as to why you believe Gordon is wrong?
Do I need to supply the link for you?
Also, it does not help you to deny the many other major contributors to SLR.
But, deny you must.
JDHuffman
So what are the many other “major” contributors to SLR that you believe I am denying? Help me out, given me some data. A cryptic post does not supply the information you are claiming I am denying.
YOU: “Anonymous Norman, dont you owe me an answer as to why you believe Gordon is wrong?”
Experimental evidence is the answer. Actual tests that have been performed by many people over years. That is an answer in my own words. It should satisfy your request.
N,
The continents are bobbing up and down. So are the sea beds. The crust is in constant motion. The shape of the ocean basins is constantly changing, as is their volume.
You would have to deny this, otherwise you couldn’t claim that sea level measurements had any relevance to ocean volume.
You would also have to deny that it is not possible for heat to migrate from the surface to the depths.
Heated water does’t sink, it rises. Go ahead, deny all you want. The water doesn’t care.
Deny furiously. . Maybe you can deny a GHE into existence, but I doubt it.
Cheers.
Hiding Norman says: “Experimental evidence is the answer. Actual tests that have been performed by many people over years. That is an answer in my own words.”
Norman, you hide your answer as well as you hide your identity.
And, you don’t seem to like cryptic answers.
Interesting, isn”t it?
Mike Flynn
What you state is true about tectonics. What you fail to address is how slow of a process this is. Also you fail to point out if one plate is rising is another sinking? If this be the case the net effect on SL is insignificant
I do know you are wrong about heat getting to the depths. Lakes will overturn based upon surface winds. The whole lake slowly rotates, the warmer surface water is forced down and the colder water near the bottom is forced up. The process also brings nutrients and oxygen to the lower layers.
It will not occur in really deep water, the really deep ocean is not warming much as far as I have read. The big warming is taking place in a few hundred meters down.
Meanwhile,
the NINO3.4 index has gone positive for the first time in about 12 months while the SOI has dropped into negative territory. These facts indicate a tendency towards El Nino conditions.
Importantly, now is the time of year where such ENSO transitions tend to occur. I would bet on an El Nino by the end of the year.
El Nino is a naturally climatic event has nothing to do with AGW, or changing the climate to another regime.
What is much more important are the overall sea surface temperatures in particularly the North Atlantic which can change the climate into another climatic regime.
“El Nino is a naturally climatic event has nothing to do with AGW, or changing the climate to another regime.”
Of course. But it does mean another record global mean temperature record is on the cards.
“What is much more important are the overall sea surface temperatures in particularly the North Atlantic which can change the climate into another climatic regime.”
I don’t think so. Why would such a relatively small region affect global climate?
I think you are dreaming.
Myki,
I think you are stupid and ignorant.
There. Settled.
Cheers.
I said overall oceanic sea surface temperatures. The globe, and by the way area 3.4 EL NNO is quite a small area.
Salvatore, why do El Nino years keep getting warmer, La Nina years keep getting warmer, and neutral years keep getting warmer?
All while the ocean — the entire ocean — gets warmer too.
I asked a catastrafarian friend of mine to explain the GHE, they replied by saying “the heat from the sun warms the surface but when the heat rises to leave it gets blocked by the blanket of CO2”.
I replied by asking if CO2 blocks the heat then how does the heat get in to warm the surface in the first instance, surely if we increase CO2 it should get colder?
They mumbled something about me being a denier as they walked away.
In short none of the catastrafarians here can answer MF’s repeatedly asked question because they dont know the answer and yet they are prepared to die in a ditch over it. Belief is a very powerful tool used to control the masses even more powerful if the masses dont know they are being controlled.
crakar…”…when the heat rises to leave it gets blocked by the blanket of CO2…”
Since heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, and requires atoms to exist, next time you might ask them how atoms can act as a blanket to block atoms.
If heat rose as atoms via convection, it would simply push the cooler GHGs out of the way.
Then ask them if they are not talking about electromagnetic energy (IR), which is not heat.
IR is also heat. Ask anyone who designs heat seeking missiles.
C,
You are right, of course. No logical GHE explanation, no disprovable hypothesis. Just a never ending stream of appeals to authority, irrelevant and meaningless analogies, ad hominem attacks, implied ant-Semitism embodied in references to the Holocaust and denial [thereof].
The basis of the GHE true believers seems to be that CO2 makes thermometers hotter through the miracle of cooling – all according to the gospel of prophets such as Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and a staggeringly incompetent assortment of even lesser lights.
Luckily, cults tend to wither and die, as potential members look for newer sources of self delusion and self gratification. I look forward with interest to the next popular delusion.
Cheers.
Crakar24 says:
June 21, 2018 at 8:55 PM
I replied by asking if CO2 blocks the heat then how does the heat get in to warm the surface in the first instance, surely if we increase CO2 it should get colder?
Not quite, Crakar.
Your catastroficarians speak about outgoing radiation emitted by Earth in the far IR range above 5 microns (Earth’s radiation peaks at around 10 microns).
But you speak about incoming radiation emitted by the Sun in UV, visible light and near IR below 5 microns.
And yes: there are really CO2 absorp-tion bands in the near IR below 5 microns, even bypassing in the intensity the traditionally known 15 micron band.
But this absorp-tion mainly takes place at very high altitudes in the mesosphere (around 80 km, below the thermosphere).
LaP,
Not quite, you say.
Not quite what? You do not have a clue, do you?
Describe the GHE, and let people decide?
But of course you can’t, so you just string some pointless and irrelevant sciency words together.
Something along the lines of –
Roses are red, violets are blue,
Hansen’s deluded,
And so, dear,
Are you.
Completely pointless, even if true. Time to dip into your endless supply of irrelevant brightly coloured graphs, do you think?
Cheers.
As usual: Flynn’s dumb, agresssive nonsensical blah blah.
His dog probably barks more intelligent than he writes.
Crakar24 says:
I replied by asking if CO2 blocks the heat then how does the heat get in to warm the surface in the first instance, surely if we increase CO2 it should get colder?
In other words, you don’t the first thing about the GHE and can’t even be bothered to read Wikipedia.
Your comment privileges here are suspended until you go learn something.
Thinking about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and what it means. Doesn’t make sense as presented by many modernists.
The law is actually Stefan’s Law…. q = sigma.T^4
Boltzmann was Stefan’s first Ph.D student and the latter set out to confirm the law using Maxwell’s theory that EM exerted pressure on a surface.
Stefan built on work done by Tyndall. The latter heated a platinum wire with an electric current then directed the radiation from the wire through the familiar apparatus he used to discover gases like CO2 could absorb IR.
The IR passes through a sealed tube with halite windows and is directed onto one side of a thermopile, a device that outputs a voltage when heated. The other face of the thermopile receives EM from a reference heat source and the electrical outputs of the thermopile are run to a galvanometer.
A galvanometer is a voltmeter with the dial pointer in mid range. If there is a difference between inputs it indicates the difference by pointing to one side or the other. Therefore it compares in a relative manner the reference heat source EM to the platinum wire EM.
Tyndall heated the platinum wire till it barely glowed red, then he noted the deflection in the meter. He kept raising the current through the wire, hence the temperature, and noted the various colours as the wire changed. He increased the current in steps till the wire glowed white hot, noting the RELATIVE displacements due to each setting.
Later, Wullnet discovered the work of Tyndall and approximated temperature for the red colour and the white hot colour as 525C and 1200C. Stefan took those figures and converted them to Kelvin as 798K and 1473K. He took the ratio, 1473K/798K = 1.846 and he discovered that raising that to the 4th power gave the value 11.6. That value coincided with a number derived earlier by other researchers who had observed radiation changing with temperature as a body cooled.
So, Stefan knew that heat dissipation from the platinum wire was related between the temperatures 798K and 1473K by the power of 4.
https://home.iitm.ac.in/arunn/stefan-and-the-t-to-the-fourth-power-law.html
I am not questioning the work of Stefan, I fail to get the meaning applied to it by modern alarmists. It is blatantly obvious that the equation applies only to heat being transferred from hot to cold and not to a net energy flow nor net heat transfer. Work that preceded Stefan was actually measuring cooling of a body, which I call heat dissipation.
Stefan also discovered that atmospheric air conducts heat, an apparent triviality to warming alarmists.
The point is, the equation measures heat dissipation, not EM. In the days of Stefan, they had no idea what EM was about even though Maxwell had extended the magnetic theories of Faraday et al into generalized equation for electromagnetic energy.
As brilliant as Maxwell’s work turned out to be, he apparently had no idea what EM was about either. None of them did, Tyndall, Clausius, Faraday, Stefan, Boltzmann, or Planck. They were working in the dark as to the reality of EM. It appears many modern alarmists are stuck in that same darkness.
It’s time to get out of that dark place and discover what EM is and what it is not. There’s a reason for the 2nd law and entropy and EM cannot contradict those theories while transferring energy. There is no net energy EM flow nor is there a neat heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures.
Heat can only be transferred from hot to cold without compensation. There is no way around that.
Sigh! What a load of codswallop.
Myki…”Sigh! What a load of codswallop”.
Why not try some real science and try an intelligent response to what I have revealed? Thus far, all you have offered is inane comments on alleged record temperatures globally.
If you have a problem with my conclusions on the Stefan equation then lets hear them rather than hiding behind ad homs.
I have a question: Why is it you’ve never read any science past the year 1890?
Planck didn’t know about EM? That’s absolute crap.
DA…”Planck didnt know about EM?”
In his book on heat, Planck used the term heat rays to describe EM. I’m sure he had heard of it in relation to the analysis of Maxwell, but that was mainly about EM related to Faraday’s theories on induction.
It was not till 1913, when Bohr proposed that electrons in atoms converted heat to EM and back that anyone knew anything about how EM works. Planck later admitted that had he studied electron theory, which he ignored while developing his quanta theory and which was just emerging at the time, it would have been much easier to develop his theory.
As it stood, Planck was forced to use Boltzmann’s statistical methods based on fictitious photon gases to reach his findings on quanta. Therefore he knew nothing about EM and how it worked. He did know enough to treat his ‘heat rays’ as individual harmonic oscillators, therefore he knew something was afoot regarding frequency bandwidth.
He could not explain, however, how heat as the kinetic energy of atoms could suddenly have individual frequencies. He thought there was an aether transporting heat through space.
When Bohr brought out his theory relating EM to electrons, not everyone greeted his findings with glee. He was seriously resisted in places and it seems modernists like you are still resisting his theory. It appears Norman will never come to terms with it and the limitations of EM wrt heat transfer.
More crap.
Heat waves are EM.
Maxwell figured out the classical equations of electrodynamics in the 19th century.
Planck proposed E=hf in 1900.
Einstein proved in in a 1905 paper.
Gordon again misquotes the masters, here’s what Planck wrote 1912 p.3 up front:
“The term “heat radiation,” then, will be applied to all physical phenomena of the same nature as light rays. Every light ray is simultaneously a heat ray. We shall also, for the sake of brevity, occasionally speak of the “color” of a heat ray in order to denote its wave length or period.”
Nice find.
Myki,
Sigh! Sigh again!
Can you prove you are not stupid and ignorant?
Cheers.
Mike…”Myki,
Sigh! Sigh again!
Can you prove you are not stupid and ignorant?”
**********
What kind of a nym is Myki? Sounds like a nym for Michael, which should make him/her/it a man. However, the spelling of the nym, which is overly cute, suggests Myki is a female.
Same with Binny, aka La Pangolina. We got to know binny as Bindidon but then he(apparently) got in a snit and announced he was leaving. A few days later La Pangolina emerges, same attitude, same memory of past insults, same MO in general. However, this time La P admits to being Rose, a female and that binny is her friend.
I have no problem with binny being a female but I have to wonder about the impersonation. Of course, that raises problems for me. I don’t call women idiots and I have called binny an idiot on several occasions.
You obviously have a problem with women judging by your fascinations.
Unsurprising really.
Gorden’s problem is he speaks from the perspective of an electrical engineer after completing a 4 year degree and many years of field experience.
If he had simply completed a 3 year degree in computer modelling over a 6 year period via distant learning he could have created a computer model disproving the abuse of science by alarmists and they would gave begrudgingly accepted his POV or perhaps not but he would have no doubt avoided the troll myki
crakar…”If he had simply completed a 3 year degree in computer modelling…”
Or like Gavin Schmidt, head of GISS, who got a degree in math then took a course in atmospheric physics and got thrust forward by other alarmists as an expert in physics. There are far too many so-called experts these days who have not put in the time to really understand the basics.
Or Michael Mann, a geologist, who fancies himself as an expert in climate.
Funny – Gordon has a degree (does he?) in electric circuits, yet consider himself an expert in climate science and physics.
Yet these two PhDs in the hard scientists aren’t qualified. (Mann’s PhD is in geophysics.)
Meanwhile Gordon has no problem quoting a geophysicist when it suits his purposes:
Gordon Robertson says:
May 9, 2018 at 5:53 PM
“The eminent geophysicist, Syun Akasofu, has estimated the planet should rewarm from the LIA at 0.5C/century. Since it is claimed to have ended in 1850, it should have taken till 1950 to warmed 1C.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-301509
Gordon is a hypocrite.
Anyway moving on most catastrafarians normally only have one pea rattling around in their cavenous skull. Now and again you meet a catastrafarian who asks the question if heat from the sun does not warm the earth then what does. At this point I begin explaining the properties of electro magnetic radiation unfortunately I have never meet one with three peas
Nobody thinks the Sun does not warm the Earth. Nobody. It just doesn’t account for all the warming.
Lap, firstly I was explaining just how dim witted the general public are secondly the thermosphere is very hot and your statement whilst maybe true does not explain the GHE
Crakar24 says:
June 22, 2018 at 4:40 AM
… secondly the thermosphere is very hot and your statement whilst maybe true does not explain the GHE.
But I never tried to explain the GHE with naer IR absorp-tion by CO2!
I mentioned this only to anticipate reactions like ‘never heard of near IR absorp-tion by CO2?’.
Lap,
In an effort to encourage let me make it easy for you. You believe visible light from the sun warms the surface and in response the surface cools by emitting ir radiation. This ir gets absorbed by the ‘blankets of ghg’s” and is re emitted back to the surface to add to the warming that no longer exists thus causing the temp to rise.
However, when the “blanket” re emits the ir what is stopping say h2o from absorbing the ir not the surface and re emitting it to space?
Take your time mate I have all night
Crakar24 says:
June 22, 2018 at 4:58 AM
However, when the ‘blanket’ re emits the ir what is stopping say h2o from absorbing the ir not the surface and re emitting it to space?
But Crakar… what you write is exactly what happens countless times.
H2O and CO2 molecules (together with tiny amounts of CH4 and other trace gases) absorb IR and reemit it in all directions.
Say half up, half down to make it simple.
This process is repeated until IR radiation either reaches surface or exits out to space.
Luckily for the ‘system Earth’, its IR frequency peaks at around 10 microns, and there nearly no absorp-tion takes place, as no gas shows bands around this peak frequency.
This is the so-called atmospheric window (8-12 microns).
Suppose there would be no trace gases absorbing and reemitting IR at all: the atmospheric window then would encompass the entire IR range, and nearly 100 % of the IR emitted by Earth would reach outer space directly, as N2, O2 and Ar absorb IR millions of times less than the trace gases.
“Luckily for the ‘system Earth’, its IR frequency peaks at around 10 microns, and there nearly no absorp-tion takes place, as no gas shows bands around this peak frequency.”
What if not, lucky.
And is there a unlucky temperature for a planet.
Or you say no gas, how how about things not gas which can float in the atmosphere- dust, virus, pollen, water droplets, etc.
“Suppose there would be no trace gases absorbing and reemitting IR at all: the atmospheric window then would encompass the entire IR range, and nearly 100 % of the IR emitted by Earth would reach outer space directly, as N2, O2 and Ar absorb IR millions of times less than the trace gases.”
But the N2, O2 and Ar would still be warmed by the surface. And if air is warm, then I am kept warm, except if there no water vapor {very, very dry air}, then one cools from evaporation and would get very dry skin.
We are comprised of 70% water, evolved to live on this water planet, and human body largely controls it’s temperature by the skin evaporating water.
gbaikie says:
June 22, 2018 at 7:05 AM
But the N2, O2 and Ar would still be warmed by the surface.
*
No. Air is – at Earth’s average surface temperature – a very good insulator. Air does not conduct heat at 15 °C! If it did, nobody could use it for insulation purposes.
You are so good in googling! Search for a table showing you conduction ability of various materials at room temperature.
*
We are comprised of 70% water, evolved to live on this water planet, and human body largely controls it’s temperature by the skin evaporating water.
gbaikie, you did not understand what I mean: water vapor is the main trace gas on Earth.
If there is NO water vapor and no CO2 AT ALL, Earth’s radiation exits immediately to space, as N2, O2 and Ar do not react to it.
What, do you think, will then be the average temperature on Earth in such a situation?
“gbaikie, you did not understand what I mean: water vapor is the main trace gas on Earth.
If there is NO water vapor and no CO2 AT ALL, Earths radiation exits immediately to space, as N2, O2 and Ar do not react to it.
What, do you think, will then be the average temperature on Earth in such a situation?”
I sort of answered this with Phil.
Earth can’t any H20 on surface anywhere without having water vapor.
Mars has very little H20 at suface and it’s about minus 50 to 60 C and it has 210 parts per million of water vapor in atmosphere. And most of water at surface is in polar regions which are always much colder than Mars average temperature [partly due to CO2 ice and H20 evaporating during summer and whatever temperature either evaporate at creates/affects air temperature.
Or without any partial pressure of water vapor, H20 evaporates at about 100 K [-171 C], though it is slow, or ice doesn’t remain a solid at temperature of 100 K over period of millions of years, as get warmer than it last for much shorter time periods].
So you want something drier than Mars [and Mars is extremely dry and cold] so obviously no liquid water or frozen water anywhere on Earth surface, but we have atmosphere, and any atmosphere has a warming effect. Or if add more atmosphere to Mars it will get warmer, but for humans or human use it actually gets colder, because more atmosphere has more convectional heat loss [and Mars with thin atmosphere does not cool much even if -100 C] So if added more atmosphere to Mars to make it have average temp of -40 C, then that would be colder for human purposes- such purposes as, living].
So super dry earth and no CO2. Is fairly easy, just remove water and any left over CO2 would mostly freeze out at poles. And average temperature will be about 0 C [warmer days and colder nights] and poles could be cold enough to freeze out CO2. Or another problem with adding atmosphere to Mars, is more CO2 would freeze out at the poles and Mars has 25 trillion tonnes of CO2 to freeze. Now one collect the frozen CO2 at Earth poles, and should get rid of it, because if left at poles, during summer it could evaporate and act as warming effect on Earth, as it acts as warming effect on Mars.
“And average temperature will be about 0 C” [at or near tropics]
gbaikie…”If there is NO water vapor and no CO2 AT ALL, Earths radiation exits immediately to space, as N2, O2 and Ar do not react to it”.
They can divert it, as in scattering. Gerlich and Tscheuschner pointed out in their paper condemning the GHE and AGW that surface radiation is not a simple surface to TOA matter. It involves a complex process requiring Feynman diagrams.
Wood, an expert on IR, claimed surface radiation would become ineffective after a few feet due to inverse square law losses. One has to question the field strength of any ‘surface’ radiation reaching TOA. Lindzen seems to think TOA radiation gets there by other means, involving convection.
Wood, an expert on IR, claimed surface radiation would become ineffective after a few feet due to inverse square law losses.
Once you correct for solar insolation (S/4), the Earth is essentially a flat surface. There are no inverse square laws involved — all radiation adds up to being vertical.
Gordon Robertson says:
It involves a complex process requiring Feynman diagrams.
Another howler. The QED corrections to electron-photon scattering or ab.sorp.tion, or photon-photon scattering are not needed for climate science.
Gordon Robertson
Since you make up most content of your posts. I am pulling out the BS flag on your latest post.
Either supply a direct quote or lay off.
YOU: “Wood, an expert on IR, claimed surface radiation would become ineffective after a few feet due to inverse square law losses.”
Provide evidence he said such a thing!
Wood, an expert on IR, claimed surface radiation would become ineffective after a few feet due to inverse square law losses.
If he did say that — and I’d also like to see where — it shows how inadequate his model was. It’s like the saturation argument by Kurt Angstrom. It’s wrong because it only considers radiation from the surface, not from the atmosphere.
The atmosphere just a few feet above the surface doesn’t just ab.sorp upwelling IR, it also radiates IR both upward and downward. Wood & Angstrom didn’t take either of these radiations into account.
This is why Beers’ Law doesn’t work when calculating global warming — it too doesn’t account for the radiating atmosphere. You need to use the Schwarzschild equations (1906), which do take the radiating atmosphere into account. The results are significantly different.
binny…”No. Air is at Earths average surface temperature a very good insulator. Air does not conduct heat at 15 °C! If it did, nobody could use it for insulation purposes”.
Stefan, of Stefan-Boltzmann fame calculated the conductance factor for air. It is a conductor of heat, even at 15C. Not a great conductor, like copper, but air does conduct heat.
Conductance refers to a molecule to molecule transfer of heat but the very fact that air molecules contact our skin means it will conduct heat air molecule to skin molecule, and that conduction is very good. In fact, it’s instantaneous.
This article has a table showing the heat conduction of materials. You can see that gases in general have low heat conductance, which is expected due to the inter-atomic distances. Air is in the 0.02 W/mK region (25C) whereas copper is 401 W/mK.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
I think it’s worth keeping in mind that even though air is a poor conductor of heat there is a whole lot of it. It may take time, but it could conduct away a significant quantity of heat from the surface without convection.
gbaikie,
And if air is warm, then I am kept warm
Not really. The atmosphere would indeed be very hot but with a thin boundary layer at its base in very strong inversion. The surface would inevitably be cold.
Sounds pretty good.
Yes we know all that lap, but there is no heat generated in the absorbing and emitting process which unfortunately leaves you right back at square one without a ghe explanation
Crakar24 says:
June 22, 2018 at 7:59 AM
Yes we know all that lap
WOW!
Then if you know that all, Crakar, you will certainly be able to calculate the average temperature at Earth’s surface in case of the absence of any water vapor, carbon dioxide or any other absorbing gas in the atmosphere.
I await your response right here with greatest pleasure.
La Pangolina, you need to learn to pose your thought experiments to fit reality, not your beliefs.
For example, if you believed you could fly, all you would need to do was just propose a thought experiment without Earth’s gravity.
That’s NOT science.
JD…”La Pangolina, you need to learn to pose your thought experiments to fit reality, not your beliefs.
For example, if you believed you could fly, all you would need to do was just propose a thought experiment without Earths gravity”.
Aha…but suppose she believed she could fly and everyone around her agreed she could fly? Suppose 97% of scientists believed she could fly? Then there would be little doubt in binny’s mind that she could fly.
Bingo! The AGW theory.
It’s more like 99%.
binny…”you will certainly be able to calculate the average temperature at Earths surface in case of the absence of any water vapor, carbon dioxide or any other absorbing gas…”
I’ll take a stab at that. It would be about the same as it is now, maybe a few hundredths C difference.
Why would it be essentially unchanged?
“The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models—and the U.N.’s—is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases. Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures. The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.
“These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?
“On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s galvanizing testimony, it’s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn’t happening. Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.
“That would be a lukewarm policy, consistent with a lukewarming planet.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442
Yes, everyone knows that air pollution has a global cooling effect.
So what happens when there’s not some much air pollution anymore, when China and India’s economy grows to the point that they can, like the US and Europe did in the 1960s-1970s, clean up their air. In fact, China is trying to do that right now.
Using aerosol cooling as a means to disparage Hansen’s model is disingenuous.
David Appell now fears clean air.
His type has to fear something.
I see you’re trying to change the subject, and by lying.
David Appell, don’t get sore, just because you get tangled in your own web.
The only thing I’m tangled in is your willingness to distort and lie.
Ah, I see David. Hanson is right even when he’s wrong. And the article is disingenuous for pointing out one of his errors. And we should go ahead with massive economic dislocations anyway?
Hansen’s model only included volcanic aerosols, not those from air pollution. Because no one was measuring them so no one knew what they were. If you’re going to judge a model, you have to think about what it was made for. No climate model is made to predict the future — that’s impossible. For the GHGs — the most important part — Hansen’s model was pretty good, certainly good enough to show there was and is a significant GHG problem.
“In fact, China is trying to do that right now.”
Key word is trying.
That David thinks government can clean up air is amusing.
Government regulations can clean it up. And did, significantly, in the US and Europe.
Would a calculation prove your ghe theory lap, no it would not. What we can calculate is ghg’s don’t produce any heat through ir. We can calculate how much a body (read surface) cools when it emits ir but we can’t calculate your global warming theory because its fantasy.
If you think you can calculate it I invite you to demonstrate such a calculation
Crakar24 says:
June 22, 2018 at 9:13 AM
Would a calculation prove your ghe theory lap, no it would not.
Thank you Crakar for this typical pseudoskeptic sentence.
Can you give any proof that it wouldn’t? Of course you can’t!
Then “we” (sounds so pretty clanic to me) do not need to provide for any proof of what “we” pretend: “we” are always right!
Unlike you, I don’t hide myself behind any “we”.
*
Manifestly you are not able to calculate the temperature estimate for an Earth without H2O/CO2.
You are, like all other pseudoskeptics, comfortably waiting for me doing your job, to which you then simply reply: “we” know you are wrong.
As if I were stupid enough to fall into such a ridiculous trap!
Hi La Pangolina!
You did not mention the “ridiculous trap” you jumped in when you accused Gordon Robertson. You attacked, slandered, and insulted, all while being 100% WRONG!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-308477
JDHuffman says:
June 22, 2018 at 1:11 PM
Stop your nonsense, Huffman.
If there is one person who began here to insult everybody, then that’s Robertson, who names everybody an idiot.
And while being 100% WRONG?
Where?
I linked to your “100% WRONG”.
Stop you nonsense, La Pangolina.
JDHuffman says:
June 22, 2018 at 1:11 PM
It seems to me, Huffman, that you are as ignorant as is Robertson.
Why don’t you have courage enough to present your dumb GPS ideas for example at Prof. Curry’s Climate Etc? Even at WUWT Anthony Watts would drop you away after two comments.
Even the Flynn guy corrected Robertson months ago about his nonsense.
Read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Relativity
and this
https://tinyurl.com/y82ucqlk
and this
https://tinyurl.com/ydf36tba
If you don’t agree to all that, Huffman, stop replying to my comments. I don’t communicate with science denialists.
La Pangolins, the challenge was to present, in your own words, how GPS relies on relativistic considerations. (It does NOT.)
So, links to GPS topics don’t help you at all.
It’s very much as if you are running away from your own words.
Maybe you would like to run faster.
It does depend on relativistic effect; see this paper:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.12942%2Flrr-2003-1.pdf
David Appell, I’m glad you made a declarative statement. And, I’m sure you would be glad to back it up. Here’s your chance.
You have a GPS receiver on your head. A GPS satellite is exactly over you, at a distance of 12,500 miles. What is the error in the received GPS signal from that satellite, due to relativity.
Please show all work.
I don’t know without further study, and you’re not worth the time to figure out.
I gave you a review paper that explains the relativistic corrections needed for GPS. What’s wrong with it?
Crakar24 says:
What we can calculate is ghgs dont produce any heat through ir. We can calculate how much a body (read surface) cools when it emits ir
“emits ir” means it produces heat.
(conservation of energy)
“No. Air is at Earths average surface temperature a very good insulator. Air does not conduct heat at 15 °C! If it did, nobody could use it for insulation purposes.”
Where/when the the sun is near zenith, land which did not have convective heat (land surface heating air) the surface would be around 80 C.
Or if inhibit conventional heat loss- insulated boxes or solar ponds you get a surface temperature of about 80 C.
And parked cars and small greenhouses also inhibit convection heat loss and why parked cars with windows rolled up can get dangerous warm.
In our world with convection heat loss even when air is warmer than 40 C, the surface only get as warm as about 70 C. And if air is 20 C or cooler the ground is invited from reaching 70 C (because there is too much convection heat loss , if you make air (somehow) not be heated at all, when sun is near zenith, land surface will be 80 C.
‘
“phi
June 22, 2018
gbaikie,
And if air is warm, then I am kept warm
Not really. The atmosphere would indeed be very hot but with a thin boundary layer at its base in very strong inversion. The surface would inevitably be cold.”
Without our ocean, the planet average surface air temperature would be quite cold.
Even tropical land zone would not be very warm.
With our ocean (and it is warming land surface) the average land surface is only 10 C). So, without the warmer ocean (with average surface temperature of about 17 C)
the all land surface planet has to have an average global temperature of less than 10 C, probably less than 5 C.
With an average global temperature less than 5 C one has to have higher average tropical region temperature. Or say average global temperature was 0 C, then tropics average temperature would be about 10 C or warmer.
Or Canada has average temperature of minus 4 C (and has a ocean warming it) or anything near polar regions will be very cold.
But average temperature of Earth can not be -18 C. So maybe colder than 0 C and certainly warmer than -18 C, but within this range the tropics which is 40% of planet should be well above 0 C. Above 0 C even without any atmosphere (and even if you covered tropics in tin foil or paint it white).
gbaikie…”Without our ocean, the planet average surface air temperature would be quite cold”.
I agree in principle but it gets quite complicated, as one might expect. In out Canadian winter, west coast regions are milder (5C average), especially in the southwest coasts due to warm currents running from the Pacific. Further from the coast, temperatures begin to plunge and on the Prairies, the coldest temperatures are experienced, up to 50C colder at times. 200 miles from the coast, due East, temperatures can be -20C and are generally sub-zero.
The Prairie extreme cold is due to Arctic air descending on the Prairie region. In the summer months, the Prairies tend to be much hotter than the West Coast, so it seems the ocean tends to cool the region. Even without the Arctic air, they’d be colder than the West Coast.
50 miles east of Vancouver tends to be 5C+ warmer than the coast in summer and 5C- colder in winter.
When the Sun disappears in the Arctic for a couple of months, and for a month or so either side of the disappearance, cold air from the stratosphere descends and I’m sure that accounts for the really cold Arctic air.
“50 miles east of Vancouver tends to be 5C+ warmer than the coast in summer and 5C- colder in winter.”
Without looking at temperatures, near coast has warmer nights and less warm days than more interior, but interior is still keeping warmer in nights from ocean, just not as much nearer the ocean. Or ocean doesn’t change much regards of season or day or night.
Or if fall in ocean even in summer, but a nightime, you might freeze to death even if get out of the water. Though in water you are dead.
binny…”CO2 indeed is much rarer than O2 and N2, namely by an average factor of about 2,500. But it absorbs in comparison by far more than the two”.
Absorbs what??? Not heat. CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation which the electrons in the molecule convert to heat. A miniscule amount of heat that is immediately lost because it is surrounded by those 2500 other molecules.
The graph from GISS posted ad nauseam by David Appell shows that CO2 absorbs about 5% of all surface IR and only in the 15 um band. Either way you look at it, the EM it absorbs is insignificant to atmospheric warming.
Gordon says:
The graph from GISS posted ad nauseam by David Appell shows that CO2 absorbs about 5% of all surface IR and only in the 15 um band.
5% is a huuuuuuuuge amount of heat, even per m2.
Don’t worry Mister Spencer. The dimming sun will kill the AGW theory likelly within a decade.
JDHuffman…”(I worked in GPS implementation for about 7 years.)”
My explanations of GPS are primitive, feel free to chime in on GPS any time you like. I have no problem being wrong about the basics.
I am basing my theory on electronics communications theory in which field I have decent experience. I am used to the older Loran C implementation but from what I have read on GPS it’s not all that different. Much more precise but the basic theory of triangulation still seems to hold.
There is an issue, of course, with relativity due to the moving satellite platforms and the Earth rotating below them, but at the speeds the sats move at, which is a tiny fraction of the speed of light, general relativity theory is serious overkill. I am sure GPS designers use straight Newtonian physics.
I understand that the newer GPS units can accommodate altitude as well as x,y coordinates. Impressive stuff, but no time dilation required.
I know for a fact that no electronic device can measure time dilation.
The general relativistic effect isn’t a matter of how fast the satellite moves, it’s because the Earth warps spacetime in its vicinity. Roughly, the more warping, the slower time moves. A satellite is in a weaker gravitational field than Earthlings on the surface, so time moves slower here and faster there. That requires a GR correction.
David Appell, “science writer”, is that ALL you’ve got?
Please provide us, in your own words, how the GPS system “corrects” for GR.
I just did describe it.
You have a great imagination.
I’m sorry you can’t understand even that. There’s are two corrections that come from general relativity, a correction from time dilation, and there’s a larger general correction from gravitational redshift.
Entropic Man wrote a good post with the numbers, below.
Entropic man was doing fine until his last three paragraphs. I could tell he did not understand the GPS system. For example, the GPS satellite clocks are preset prior to launch. Since the satellite speeds are well below relativistic, effects are lost in the other errors. I think there is confusion between relativity and Sagnac, which probably contributes to some of the erroneous things on the Internet.
It happens.
The Sagnac effect is a relativistic effect.
As stated, “it happens”.
Again, the Sagnac effect is a relativistic effect.
Gordon, don’t worry, I’ll chime in, as necessary.
But, your statement: “GPS does not rely on relativity theory” is exactly correct.
What makes this especially interesting is that there is an “urban legend” that GPS uses relativity. There are even links that support such nonsense.
It’s hard to figure out, but, as with AGW, most folks can’t grasp the science. GPS employs science and math that is not taught in lower levels. Possibly they somehow believe GPS must then employ relativity? I don’t know.
JDHuffman
The only interesting thing in your post is that, yet again, another Skeptic Blogger demonstrates a complete lack on knowledge. Makes up his or her own opinion and pretends to be an expert covering up the glaring reality they are really not very intelligent.
I think Bart and Roy Spencer may be the only skeptics that show some signs of intelligence. You, Huffman, are a dork! You post to disrupt only and have nothing of value to post. I wish there were better skeptics to help hone ideas and do what good skeptics do. The lot of skeptics on this sight are terrible at anything but making up stuff, being super arrogant about things they can’t possibly understand (your big stupidity was debating about view factor when you don’t even know what it is or how it works, even after it was clearly explained to you).
This one is not so much for you. Since you are only interested in disruptive troll behavior you will learn nothing at all.
Maybe Gordon Robertson will read it and learn how wrong he is. Which is just about every post.
JDHuffman
I am somewhat skeptical of extreme hysteria over climate change. I would like to open up good skeptical debates on this blog. Too many disruptive trolls like you make good skepticism impossible to pursue. You force reasonable people to waste all their time pointing out your infinite flaws and you make people think that you are good scientific minded skeptics to destroy any legitimate attempt at rational skepticim
I think Idiot Tracker is one of the most balanced of the posters who also has a high degree of real physics knowledge. He is one of the better posters along with rational and knowledgeable Tim Folkerts.
I think David Appell is smart and provides lots of links but he seems further down the climate change alarmism then I am. But your type is a disaster for rational scientific debates. You can’t understand the points when given to you.
I try to be reasonable with you but find you are more interested in disruptive troll tactics than honest debate. I showed you how sedimentation at most would be about 1% of sea level rise and requested that you provide what would be the cause of the other 99% if a big chuck were not thermal expansion from warming oceans. You then went on with a stupid point that even now I forget.
Gordon Robertson
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
Please take the time to read this article.
Norman says:
I think David Appell is smart and provides lots of links but he seems further down the climate change alarmism then I am.
Thanks, but I don’t know if AGW’s going to be a disaster. I don’t even know what “disaster” means in this context, let alone “catastrophic.” A disaster for whom? In what way? For everyone? Which RCP are we discussing? These two words are very loaded, but no one ever defines them before they start throwing them around.
Anonymous Norman attacks from behind.
His bravery matches his grasp of reality–both non-existent.
JDHuffman
Let me state it clearly. You are a disruptive troll. You serve no scientific purpose.
A waste of time. Not as bad as another poster who was recently banned. That one was completely useless. You know about as much science as he did, none. You pretend like you know things. You don’t.
I guess this blog attracts your type of mentality.
Anonymous Norman, you’re not one of those people that believes they can make themselves feel better by insulting others, are you?
Norman:
How utterly conceited and arrogant of you to make the remark that Roy Spencer may as you put it ‘show some signs of intelligence’.
He’s made major contributions to knowledge both as a scientist and educator of those outside climate science.
I’ve read two of his books and found them very interesting, informative and readable.
What exactly has your contribution been?
“But, your statement: GPS does not rely on relativity theory is exactly correct.”
No. Accurate GPS depends critically upon both the Special and the General Theories. It is, in fact, the only instance I know of where an everyday item of technology actually employs the General Theory.
The clocks on the GPS satellites are specifically tuned to run 0.44 nanoseconds per second faster than the clocks on Earth to account for the difference in the rate of time at the GPS satellite orbit, in accordance with the Theory.
The Sagnac correction can be worked out classically to first order, but the correction for orbit eccentricity requires Relativity, and is readily observable contributing about 10 meters of error that varies over time precisely as the Theory predicts.
The corrections for Earth oblateness and Shapiro delay are only about 2 cm each, and so are not as readily observable. But, the clock rate is a huge driver, and it together with the readily discerned eccentricity correction are smoking guns that confirm the Theory.
Bart, it appears you have researched the Internet links.
So that you won’t go away deluded, next step is to learn something about GPS.
Consider “Understanding GPS–Principles and Applications”, by Elliott D. Kaplan
Actually, the words above are taken from my own paper, JD.
Citation?
LaP,
You asked –
“If there is NO water vapor and no CO2 AT ALL, Earths radiation exits immediately to space, as N2, O2 and Ar do not react to it.
What, do you think, will then be the average temperature on Earth in such a situation?”
The average temperature is just a pointless diversion, but your question can be answered by both experiment and observation.
John Tyndall went to a great deal of trouble to prepare air free of both CO2 and H2O, learning much in the process. He used the IR transmission of this air as a reference for the IR blocking properties of gases such as CO2 and H2O. Temperatures dropped as the amount of CO2 was increased, as it prevented energy from reaching the thermometer. No heating, rather quite the opposite.
The hottest places on Earth are the arid tropical deserts, characterised by low levels of H2O in the atmosphere. Less GHG, higher temperatures.
Any GHG which reduces the amount of energy reaching a thermometer, obviously causes the thermometer to become colder, not hotter.
In the absence of sunlight, the absence of GHGs results in rapid cooling, as in arid tropical deserts after sundown.
You may persist in your religious belief that reducing the amount of available energy causes thermometers to become hotter, but you may be laughed at. Even you would not be so stupid and ignorant as to suggest that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, would you?
Have you managed to describe the GHE yet, in any logical way? No? I thought not!
Cheers.
As usual: Flynns dumb, agresssive nonsensical blah blah.
His dog probably barks more intelligent than he writes.
Flynn once again correctly manages to describe the testable GHE hypothesis in a logical way: “(Tyndall) used the IR transmission of this air as a reference for the IR blocking properties of gases such as CO2 and H2O.”
Tyndall’s needle moved in the same direction as stratosphere temperatures on Earth due the IR blocking properties of gases such as CO2 and H2O in the lower troposphere regions.
Flynn: “Temperatures dropped as the amount of CO2 was increased, as it prevented energy from reaching the thermometer. No heating, rather quite the opposite.”
Flynn gets that science wrong for his political agenda purposes; backwards actually as Tyndall 1861 really wrote to the Royal Society: “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 air to 5degrees FAHR. The absorp_tive power of the vapour referred to is very great, and its radiative power is equally so.”
The best is, Bart, that this Flynn guy pretends to have read Tyndall in the 1905 6th edition from A to Z.
LaP,
I think the best part is that you cannot actually produce any facts to support your mad insistence that CO2 somehow makes a thermometer hotter, when placed between the Sun and that thermometer.
But carry on with your ad homs, and pathetically inept attempts at being gratuitously offensive.
Time for more dog barking noises, maybe?
Or maybe you can devise something to make you appear even more stupid and ignorant – how hard could it be?
Cheers.
“you cannot actually produce any facts to support your mad insistence that CO2 somehow makes a thermometer hotter, when placed between the Sun and that thermometer.”
Sure there are, plenty of facts to produce, on many gases besides just lab atm. air. Just repeat Tyndall’s experiments described well by Mike Flynn where in Mike’s own words: “(Tyndall) used the IR transmission of this air as a reference for the IR blocking properties of gases such as CO2 and H2O.”
Ball4, MF long ago described the GHE:
“…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
“Less GHGs less impediment to radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, or being emitted by the surface to outer space.”
– Mike Flynn, May 5, 2017 at 9:22 PM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-245860
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
DA,
Thank you so much for quoting me. It saves me the trouble.
Are you disagreeing? No?
Still no GHE, is there? Maybe you could describe this wondrous GHE, or possibly explain how putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer somehow makes the thermometer hotter!
Only a stupid and ignorant person would claim that, do you think?
Cheers.
“Maybe you could describe this wondrous GHE, or possibly explain how putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer somehow makes the thermometer hotter!”
No need to do so again, Mike Flynn and Tyndall’s experiments have already done so, repeatedly.
Cheers!
Ball4,
I’m surprised that you don’t possess the ability to actually cut and paste the results of my obvious brilliance.
I thank you for the high regard in which you hold me, as you are obviously in awe of my intellectual attainments.
I wonder if you could do me a small favour, as I seem to have mislaid the GHE explanation which you claim I have provided. Could you post a copy, so that others of a more stupid and ignorant persuasion can also appreciate my effulgent omniscience?
Once again, many thanks for expressing your devotion.
Cheers.
Keep up the good work today, Mike, accurately and logically describing the testable GHE hypothesis once again for us, a real treat, you deserve another copy. Good job. No need to add more.
Cheers!
4:51pm: Flynn once again correctly manages to describe the testable GHE hypothesis in a logical way: “(Tyndall) used the IR transmission of this air as a reference for the IR blocking properties of gases such as CO2 and H2O.”
Ball4,
I am not sure whether you are suffering from delusional psychosis, or just stupid and ignorant.
You seem to have quoted me at random, with no reference to a description of the GHE, and no mention of any disprovable GHE hypothesis either!
Are you trying to say that allowing thermometers to cool by reducing the energy reaching them somehow makes them hotter at the same time? This would be as mad as the bumbling pronouncements of people like Schmidt and Mann!
Surely you can’t be serious – or maybe, worryingly, you are.
Carry on laddie. Good for the amusement value, at least.
Cheers
“Are you trying to say that allowing thermometers to cool by reducing the energy reaching them somehow makes them hotter at the same time?”
No only Mike Flynn says that so foolishly. The tests showed the thermometers increased 5F in temperature making them hotter when air was added then decreased 5F when air was removed. And to answer your question, yes there is a GHE as Mike Flynn has correctly expressed in a logical way, cut and paste again per Mike Flynn:
“(Tyndall) used the IR transmission of this air as a reference for the IR blocking properties of gases such as CO2 and H2O.”
“Others did.”
Which others? You studiously avoid specifics.
LaP,
What are you disagreeing with? Nothing?
I thought so. No facts, just more religious fervour (or fever).
Carry on – more brightly coloured graphs might help.
Cheers.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/22/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up/
AGW theory not doing well and the transition is just starting. This theory will be toast by 2020.
Anyone who believes anything on WUWT is a fool. Go see what the scientists are saying, Salvatore.
“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
Well, there was one “guy” not mentioned in the WUWT article whose global climate anomaly future predictions turned out much closer to eventual reality while starting much earlier than Hansen. A meteorologist “entirely free of the bile and rancor of the Climategate correspondents”:
https://climateaudit.org/2013/07/26/guy-callendar-vs-the-gcms/
This “guy” even wrote of the benefits of added CO2 in his conclusions.
The more the merrier.
Callendar was English and who among them doesn’t want warmer weather? But he specified (p 236) “the northern edge of civilization….”
He also mentioned CO2 fertilization, and eliminating the next glacial maximum.
Bart, I add this to your comment:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2178
Callendar was an amazing person indeed.
Yes, thank you.
I note despite Salvatore’s claims AGW theory will be “toast by 2020”, there have been numerous annual periods when global climatic temperatures declined, even in the satellite era, and the basic theory Callendar used still stands.
Sure, near term global anomaly could dip below some arbitrary basis line, for several years even, that’s already happened, and the AGW theory Calendar used will still be useful as it is based on first principles, experiment and observation. Not the position chosen for an arbitrary basis line.
Oh sorry! I wrote ‘Bart’ instead of ‘Ball4’…
My bad.
No problem, just don’t call me late for dinner.
In a rising market, one doesn’t have to be a genius to make money. In a period of warming, one doesn’t have to be a genius to predict warming. It’s basically a coin toss.
I.e., your fallacy is: Texas sharpshooter
So Bart is trying to claim G. Callendar took a long distance shot at the side of a barn without proper use of trajectory mechanics.
Then some 75 years later someone else found Callendar actually hit the barn wall, sifted through tons of data on trajectory mechanics of why that shot would not just be lucky, selected certain data that matched the shot result & using THAT select trajectory data then painted a bulls eye around the shot in the barn wall to make Callendar look good.
I suggest not but Bart is certainly welcome to any silly opinion to join the game in opposition to basic science.
No, I am claiming that a flip of a coin is not enough evidence to prove that the coin has a preferred side to land on. This is very basic. You are simply imbuing the result with more gravity than it deserves because it is what you want to believe.
Bart backs off his Texas sharpshooter claim, good for Bart.
Callendar did not flip a coin either Bart. Fundamental, replicable experiment, observation and 1st principle reasoned science on which he based his work are not coin flips.
I haven’t backed off of anything. Out of all the prognostications made…Hansen was wrong, the IPCC was wrong… they all pretty much covered the entire spread of eventualities. So, when the verdict is in, you go and find one that happened to be in the ballpark.
It’s a shoo-in. It means nothing.
I & many practitioners disagree Bart; fundamental, replicable experiment, observation and 1st principle reasoned science on which Callendar based his work are worth more than coin flips.
Ships are safe in harbors, but that is not what ships are built for – voyage outcome certainty you desire is not of this world.
Either the very first B747 flew or it did not. Boeing’s practitioners made sure the 50/50 outcome had a better chance than a coin flip as did Callendar.
Bart says:
In a period of warming, one doesnt have to be a genius to predict warming.
But why are we in a period of warming?
ball4…”fundamental, replicable experiment, observation and 1st principle reasoned science on which Callendar based his work are worth more than coin flips”.
Callander did not know his butt from a hole in the ground. I have no idea why his name comes up.
“I have no idea why his name comes up.”
That’s all too obvious Gordon.
No, Ball4, they’re really not. That same “fundamental, replicable experiment, observation and 1st principle reasoned science” was used to make other predictions. Those didn’t pan out. But, it is virtually certain that one of them would.
That makes the outcome of the trial unfalsifiable. It’s heads you win, tails I lose. If Callendar’s estimate hadn’t been so lucky, you would have just picked one that was. It’s self-serving claptrap.
If the “science” were making any progress, one would reasonably expect the later prognostications to have been better than the original. But, here you are, retreating to the original because the darts he threw happened to hit somewhat near the target. They didn’t fly directly along the same trajectory, but hey, the end number is roughly the same, so let’s just sweep that untidiness under the rug.
You can fool yourself if you like. You aren’t fooling me.
Bart 12:51am: “That same “fundamental, replicable experiment, observation and 1st principle reasoned science” was used to make other predictions. Those didnt pan out.”
Feel free to point them out. You won’t succeed. At least not in the work of competent practitioners like Callendar.
Callendar 1938 was not a lucky shot. The first B747, D_C10, Airbus fly and are not lucky shots because proven first principles work out in the hands of competent practitioners.
Your fallacy is: weak analogy. The principles of aircraft design are well established, with over a century of testing and repeatedly and directly verified application in thousands upon thousands of successful flights.
Callendar’s conjecture has not been verified on the scale of the Earth and all its attendant subsystem responses. You don’t get to borrow against the account of a well-established science to promote your own nascent one. You are a pauper demanding a loan from a bank on the basis that you have two arms and legs, just like Bill Gates.
I’ve already pointed out sources for failed prognostications. Callendar is just entrant one among many.
And Bart’s fallacy is: weak studies in the meteorological field.
Not having read the governing principles is no excuse for then unknowingly breaking the rules. Ask any traffic cop. I make no claim beyond Callendar’s work and subsequent meteorological generally published principles.
“Callendar’s conjecture has not been verified on the scale of the Earth and all its attendant subsystem responses.”
Your fallacy here is: not specific enough.
In fact Callendar’s specific conjecture Table VI updated for actual CO2 et. al. forcing (+0.6 anomaly by 2013 basis 1921-1940) has been verified on the scale of the Earth and all its attendant subsystem responses. Bart’s not having read the bulk of the work & competently investigated the ref.s is not good justification for claiming a different opinion.
“I’ve already pointed out sources for failed prognostications. Callendar is just entrant one among many.”
Except Callendar’s work was competent in the field and his predictions have been reasonably realized to date on the scale of the Earth system 80 years later. You have not pointed out sources for competent author(s) failed prognostications in this field that I see.
Meteorological principles are well established, and have numerous competent practitioners just like aviation, with over a century of testing and repeatedly and directly verified application in view of thousands upon thousands of successful lab and in situ observations.
You do have an interesting idea though, excuse me while I go apply for a loan because I have arms and legs.
“…has been verified on the scale of the Earth…”
No, it hasn’t. A coin toss is not a verification. Drawing a circle around darts thrown at a board is not verification. You are making a very basic logical error, and you are extrapolating controlled experiments beyond the realm of their established applicability.
You are making a very basic error here:
“A coin toss is not a verification. Drawing a circle around darts thrown at a board is not verification.”
There is NO extrapolation beyond 2013 measured per my discussion and Callendar and other competent meteorologists don’t do the kind of work you suggest: no coin flips, no dart throwing. Many researchers in the meteorological field competently work from 1st principles & experiment – they do not throw dice.
There are of course charlatans in meteorology just like in aviation where many incompetent practitioners paid with their lives. Aviation and meteorology competently practiced are very useful to society.
OK, fine, go on believing what you very badly want to believe. But, a happenstance is not verification, and you cannot say with any assurance that rough agreement with his prognostication at a particular instant in time is anything beyond happenstance.
“a happenstance is not verification”
There was no happenstance. There is no belief necessary either in this case; just the data speaking for itself verifying the 1st principle competent research. If you don’t want to listen to and learn from data, you do not advance your knowledge in this field.
It’s not saying what you want it to say.
I’m not going to argue with this any further. It is just foolish.
I don’t “want” the data to say anything beyond what the data shows. The data and Callendar’s writing does all…ALL the talking imo. That should be obvious but your comments show it isn’t.
If Callendar took 50 shots at the future global anomaly in 2013 and hit on say only one shot by “happenstance”, then you would have a good point – Texas sharpshooter applies & a belief could exist in that trajectory mechanic was THE right one.
That is not what Callendar’s 1938 research work was all about.
“If Callendar took 50 shots at the future global anomaly…”
Others did. His was just one shot among many.
If you still don’t understand why this is not a conclusive result, I can’t help you anymore. I’m late for a very important date…
Others did.
Which others? You studiously avoid specifics.
“Out of all the prognostications madeHansen was wrong, the IPCC was wrong they all pretty much covered the entire spread of eventualities.”
Bart has spoken, and judged the results as poor. We can all go home now.
Your fallacy, as usual, is argument by assertion.
What these guys were doing was not prognostication (guessing), it is applying physics to make detailed predictions.
Hansen’s 1981 predictions have been remarkably accurate.
This kind ‘its all just lucky guesses’ kind of argument could made about almost any science discovery.
The colliding black holes and their observed signature in gravity waves. Just a lucky guess.
The problem with this is when you have 40 y of continuous lucky guesses. And many other confirming facts.
James Hansen had his prognostications, which were wrong. There are dozens of CMIPs that have all run hot. To suggest that Callendar is the only guy who made a prognostication is rank disingenuousness.
Bart, you suggested others did take 50 shots each but can not identify any particular one. Hansen sketched 3 scenarios, the models take one shot each used for comparison in the spaghetti graphs while being available for as many shots as wanted for studies.
Fact is Callendar took one reasoned shot based on theory and experiment and his shot hit the target 75 years later, so far. The things some people will deny…
That’s not enough. Anyone can make a lucky guess. Moreover, it has been with periods of warming and cooling, not relentless warming such as Callendar implied would be the case.
Focusing on one guy out of hundreds, who happened to be in the right ballpark when the music stopped, is painting the target around the result and proclaiming anyone within the circle must know what he is talking about. But, it is a tautology that someone would have been in that circle.
This book won notoriety some years ago for its thesis that successful fund managers are simply the guys left over when the dust settles. The example used was, you take 1000 people an put them in a room and ask them to flip a coin. Roughly 500 people will get heads.
You send the others away, and ask the remainder to flip again. You keep winnowing out the head-flippers. When you’ve just got a few left, you proclaim them expert coin-flippers.
But, they’re not. They just happened to flip heads more often than the others. The next flip one makes can still go either way with 50/50 probability.
Anyone can make a lucky guess but the ones that read the stable boy newsletter win the money.
Bart writes focusing on one guy out of hundreds yet Bart has never named but one of his hundreds. Who are these other 99 Bart?
“Random Walk’ was not as good as The Intelligent Investor which explains why there more than just lucky coin flippers investing in good businesses.
Sure I have. Any of the CMIP models. If you are claiming that there was only one prognostication, or that they all agreed with Callendar’s, then you have no idea what you are writing about.
We’re not talking about the relative worth of investment treatises. We are talking about the nature of your fallacy.
CMIP models are not 99 “guys” Bart. Name the “guys”. You can’t. It is your fallacies that are not supported with reason and experiment where Callendar’s are based on 1st principle, reason and experimental observation.
…where Callendar’s are based on 1st principle, reason and experimental observation.”
So, you’re saying the CMIPs are not?
“..CMIPs are not?”
CMIP climate models are parameterized; their results are not just from 1st principles.
The parameters are part of the allowable physics. Callendar had to chose them for his model, too, even if he did so implicitly. So, again, you have a spread of viable models which encompasses all possible outcomes. Finding one that matches the actual outcome, to some degree, does not confirm it, it just fails to falsify it.
The difference is between necessary and sufficient conditions. Newbies and mediocrities often conflate the two. Matching the end result is necessary for the model to be viable. But, it is not sufficient to establish the model as truthful.
The so called scientist do not know what they are talking about.
They know, but some are on a mission for what they consider a Noble Cause, and others have strong incentive to downplay and obfuscate that which runs counter to the narrative.
DAVID if the climate cools we will say increasing CO2 linked to the recent cooling.
Only in the upper regions & lower stratosphere for CO2 Salvatore. As seen in history, UAH shows several 0.5c anomaly downtrends lower troposphere. They happen as many forcings on global temperature series are in play not just CO2 ppm.
Doesn’t wash. The claim is that CO2 is dominant. If it isn’t, then there is no empirical basis for attributing any of the modern warming to it. If other forcings could cause the “pause”, then they could cause the “rise” as well.
Any? No.
The “pause” depends on selection of free parameter stop and start dates. With those and a free constant, you can support any opinion or cause you might care to take up: warming, cooling, pause.
If one can get any result one wants from the data, then there is no empirical basis for making a compelling conclusion. Thank you for confirming what I have written.
Good point. Thank YOU, any temperature trend discussion is not a good use of limited time imo. It is time well spent though understanding Callendar’s use of meteorological text book 1st principles to make such a good call on future added CO2 ppm anomaly. And understand why Dr. Spencer’s test was set up & worked out.
Climate models are useful for the 15 day weather predictions, possibly they get better, just send more funds if you need to predict the weather for say a month ahead of James Webb observatory launch or a softball championship game to which you might want to fly.
“…for say a month ahead of James Webb observatory launch…”
Ouch!
Salvatore, all you is repeat yourself with every comment on every post, as if we didn’t get it the first time.
Gordon Robertson
GPS receivers measure their distance from the satellites by calculating travel time. The satellite signal includes a time hack recording the time at which the signal left the satellite.The receiver notes the time of arrival and the difference is travel time.
The uncertainty for one satellite is 50 nanoseconds, in which time light travels 15 metres. Given a number of satellites, the receiver can calculate a position to better accuracy than that.
IIRC the first satellite gives you a position somewhere on the surface of a sphere. The second satellite puts you on the surface of another sphere. You can now put yourself somewhere on the circle where the two sufaces intersect. The third satellite gives you a third sphere and a position at one of the two points where all three spheres intersect and the fourth sphere defines one point where all four spheres intersect. Extra satellite signals improve accuracy.
Given timing signals from four satellites the receiver can calculate an accurate time to compare with the satellite clocks.
The orbital velocity of the satellites slows their clocks by 7 microseconds per day relative to the time rate on Earth’s surface. The weaker gravity at orbital altitude speeds up the clocks by 45 microseconds.
The net result is that the satellite clocks gain 38 microseconds per day relative to a surface clock, equivalent to a distance error of 11.4 km.
The system applies a -38 microsecond per day relativity correction to the satellite clocks, keeping them in synch with the surface clock.
Thanks Entropic Man but your work is hopeless:
– http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-293335
– http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/#comment-293336
And by now we have this strange Huffman guy who is at least as stubborn as is Robertson.
What a pity for this web site driven by a science man like Roy Spencer!
La Pangolina
I’ve given up on the usual suspects. Hopefully there are sensible lurkers out there.
Entropic man, you were doing fine until your last three paragraphs.
The GPS equations do not use ANY corrections for “relativity”.
You have been misled because you want to be misled.
“Relativity in the Global Positioning System,” Neil Ashby, Living Reviews in Relativity, 28 January 2003.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.12942%2Flrr-2003-1.pdf
“The size of the Sagnac correction varied from 240 to 350 ns. Enough data were collected to perform 90 independent circumnavigations. The actual mean value of the residual obtained after adding the three pairs of time differences was 5 ns, which was less than 2 percent of the magnitude of the calculated total Sagnac effect.”
Thanks for the link, David.
Right, so without the GR corrections you get a net residual that is much too big.
David Appell, any errors caused by relativity are lost in the substantially more noticeable errors due to the atmosphere.
The GPS calculations do not include any “corrections” for relativity. The processing allowed by the Kalman filter is amazingly sufficient for ground accuracies of 100 meters, or better. Augmentation by ground-based system bring accuracies to centimeters.
JDHuffman says:
The GPS calculations do not include any corrections for relativity.
I showed you the paper where exactly such corrections are calculated!
No more white-is-black-ism….
DA…”I showed you the paper where exactly such corrections are calculated!”
You showed us an incredibly theoretical paper from a physics theoretician. They are allowed to live in dream world because very few of their theories are implemented.
JDHuffman
There is no relativity correction in the GPS equations used by receivers to calculate position.
This is because the relativity correction is made when the ground stations update the satellite clocks to keep them synchronised to the master atomic clock in Colorado Springs.
Exactly!
You’re learning.
That’s still a correction on account of relativity.
Why so much bias against relativity?
entropic…”This is because the relativity correction is made when the ground stations update the satellite clocks to keep them synchronised to the master atomic clock in Colorado Springs”.
No time dilation corrections there, just good old synchronization and error correction.
Tell me something, do you think they correct for time dilation at the Greenwich time facilities?
entropic…”The uncertainty for one satellite is 50 nanoseconds, in which time light travels 15 metres. Given a number of satellites, the receiver can calculate a position to better accuracy than that”.
I have no problem with the allowance for the speed of light, that’s not time dilation. Time dilation is based on a theory that clocks speeds up or slow down based on velocities at the SOL. Not only that, dimensions like a metre are claimed to change as well.
When you talk about time, you are not picturing what is really being measured, which is a rate of change of position, aka velocity. The velocity of a satellite came from the thrust of rockets that delivered the sat to its orbit.
To visualize this stuff you need to picture the sat in its orbit. See the forces acting on it and the momentum created by the rocket thrust, which translates to a velcoity. The only force is gravity which can be depicted as a vector arrow from the centre of the Earth to the sat.
The momentum wants to go in a straight line perpendicular to that vector but the force of gravity is dragging it toward the Earth. The orbit is a resultant between the momentum and the gravitational force.
That’s it, no time acting anywhere. However, to keep tract of the sat’s position we need to time it between positions. And we need to time the signal sent by the sat to the surface station and back. No problem there and no time dilation required.
Gordon, your musings here are well known to every freshman student of physics.
An orbiting satellite is in free fall.
Again, time dilation has been observed experimentally. (Go look it up, for once.) The results exactly agree with special relativity.
DA…”Again, time dilation has been observed experimentally. (Go look it up, for once.) The results exactly agree with special relativity”.
Not according to Louis Essen, who invented the first atomic clock. He thinks time dilation is nonsense and time is his business. Essen was the first to accurately calculate the speed of light.
Essen thinks Einstein goofed up with his relativity theory which Essen claims is not even a theory, it’s a thought experiment. He claimed E’s paper on general relativity is one of the worst he has ever read.
I feel better now that an expert agrees with me.
Gordon,
Appeal to authority? Not from you!
For all you supporters of relativity. Here’s an article by the scientist who invented the atomic clock, an expert on time.
He thinks relativity theory and time dilation are both wrong. He think relativity does not qualify as a theory and that Einstein was a light-weight when it came to measures.
https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/25/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/
This scientist is wrong.
DA…”This scientist is wrong”.
A scientist who spent his life studying time, who invented the first atomic clock, and who calculated the first accurate speed of light is wrong????????????????????????????
So if in spaceship traveling at .5 speed of light, and you shine light in direction you traveling, that would make light travel at 1.5 speed light?
And if shine light opposite way, the light will travel at 1/2 speed of light?
Gbaikie
An observer aboard your ship at 0.5C would see both beams of light receding at 300,000 kilometres/second and at the same wavelength.
A stationary observer ahead of the ship would measure the light arriving at 300,000km/second but see a shorter wavelength due to the Doppler effect.
A stationary observer behind the ship would measure the light arriving at 300,000km/second but see a longer wavelength.
All observers measure the speed of light c as 300,000km/second relative to their own location and velocity.
That is why it is called relativity.
It is counterintuitive but it happens.
For one thing, Essen only looks at the very first experiment to test GR (Eddigton), and finds it wanting.
But for some reason, all the many subsequent confirming experiments, he simply ignores. Very odd.
Will see what the climate does from here on out and this is going to determine which theory is correct.
AGW enthusiast do not get it ,of course the temperature goes up and down but it was /is in the same climatic regime.
I am saying the climate is going to TRANSITION into a colder climatic regime or maybe a lesser climatic shift. Of course the climate will still go up and down but in the colder regime/shift.
The next question is how much colder then what we have now. I would say at a minimum -.5c, if it is a climatic shift if it is a climatic regime change then it will be greater then -1c.
SDP, the AGW “theory” failed long ago.
Yes but they still believe.
SDP,
All the signs of a true religion – “Believe, and thou shalt be saved!”
I’ll save myself if I feel like it.
Cheers.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“Yes but they still believe.”
No one “believes” AGW. They know the evidence for it. Missing this point says a lot about you, Salvatore.
“I would say at a minimum -.5c, if it is a climatic shift..”
Happened couple times in the 80’s and at least once in the 90’s according to UAH. The theory and experiment Callendar relied upon will still be useful and reasonably predictive over another 75+ years if practiced with reasonable work as he did.
If “minimum -.5c” happens again by 2020 as before the theory and experiments will still be useful to understand climate and will not be toast despite Salvatore’s opinion.
Meanwhile, I don’t wan’t to be called alarmist but:
“Global temperatures for the first five months of the year have been the highest on record for a La Nia year, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. May 2018 was the fourth warmest May on record, the 42nd consecutive May and the 401st consecutive month above the 20th century average. ”
“Ice losses from Antarctica have tripled since 2012, increasing global sea levels by 0.12 inch (3 millimeters) in that timeframe alone, according to a major new international climate assessment funded by NASA and ESA (European Space Agency). According to the study, ice losses from Antarctica are causing sea levels to rise faster today than at any time in the past 25 years. Results of the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) were published in the journal Nature.”
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/above-average-warmth-high-impact-weather-continues
myki…”Meanwhile, I dont want to be called alarmist but:
Global temperatures for the first five months of the year have been the highest on record for a La Nia year, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration”.
You mean the fudging, cheating, data synthesizers at NOAA?
Drats…posted in the wrong place,
For all you supporters of relativity. Here’s an article by the scientist who invented the atomic clock, an expert on time.
He thinks relativity theory and time dilation are both wrong. He think relativity does not qualify as a theory and that Einstein was a light-weight when it came to measures.
https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/25/dr-louis-essen-inventor-of-atomic-clock-rejects-einsteins-relativity-theory/
more on Louis Essen inventor of the atomic clock and one of the first to accurately determine the speed of light.
https://www.lindahall.org/louis-essen/
Reading the following article from Louis Essen, I felt I could insert AGW theory in place of relativity and it would fit.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/louis-essen-discusses-einsteins-theories-another-attempt.98765/
“It is always better to refer to the original papers rather than to second hand accounts and I, therefore, studied Einsteins famous paper, often regarded as one of he most important contributions in the history of science. Imagine my surprise when I found that it was in some respects one of the worse papers I had ever read. The terminology and style were unscientific and ambiguous; one of his assumptions is given on different pages in two contradictory forms, some of his statements were open to different interpretations and the worst fault in my view, was the use of thought-experiments.
This practice is contrary to the scientific method which is based on conclusions drawn from the results of actual experiments. My first thoughts were, that in spite of its obvious faults of presentation, the theory must be basically sound, and before committing my criticisms to print I read widely round the subject.
The additional reading only confirmed my belief that the theory was marred by its own internal contradictions. Relativitists often state that the theory is accepted by all scientists of repute but this is quite untrue. It has been strongly criticised by many scientists, including at least one Nobel prize winner.
Most of the criticisms are of a general nature drawing attention to its many contradictions, so I decided to pin-point the errors which give rise to the contradictions, giving the page and line in Einsteins paper, thus making it difficult for relativitists to dodge them and obscure them in a morass of irrational discussion”.
Essen talks about contradictions in the article (at link below) by Einsteins relativity paper. One of the first I encountered was the thought experiment presented by Einstein in which a man is floating inside a box in space. Suddenly the man and box come into the gravitational field of a planet and the man’s feet touch the floor.
Why would both not be attracted at the same rate? Then the box is yanked up by a rope, which would cause the man’s feet to touch the bottom of the box. Einstein sees both as examples of acceleration rather than the forces applied which are quite different and act differently. He then quite illogically begins to associate gravity, a force, to acceleration which has a time factor.
Einstein’s paper on relativity really is ambiguous. As Essen claimed, no scientific paper should contain thought experiments.
Gordon Robertson says:
Einsteins paper on relativity really is ambiguous. As Essen claimed, no scientific paper should contain thought experiments.
He he.
Einstein used experimental results to create his theory:
* Fizeau’s experiment of 1851
* the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell’s equations, eqations firmly grounded in experiment (to say the least)
* the TroutonNoble experiment (1903)
* the experiments of Rayleigh and Brace (1902, 1904)
* the Michelson Morley experiment
Einstein was a genius, and with these results, plus a great deal of hard thinking, he invented special relativity. It was a major triumph of human thought.
DA…”Einstein was a genius….”
I used to think that too and now I wonder what went wrong. I am wondering of he burned out. He was under tremendous pressure to get his relativity theory out and maybe the pressure got to him.
Circa 1925m Einstein and Schrodinger turned their back on the quantum theory proposed by Bohr because they felt it was describing mathematically based theory that had no reality to back it. Then he did the same himself with relativity.
Gordon Robertson says:
He thinks relativity theory and time dilation are both wrong.
He’s wrong. Also an idiot, since relativity has pass all experimental tests, time dilation has been observed, and every particle collider all over the world would explode if relativity wasn’t correct.
DA…”Also an idiot, since relativity has pass all experimental tests, time dilation has been observed, and every particle collider all over the world would explode if relativity wasnt correct”.
If you read Essen closely he supplies all the information required to show how none of those so-called proofs stand up to the scientific method.
No mention of volcano’s in the antarctic perhaps they are not aware they exist?
Has volcanic activity in the Antarctic increased in recent decades? The melting has….
Crakar24 says:
June 23, 2018 at 2:27 AM
No mention of volcano’s in the antarctic perhaps they are not aware they exist?
advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/1/6/e1500093.full.pdf
More on AGW fiction and black holes. A quote from the article:
“To end this review, the following statement by Stephen Crothers sums up this reviewers opinion: Contemporary physics has declined into a business, far from science. Demonstrably false and fantastic claims sell books, films and magazines, and can be used to misappropriate public funds. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. A typical example is the black hole, a purely mathematical abstraction for which no experimental evidence has been or could ever be found. The public do not really know what this thing is.
Add to that AGW, the Big Bang, and relativity theory.
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/13/supermassive-black-holes-more-fiction-than-scientific-fact/
Gordon Robertson says:
A typical example is the black hole, a purely mathematical abstraction for which no experimental evidence has been or could ever be found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence
PS: You can’t do experiments in astronomy — it’s an observational science.
PPS: LIGO detections of gravitational waves exactly matched the prediction of general relativity for the merger of two black holes:
https://www.ligo.org/detections.php
“Einstein Wins Again! General Relativity Passes Its First Extragalactic,” Forbes Jun 21, 2018.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/06/21/einstein-wins-again-general-relativity-passes-its-first-extragalactic-test/#6e3833582f57
* “…Extragalactic Test,”
If you notice some of the posters are trying to cover for AGW if indeed the transition /shift in climate takes place (which I think it will) trying to say it happened in the past.
NO- it has not happened , all the climate did in the past(1850-2017) was vary within a specific climatic regime. The key being all the temperature changes in the past were temporary this time this will not be case.
If I am correct the climate when in the new regime is still going to shift up and down but around a lower average. Like it has always done accept this time the underlying trend will be down not up. How much lower will the lower average be then today ? I like to see -1c or more to make it definitive. Even a climatic shift on the order of -.5c I think effectively ends AGW theory.
If AGW were real the global temperatures would be higher then what we have now despite ENSO /VOLCANIC ACTIVTY etc but they are not.
The climate today is not even in a different climatic regime(post 1850) much less unique.
If AGW were real monthly departures would not be like they have been, they would have to be at least +.50c higher or more likely approaching +1c month after month. It is not happening not even close and as each month ticks away and it does not happen, not to mention a possible cooling trend I think the time is fast approaching to say AGW is no longer a viable theory.
“If I am correct …”
That will be a first.
You have the record for being the longest wrongest pundit here.
“If AGW were real the global temperatures would be higher then what we have now despite ENSO /VOLCANIC ACTIVTY etc but they are not.”
The global climate temperatures really are reasonably close to those predicted due added CO2 ppm some 80 years ago Salvatore, so the global mean temperature was NOT predicted reasonably higher than what we observe now when adjusted for the actually experienced levels of increased CO2 ppm during the period.
The basic theory has been proven remarkably useful in predictive ability over that time without resorting to computers, simply using experiment, observation and hand calculations.
Salvatore writes: “the time is fast approaching to say AGW is no longer a viable theory.”
For the basic text book theory to become not viable, Salvatore has to show experiments proving past experimental results on which the theory is based are now somehow obsolete causing meteorology text books to be re-written over time.
Words on a blog not based on experiment & climate observation will have no impact on the basic science Salvatore.
The global temperatures are not even close to what was predicted. They are way off.
The experiment is will the climate cool as solar theory calls for or warm as AGW calls for. It is pretty simple.
I say the warming over the last 150 years was caused by active solar conditions and the secondary effects associated with those conditions.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
CLIMATE MODEL PREDICTIONS VERSUS REALITY. WAY OFF!! HOPE MY PROJECTIONS WILL BE BETTER.
“The global temperatures are not even close to what was predicted.”
Callendar’s 1938 predictions proved to be accurate for 2013 and interim years. You move the goal post to computer climate models which are running not as accurate to date.
Climate model predictions vs reality:
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2018-panela.png
Not what Salvatore claims.
I have not been wrong. Reason being the solar conditions which I said are needed for cooling did materialize until year 2018.
You do not pay attention.
On the other hand AGW has been wrong for 30 years.
Basic text book theory & experiment provided reasonably close CO2 related climate predictions over 80 years from 1938 as implemented in G. Callendar’s work Salvatore.
Salvatore’s next prediction for 2020? No reason to believe certainly will come true either but certainly can predict will not affect textbook theory which is based on proper experiment and observation.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
I have not been wrong.
“I thought all the factors were in back then but I was wrong….”
– Salvatore Del Prete
June 19, 2018 at 5:58 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-308156
From Dr. Spencer’s heading post: ‘One of the attendees was an elderly particle physicist who was also a Nobel Prize winner. During Q&A, he mentioned how he had been teaching a climate class at his university for several years, and that he thought my skepticism was unwarranted. He was convinced that the Antarctic ice sheet was headed for collapse and we would have to deal with a 30 m rise in sea level as a result.’
I wonder why a meteorologist wasn’t lecturing on climate related matters instead? A meteorologist being of course a professional who studies in depth the behaviour of the Earth’s weather systems – such as Dr. Spencer and, for example, the late British meteorologist Robin Stirling.
In Stirling’s book ‘The Weather of Britain’ there’s a lot of interesting information to be found – for example he notes that in the hot British summer of 1976 ‘the dry air allowed intense radiative cooling at night, particularly in the countryside. Ground frosts were even reported at a number of valley sites and at Kew.’
He also points out that in a really cold spell, the air will be below freezing from the ground right up to the stratosphere.
I doubt that a particle physicist would have this sort of detailed knowledge of meteorological phenomena at his fingertips – yet he chose to argue with a meteorologist with research credentials, experience and knowledge such as Dr. Spencer.
Sorry, Robin Stirling was only a professional geographer and teacher – not a meteorologist.
Myki: Myki: Go to this link and you’ll see that Robin Stirling was a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society (FRMetS):
http://www.gilesdelamare.co.uk/the_weather_of_britain.htm
Here’s what the Society has to say about fellowship:
“Becoming a Fellow normally requires a formal qualification (eg. a first degree in a science subject and/or post-graduate degree or an NVQ in a relevant discipline) and at least five years of professional experience within or directly related to meteorology. Exceptionally, long experience and performance at a high professional level, suitably attested by peer review, can replace the requirement for a formal academic or vocational qualification. MSc or PhD study in a relevant subject counts as one or two years experience respectively
To be considered for election to Fellow applicants need to be proposed by two existing Fellows.
Those elected may use the appellation FRMetS as a measure of professional competence in meteorology.”
I think that you’d enjoy reading his book.
So?
At best, he was a competent meteorologist/geographer.
That was all.
Certainly nothing to indicate any expertise in climate science.
Myki: So if someone is a competent meteorologist, this doesn’t indicate any expertise in climate science, as you put it?
Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with for example Dr. Spencer’s background.
‘Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASAs Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.’
“So if someone is a competent meteorologist, this doesn’t indicate any expertise in climate science, ..”
Exactly.
Roy Spencer has a demonstrable background.
Robin Stirling does not.
Myki: You say “Roy Spencer has a demonstrable background.
Robin Stirling does not.”
So you’ve read Robin Stirling’s book, have you Myki?
I doubt that a particle physicist would have this sort of detailed knowledge of meteorological phenomena at his fingertips
He was teaching a class about climate, not weather.
Sigh. Just get the book and read it, DA – you’ll learn something.
Here we can enjoy what chief denialist Robertson presents us: a web site promoting a movie about:
Galileo Was Wrong, A Scientific Documentary On Geocentrism
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/06/18/galileo-was-wrong-a-scientific-documentary-on-geocentrism/
Thanks Robertson, I now better understand why you write so much nonsense about relativity and the like…
To have a game, you need an opponent. Gordon is the perfect foil. As Salvatore writes, the game is on…
According to the climate models monthly deviations now should be running between +.80c and +.95 c higher not even close.
As the surface oceanic trend continues down you can forget any warming and that is what is happening and will continue to happen.
AGW by 2020 game over.
“AGW by 2020 game over.”
Sound familiar?
You should get a job moving the goal-posts at sporting grounds.
Not discussing climate computer models Salvatore, discussing G. Callendar’s hand calculations predicting future climate anomaly due CO2, on the same basis, as shown Fig. 4 in the 5:36pm link you apparently didn’t read or wish to ignore:
G. Callendar 1938 predicted anomaly for 2013 adj. for actual CO2ppm: about +0.6C
Actual 2013: about +0.6C
On the time period basis, G. Callendar’s climate predictions based on experiments and observations due added CO2 tracked actuals remarkably closely 1938 through 2013.
Ball is this a joke? G. Callendar’s projections.
Ridiculous. All one has to do is look at co2 concentrations versus the historical climatic record. The only correlation is CO2 will follow the temperature.
To make it worse it was warmer when CO2 concentrations were less then today over the last 8000 years on many occasions.
To make it worse it was warmer when CO2 concentrations were less then today over the last 8000 years on many occasions.
Probably caused by Milankovitch factors, and it is independent of today’s warming from GHGs.
“Ball is this a joke?”
Not at all, G. Callendar’s basic science work resulted in published projections for added CO2 ppm on global climate temperature which turned out remarkably accurate over last 80+ years.
“All one has to do is look at co2 concentrations versus the historical climatic record. The only correlation is CO2 will follow the temperature.”
That does seem to be what the ancient data is telling up until humans discovered they could control fire to keep warm, cool & cook. Lately the temperature does not go up today leading the result of me driving my SUV tomorrow. That sort of unnatural added CO2 necessarily leads global climate temperature and G. Callendar proved accurate predictions are possible due to the foreseeable unnatural CO2 ppm increase.
“To make it worse it was warmer when CO2 concentrations were less then today over the last 8000 years on many occasions.”
There exist natural forcings and huge cycles on many time periods in addition to natural CO2 contributing to the global and regional climate.
Where in his 1938 paper did Callendar project temperatures to the preset or beyond?
See Table VI, p. 232
Thanks. But I don’t how that proves Callendar right. He was far off in his projectings of atmospheric CO2 concentration, and of mean Delta(T).
Actual ppm of CO2 was used along with the same basis years Callendar used.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
According to the climate models monthly deviations now should be running between +.80c and +.95 c higher not even close.
GISS global surface temperature anomalies for the first five months of this year:
Jan 0.77 C
Feb 0.80 C
Mar 0.90 C
Apr 0.85 C
May 0.82 C
I do not consider GISS data only satellite which is not even close and which is colder then last year.
+.18c for May satellite data. What I go by.
and GISS data is proving itself wrong when it shows these high departures in spite of surface oceanic cooling.
Weather bell data 1981-2010 baseline
temp departure for entire year 2017 = +.411c
temp departure through May = +.288c
satellite data same baseline
2017 thru May = +.33c
2018 thru May = +.22c
On top of this overall sea surface temperatures for the past year are down around -.25c
Why do you only consider satellite data? People live on the surface, not up in the troposphere.
And why do you ignore RSS satellite data?
Thanks LaP, but you left off the sub-title:
“The church was right” (LOL)
The problem here is that the pope believes in global warming so the church must be wrong!?
So confusing. Can chief priest Robertson please explain ?
binny…”Galileo Was Wrong, A Scientific Documentary On Geocentrism”
If it makes you feel better, I think Galileo was right.
Your ad hom is similar to those used for the Heartland Institute. Because the HI publishes papers from catastrophic global warming skeptics, like Roy, and the HI has right-wing values, then every paper the HI publishes must be wrong. Or that any author published by HI must agree with HI’s politics.
The article about the Galileo video, to which you link, is not endorsing the video per se, he is claiming there is some good science history and even decent scientist in the video.
I cannot verify that because the video does not interest me. I know from engineering studies that the Earth has to be orbiting the Sun simply because the gravitational effect between them is so strongly favoured to the mass of the Sun that if the Earth lacked momentum, it would fall into the Sun.
However, the claims of the authors of the video re geocentricity are no different than the idiotic claims about the Big Bang, black holes, and catastrophic global warming.
Strong thunderstorms will attack in central US.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00966/usrli405m5v9.png
https://www.lexjansen.com/wuss/2002/WUSS02025.pdf
THE REALITY.
Got any peer-reviewed journal papers?
Why do you want peer reviewed ? It is all rigged.
I gave two sources for temperature showing a big difference then what GISS data shows not to mention overall sea surface temperatures which do NOT support GISS data.
It does not work that way you are not going to have overall sea surface temperatures which lag having a deviation of temperatures of less then +.20c and have another source showing a deviation for the globe of over +.80c.
As overall sea surface temperatures do, so will the temperatures for the globe. Any data that shows otherwise is WRONG.
Why do I want something that is peer-reviewed? Because I have standards.
And you have no proof that it’s “rigged.” That’s just your way of trying to get rid of science you don’t like without being able to disprove it.
As overall sea surface temperatures do, so will the temperatures for the globe.
SSTs have been rising for a long time:
https://goo.gl/images/oTo33F
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 23, 2018 at 9:57 AM
Salvatore, I beg your pardon in advance, but did you really read the paper?
1. Glaser restricted his analysis to the US, i.e. about 2 % of the Globe, eliminating not only the remaining surface but the 70% oceans as well.
2. And then out of all the over 1,800 stations working in the US at the time of his analysis, he selected… just 10 (TEN).
To give you a comparison, the GHCN V3 monthly record gives time series from year 1900 till year 2000 with over 1000 US stations active in each year.
For GHCN V4 daily, the number of active US stations moved up from about 2000 in 1900 up to 7500 in the year 2000.
For the Globe, GHCN V4 daily uses 3000 stations by 1900, moving up to over 15000 by the year 2000.
This would be data you could use for a fair, meaningful comparison.
If Robertson calls my life companion J.-P. alias Bindidon an amateur producing faked graphs out of fudged data, how then will he name Glaser?
binny…”If Robertson calls my life companion J.-P. alias Bindidon an amateur producing faked graphs out of fudged data, how then will he name Glaser?”
Glaser concludes…
“There exist no or only weak correlations between surface temperature and atmospheric C02 concentration. These data are inconsistant with the hypothesis that carbon dioxide concentration is the sole, or even a major, contributor to the increase in surface temperature”.
I’d say he was dead on.
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/05/05/independent-satellite-records-agree-little-to-no-global-warming-over-past-18-years/
RSS data – no warming also
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 23, 2018 at 11:30 AM
http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/05/05/independent-satellite-records-agree-little-to-no-global-warming-over-past-18-years/
RSS data no warming also
?
1. This blog post is over three years old.
2. The RSS data shown is RSS3.3 which has been replaced by RSS4.0
Nevertheless, I included RSS3.3 in the chart showing plots from 1997 (as did Monckton, from whose corner the chart on the ‘globalwarming’ site manifestly originates) till 2018:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529777952762/001.jpg
That’s the right way to look at it, Salvatore.
It is not our job to decide wether or not Mears and Wentz were right to replace their 3.3 by the 4.0 revision.
Just as it is not our job to decide wether or not Spencer and Christy were right to replace their 5.6 by the 6.0 revision.
Only dumb commenters think different.
Salvatore: the trend of RSS LT v4 for the last 18 years is +0.18 C/decade.
That’s a warming of +0.33 C = +0.59 F.
data:
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
(registration requied)
We all know it has warmed overall from 1850-2017. The question is why and the other question is by how much lately. I think in total the rise is around +.9c since 1850.
I think it is natural others do not. It is hard to know because through out most of that time period 1850-2017 both AGW and NATURAL climatic change were pointing to a warming climate.
The natural climatic change just now pointing to colder (because lag times have to be taken into consideration)some 10 or more years of sub solar activity (end of 2005)in general and within/following that a lengthy period of very low solar activity(year 2018 in earnest) which we now finally have.
This is why this period of time is great because now we have clearly natural forces on the climate pointing toward cooler where as before natural was also pointing warmer.
Let’s see where it goes.
A natural change from what cause?
David, come on you know the cause I think is the sun and the secondary effects. What else would I say. I have said 1000’s of times.
Tell us, Salvatore, what is the change in the globe’s average surface temperature for a 1 W/m2 increase in the Sun’s output, as measured at the top of the atmosphere?
Show your work. Explain your claim.
“Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend.”
– Berkeley BEST
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
“Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.”
Land temperature perhaps, but as they say, not global temperature.
Human Effect
“Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions. Solar variation does not seem to impact the temperature trend.”
I am not sure if [or more precisely how much] solar variation directly affects land temperature,
and I tend think solar variation could effect ocean temperature.
And it is obvious that ocean temperature effects land temperature.
Link from above link:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-announcement-jul-29-12.pdf
“He emphasizes that the match between the data and the theory doesn’t prove that carbon dioxide is responsible for the warming, but the good fit makes it the strongest contender. “To be considered seriously, any alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide.”
Further down near end:
Elizabeth adds, “The current data does not include ocean temperatures; these will be added in the next phase of the Berkeley Earth studies. Another next step for our team is to think about the implications of our findings.”
I think ocean data, is needed.
As is known, the ocean is heat engine of Earth and ocean is 70% of surface.
Here: https://tinyurl.com/yaj47s96.
And here: https://tinyurl.com/yabhzrt3.
We can go in circles about this forever this is why I like the situation the climate is currently in.
It is probably either going to warm or cool, meaning I do not mean it is likely to stay the same.
So there are two theories each calling for the opposite effect and both items of the two theories are in full strength to make the climate go the way each theory calls for. CO2 for warming, Solar for cooling.
A great test which is going to reveal much over the next few years assuming global temperatures do not stay where they are.
My theory is simple and if right will be correct because there is nothing in the climate system that can counteract lower overall sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo. If those two items do take place due to very low prolonged solar activity then the climate is going to cool.
Now I did say if. That why it is a test.
The data and evidence are already in: CO2 is a powerful green gas. The planet’s surface has warmed by 1 C, mostly since 1970.
You’re getting all excited by a few months of SSTs, while ignoring the last 5 decades of strong warming.
Time has told.
“CO2 for warming..”
Not totally. Yes by CO2 alone but global climate cooling could still happen as the sum result of ALL forcings for several years as has already happened several times in the UAH ’80s and ’90s series. This circumstance will NOT mean experimentally based AGW theory is toast (Salvatore term) just that CO2 was not the dominant forcing in the shorter several year period(s).
Sure, for a few years the 5-yr trend could be down due to natural variations. But such a trend wouldn’t be close to being statistically significant. It’s just weather — mostly weather in ocean.
That is BS! If they go down even for the next year AGW is wrong.
But you can go on pretending, you and the few that will be left.
I will be correct you will be wrong if that happens.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
If they go down even for the next year AGW is wrong.
That’s a stupid, very uninformed claim, Salvatore.
It’s clear you understand nothing.
More BS more excuses. Either it is gong to warm the climate gong forward from here or it is not.
If it warms your in, if it does not your out.
All natural forces in the big picture have been in a warming trend since 1850 no exceptions. This is why you can not say CO2 has been the dominant force or any force what so ever when it comes to the warmth up to 2017. This has happened many times in the past this time is no different.
Only now year in 2018 we can say all natural forces are in a cool trend.
Now we will see how much of an influence CO2 has when on it’s own.
We will find out just how strong or weak it is relative to natural forcing.
If natural forcing over comes CO2(post 2018) the theory is over, because that would mean natural forcing rules and can carry the climate cooler for as long as it remains in place.
The test is on and if the climate cools from here the argument will be it warmed prior to this time due to natural forces and that argument will be strong, and convincing.
So if AGW wants to stay viable as far as most people will be concern it is going to have to prove it is the dominant force upon the climate which means the climate can not cool moving forward as CO2 increases.
What natural forces?
“If natural forcing over comes CO2 (post 2018) the theory is over,”
Nothing of the sort will cause the reasoned basic science (as used by Callendar) to be wrong Salvatore. As I’ve written, the CO2 effect has already been overcome in multi-year periods for global lower troposphere cooling trends as shown by UAH series. Will happen again.
Two questions Dave. How much warming has gone on since 1970?
What baseline is GISS data based on?
Salvatore, baselines don’t matter. Trends and warming are independent of the choice of baseline.
You really should already know this.
—
Since 1970, GISS’s data gives a warming of (+0.87 +/- 0.04) C, at a rate of +0.18 C/decade. That’s 87% of the total warming seen in the GISS data.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 23, 2018 at 3:09 PM
What baseline is GISS data based on?
1951-1980
That means that when comparing monthly GISS anomalies with UAH’s in ‘layman mode’, you have to subtract 0.42 K from each GISS anomaly.
that is helpful, thanks. I did not realize that.
Baselines don’t matter when calculating linear trends and total warming — the results are independent of the choice of baseline.
That is where I and many others will part company with you BALL.
CO2 has never over come anything because natural forces have been in a warming phase UNTIL year 2005.
BALL – that is what you do not understand.
My studies indicate the globe should have warmed absent CO2 from 1850-2005 with 10+ year lag times bringing us to year 2018 which is the year because the other solar condition is now present which is very low average value solar parameters all compounded by a weakening geo magnetic field.
None of this was present last century.
Ball don’t you look at climatic history can’t you see this has happened many times before with this time being no different.
You will see it ,if the cooling trend takes over from year 2018 going forward.
Your studies, huh?
Let’s see them.
“Ball don’t you look at climatic history can’t you see this has happened many times before with this time being no different.”
I do & the difference is humans now have learned to control fire and drive, change land albedo by farming etc. These practices daily add unnatural CO2 & other forcing like never before Salvatore.
Again, nothing Salvatore writes here will cause the reasoned basic science (as used by Callendar) to be wrong unless Salvatore shows the science is obsolete by experiment. Global climate may well cool in the years ahead, science knows there are many forcings, unnatural and natural & science of meteorology will advance in understanding them through increased observation (Argo, satellites et. al.) and experiment.
Salvatore says:
Ball dont you look at climatic history cant you see this has happened many times before with this time being no different.
Look at Salvatore, happy to accept what climate scientists have discovered about the past.
Yet willing to totally ignore them about the present.
Hypocrisy.
Maybe you got a PhD, Appell. But here you behave as dumb, ignorant and arrogant as does Robertson.
And you are a really bad teacher!
I made a good point. But, I’m not here to be a teacher. The deniers have no interest in learning anyway.
Don’t throw stones at your glass house:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-309180
Salvatore…”What baseline is GISS data based on?”
GISS gets its data from the NOAA fudged data then fudges it more. When NOAA fudges the confidence level to make a relatively cool year like 2014 the hottest ever, GISS fudges the confidence level even more, to make it even hotter.
As usual: dumb comment by a dumb, ignorant and arrogant person.
Besides continuing to lie about NO.AA, Gordon still doesn’t understand the difference between error bars and confidence limits.
NATURAL FORCES
SURFACE OCEAN TEMPERATURES
PDO, AMO ,ENSO
EXPLOSIVE MAJOR VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, SNOW COVERAGE, CLOUD COVERAGE
ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION
SOLAR IRRADIANCE
All of the above tied to the state of solar activity which includes (solar flux,ap index,euv/uv light,galactic cosmic ray counts,solar wind speed ) and this solar activity in turn being modified by the state of the geomagnetic field.
All have been on balance in a warm phase up to year 2005 when they started to turn but lag times are involved.10+ years. minimum.
A list isn’t science.
You are nowhere close to explaining how all those natural factors have caused 1 C of warming.
You can’t.
You can’t even begin.
This is flat-eartherism.
The climatic shift in the late 1970’s accounts for much of the rise ,a natural event.
Solar increasing steadily all last century and the secondary effects account for the rest.
David 1c warming over many decades is common, it happens all of the time . Look at the historical climatic record.
A natural event caused by what?
Solar increasing steadily all last century
Salvatore, you’re lying.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
It doesn’t matter if warming has happened before — it is climate scientists who figured that out, whose work you now happily accept — it’s what’s causing MODERN warming.
ball -what the climate does moving forward is all the proof anyone will need.
If it cools say good bye to AGW theory. We will have a field day.
Global climate has already cooled. Many times in human history. No field days even if global climate cools again, science will understand the reasons as in the past.
What y’all need is experiment proving basic science of meteorology has erred for a field day. Not just a cooling trend in temperature with all the diverse forcings.
salvatore del prete says:
ball -what the climate does moving forward is all the proof anyone will need.
See Salvatore dismiss 168 years of climate data, while looking only at the next 1.
And no matter what the temperature of the next few months are, or 2019, or 2020, Salvatore will be right back here, making one excuse after another, telling us that cooling is just about to set in, and he’s sure of it this time.
There is a large amount of volcanic activity in the area DA blows this off by asking “for how long”, lap just ignores them.
I can’t understand just how f#@$cked up an individual needs to be to abandon science in such a way
For how long has the volcanic activity been increasing? Enough to account for melting ice?
It’s a basic, simple question. If you can’t answer it, just say so.
Crakar24 says:
June 23, 2018 at 6:50 PM
…lap just ignores them.
*
What ???
Crakar, I don’t care about Dr Appell, and your meaning about him doesn’t interest me at all.
But here you pass a red line concerning me. What you write is simply dishonest.
I gave you here
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-309074
a link to a paper
High geothermal heat flux measured below the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
discussing exactly what you were talking about: volcanoes in Antarctica.
The link to this paper I discovered herein:
Nearly 100 Volcanoes Discovered Beneath Antarctica’s Ice
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/08/14/volcanoes-under-antarctica/
*
A. From the paper’s abstract:
The geothermal heat flux is a critical thermal boundary condition that influences the melting, flow, and mass balance of ice sheets, but measurements of this parameter are difficult to make in ice-covered regions.
We report the first direct measurement of geothermal heat flux into the base of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), below Subglacial Lake Whillans [my emphasis: SLW], determined from the thermal gradient and the thermal conductivity of sediment under the lake.
The heat flux at this site is 285 ± 80 mW/m2, significantly higher than the continental and regional averages estimated for this site using regional geophysical and glaciological models. Independent temperature measurements in the ice indicate an upward heat flux through the WAIS of 105 ± 13 mW/m2.
The difference between these heat flux values could contribute to basal melting and/or be advected from Subglacial Lake Whillans by flowing water. The high geothermal heat flux may help to explain why ice streams and subglacial lakes are so abundant and dynamic in this region.
B. On page 4 you can read:
A global compilation and interpolation based on observations and geological correlations suggests a mean heat flux for West Antarctica of ~100 mW/m2 (13), considerably lower than that measured at SLW.
There is indirect evidence of elevated heat flux below the Thwaites Glacier, northeast of SLW, calculated using radar data and a hydrologic model, with regional values of 100 to 130 mW/m2 and localized areas of heat flux >200 mW/m2 (highest estimate of 375 mW/m2) thought to be associated with active volcanism (15) (Fig. 4C).
A geothermal heat flux of 140 to 220 mW/m2 was inferred at the WAIS-Divide ice core site, using thermal data from the ice sheet and a one-dimensional model of ice dynamics [(14); see Materials and Methods]. Measured and modeled heat flux values from the Prydz Bay region of East Antarctica
are ~30 to 120 mW/m2, up to three times greater (and more variable) than estimated on the basis of basement rock ages and inferred rates of crustal heat production (21).
Looking at continental heat flux on a global basis, the value determined below SLW ranks 169th out of >35,000 reported continental values, higher than >99.5% of global measurements (Fig. 4D), with the highest values coming from areas of active hydrothermal and volcanic activity (22).
*
If you spend more time on unjustified charges than on reading papers, that’s your problem, Crakar.
The reply button appears to be broken
C,
Really?
Cheers.
LOL
I mean I am giving a sensible argument here. I am simply saying if the climate cools from this point in time and I have gone in to detail why, and how this time is different from previous times then I think most people will be inclined to say AGW is no longer viable.
On the other hand if the climate continues to warm AGW will still be viable.
I think what I am getting from the likes of David/Ball is a total lack of confidence as to what the climate may do as we move forward.
That is the message I am getting no conviction, hedging everything.
Trying already to justify AGW even if the climate should turn 100% against their theory, and in the face of the alternative theory I have presented .
That is to bad because it makes them look like they are brain washed into the belief in this theory no matter what happens as we move forward. That is insanity.
Why again is this time different from previous times? All those previous times you were wrong.
“I think most people will be inclined to say AGW is no longer viable.”
Science is based on proper experiment not a vote.
“Trying already to justify AGW even if the climate should turn 100% against their theory, and in the face of the alternative theory I have presented.”
This is not an experiment showing past theory is obsolete Salvatore.
The global and regional climate will continue to vary according to known first principles and enough observatories exist to reasonably understand the variation and the magnitude of the multiple forcings along with known natural cycles. If the climate cools going forward that will still result from the basic theory not some alternate.
If that is what you want to believe , but you will be in the distinct minority.
Science is not a voting machine Salvatore, I’ll go with 1st principles proved out by experiment and observation.
Science is come up with a theory and then through observation see if it works.
If it does not work move on.
What you mean, Salvatore, is ignore the decades of observations (including your own) that came before now, and focus on the next couple of months of a single climate parameter alone, ignoring all the others.
Broken for me anyways MF
C,
I had a 50% chance of success! Got away with it.
Cheers.
Probably my stupid smart phone, speaking of stupid DA we know there are volcano’s there now so what affect do they have on the current levels of melting? Perhaps its easier to ignore them and continue to promote the ideology
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-309187
What LaP wrote.
Being so upset just because someone asked you a question often means you can’t answer it and don’t care about the answer anyway.
Ball what experiment and observation? You mean when lap explains the ghe they say the surface warms releases ir which is absorbed by co2 then emits back to the surface to add to the warming?
Sure through experiment and observation they would have discovered the surface cools when it emits the ir so there is no added warming. If their busted theory was correct the surface would cool by half during each iteration and as this happens at C it would not take very long.
No Ball you and your ilk don’t accept experiment and observation only ideology and confirmation bias
“Ball what experiment and observation?”
Those discussed in Callendar 1938 as updated by subsequent authors especially Manabe 1964, Bohren 1998. No ideology or confirmation bias needed, only experimental confirmation such as these authors rely upon. And I didn’t know I had an ilk. Possibly you can point one out for me.
ball4…”Those discussed in Callendar 1938 as updated by subsequent authors especially Manabe 1964, Bohren 1998″.
Bohren is a skeptic!!! With regard to the theory of GHGs acting as a blanket to trap heat, Bohren claimed the theory is a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.
Quoting Bohren’s words is required Gordon, with context cite, not your words which are not accurate.
Crakar24 says:
Sure through experiment and observation they would have discovered the surface cools when it emits the ir so there is no added warming.
And the surface warms with it ab.sorb.s more IR. And we’re putting more stuff in the atmosphere that’s sending more IR back down toward the surface.
You don’t know what ilk means?
You are your “ilk” don’t explain the ghe you constantly refer to work conducted 80 years ago, there are volumes of work far more up to date than that available for you to refer to but they don’t fit your ideology.
The bottom line is you have no idea how co2 causes the AGW you think is happening which is why you and your “ilk” can’t answer a simple question posed by Mike Flynn
I know what ilk means, if you write I have some you should be able to point them out.
Flynn has repeatedly answered his own questions about GHE. Work based on fundamental principles from 80 years ago has proven to be still correct in modern day, this is why they are called principles.
ball4…”Work based on fundamental principles from 80 years ago has proven to be still correct in modern day…”
None of them were proved, only offered as possibilities. When an expert on IR, R.W.Wood heard about the theory he felt IR from CO2 could not do that.
“When an expert on IR, R.W.Wood heard about the theory he felt IR from CO2 could not do that.”
No, Prof. Wood devised and ran an experiment showing how CO2 could do that. Again, Gordon per standard M.O. twists what he reads into something the author(s) did not write.
R.W. Wood did that work before the discovery of quantum mechanics. So he couldn’t have been an expert on anything related to how radiation and matter interact.
Crakar24 says:
June 23, 2018 at 9:54 PM
Sorry Crakar, but you behave a bit ambiguous.
On the one hand, you accuse Ball4 of riding on 80 year old camels.
On the other hand, it does not get your attention that in the same thread
– Robertson uses a 100 year old R. Wood paper;
– Flynn points to data on the absorp-tivity of CO2 that Tyndall identified about 150 years ago.
Crakar, you are apparently blind in one eye, aren’t you?
Perhaps you are fair enough to compare the accuracy of Callendar’s work with Wood’s desolating superficiality while conducting his CO2 “experiment”.
Do not draw the wrong conclusion: I am all but a hysteric AGW advocate a la Appell; I think like Mr Spencer about something like ‘half natural, half man-made’.
This crank doubt of the influence of H2O and CO2 on Earth’s climate is simply ridiculous.
I think like Mr Spencer about something like half natural, half man-made
What does the science say?
(It says all of modern warming is caused by humans; and a little more, because the climate should be naturally cooling right now.)
“A new statistical approach to climate change detection and attribution,” Aurlien Ribes et al, Climate Dynamics
January 2017, Volume 48, Issue 12, pp 367386.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3079-6
“The properties of this approach are illustrated and discussed based on synthetic data.”
Synthetic data? I’m sure the synthetic data was generated blind by disinterestwed party. Not.
“Lastly, the method is applied to the linear trend in global mean temperature over the period 1951–2010.”
Paper is paywalled. Do the authors provide the code to track what they did? Do they provide the exact input data used? Which temp. series? Has anyone replicated their work?
I don’t know — I’m quoting from the paper’s abstract, not vouching for it or trying to replicate its findings. If you write the author(s), they’ll usually send you a PDF.
I’ll head over to the college library. I doubt this is big or even accurate news, just another opinion without any replicable details supplied.
There are a lot of attribution studies in the last decade. They all come to basically the conclusion.
* SAME conclusion.
Fig 3.1 from Vol 1 of the 4th National Climate Assessment finds much the same conclusion, except for a tiny amount of natural warming since 1880:
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR_Ch3_Detection_and_Attribution.pdf
Same specialist field.
According to temperature graphs at Berkeley Earth, the average temperature of US in about 1880 were about 8.3 C and warmed until 1940 to temperature of about 9.1 C, then cooled or dipped to lowest average temperatures of about 8.7 C by around 1970, and then rose to peak at around 2000 at about 9.7 C
[and the graph has 10 year moving average, which I am using rather than wild yearly spikes]
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/united-states
Or when up .8 C, then dipped .4 C and from the lower point rose about 1 C within period of 3 decades. And earlier .8 C rise was over period of about 60 years. So latest rise was pretty quick, but since 2000 it has not increased much.
And from 1880 to 2000 rises by about 1.2 C
And lower chart shows Mean of Daily High Temperature.
It is about 15.2 in 1880 and rises to 15.8 by around 1940 and then dips down to about 15.2 by around 1970, and then rises to 16.2 by 2000.
Next down is the Mean of Daily Low Temperature
which at 1880 is about 1.7 C and rises to about 2.5 by 1940, then drops to about 2.2 by 1970, rises to about 3.4 C by 2000.
Mean of Daily High Temperature rises from 1880 to 2000 by about 1 C
And Mean of Daily Low Temperature rises from 1880 to 2000 by about
1.7 C. Or it rises about 70% more than the Daily High Temperature
and there is less high and down [a more steady increase in temperature and has about same amount of warming is the 1880 to 1940 period as between the 1940 to 2000 period.
Similar things occurs elsewhere, more increase of Mean of Daily Low Temperature and a more steady increase in the Mean of Daily Low Temperature.
China Mean of Daily Low Temperature:
1880 is about -.6 and 2000 is about 1.3 or increase total of 1.7 C
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/china
Though not as similar [and smooth] in smaller area like Japan and Iceland:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/japan
1880: 7.2 C to 2000: 8.5
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/iceland
1880: -1.6 C to 2000: -.2 C
Australia [big] and partial in tropics and in southern hemisphere.
Mean of Daily Low Temperature
1880: 14.2 to 2000: 15.3
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/australia
And much less warming between 1880 to 1940
Maybe this is interesting for you:
Temporal Variability Of Extreme Temperature Indices In Utah During The Past Few Decades
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbmet/v28n4/a02v28n4.pdf
La Pangolina,
I think the paper could be better if it used sites that went back at least 100 years in data. I sample a few for their high temperature record that went back before 1950. They are as follows.
Site Record High Year
Salt Lake City 107 1875
Blanding 110 1905
Escalante 104 2002
Duchesne 101 1970
Castle Dale 107 2002
Heber 105 1931
Levan 105 1954
Fillmore 107 1931
Zion National Park 115 1950
Moab 114 1989
Alton 99 1996
Manti 103 1960
Spanish Fork 108 1931
Deseret 110 1938
I have been told that extreme temperatures would be higher given the high levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. However, most records still occur prior to 1970, where the record goes back close to 100 years. Can you help me understand why?
I have seen this phenomenon over and over again. The more data I see, the more I think that Carbon Dioxide simply does not impact extreme high temperatures. They may raise the lower end and the resulting average, but I have yet to see a paper on focusing on high temperatures that includes real data going back to the 1920’s. Your thoughts?
bilybob says:
June 24, 2018 at 10:46 AM
A quick answer, maybe more later.
1. 107? Many persons are not familiar with Fahrenheit (only two countries in the world use that elder system).
2. Why should CO2 increase maxima or minima in the CONUS? This is 2% of Earth’s surface! And the paper focused – for whatever reason – even on UTAH, a small part of CONUS.
Thus what we need is a global, worldwide evaluation of maxima and minima, encompassing both land and sea at several locations.
My friend actually is busy with GHCN daily, maybe he will go on that at least for the land part.
“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 climate with 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.
US: More record highs than record lows:
http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/gallery/2015AnnualRecords.jpg
Thanks La Pangolina,
It is just an observation based on the paper you linked. I have been checking world record temps when I can and 90% of them only have a temporal range going to 1950, so any attempts to say “hey look new max temps out pace low temp records” seems a bit silly to try compare changes to the 1930’s/1940’s. It really is not unusual to see new record maxes for stations that started recording data in a cool period.
We really need an analysis of world wide temps that have data that go back to at least 1900. Preferably not proxy data as this is always a smooth product. There is only a handful stations, I would think this has been done or could be done without much pain.
I have sampled rural land based records only and 96% of the high temp records are pre 1960. It would be interesting to see a study that did this analysis. Not just Utah and not just to 1970.
Anyway, based on the data I have seen, maximum temperature world wide are not higher than the first half of the 20th century. Average yes, but because the lows have moved up. But these are for all the sites that have data in the first part of the 20th century. But if now I have 5000 sites that have started after 1950, why is it so surprising to many that max temp records are so common?
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
“…
These results are in agreement with those found by Meehl
et al. (2007) and show an unfavorable situation because the water
to human consumption and agriculture in Utah is provided by the
snow on the mountains and with the air minimum temperature
increasing the melting will be accelerated hindering the water
management in the State…’
” Additionally, diurnal temperature
range (DTR) index shows negative trends at 10 stations and
positive trends at 4 stations (Figure 3), indicating that the
annual mean of difference between maximum temperature and minimum temperature is decreasing in the studied area. …”
I would say were global average temperature to continue to warm, the
“annual mean of difference between maximum temperature and minimum temperature is decreasing” would continue to decrease.
4 CONCLUSIONS
“….
A predominant increase in the annual temperature indices
has been found in the study region. Most of Utah has shown that
the difference between maximum and minimum temperatures
is decreasing, indicating that the minimum temperature is
increasing faster than the maximum temperature.
….”
Warming world must equal increasing minimum temperature, because warming world is increase of ocean surface temperature.
So highest rate of increase is in the increase land temperature mean low yearly average temperature. And highest increase in global temperature is average yearly land temperature which follows or directly related to the increase land temperature mean yearly average temperature.
So average temperature of ocean surface temperature is about 17 C, that is the global average temperature mostly {70%} and a higher average ocean surface temperature, such as an increase to about 18 C, would have huge effect land temperatures, and this huge effect is largely an in a increase land temperature mean low yearly average temperature.
If ocean average temperature were to ever warm to 18 C, the ocean waters outside the tropics would evaporate more. And so with ocean of 18 C the rest of world become more like tropical rainforest- deserts disappear and generally more rainfall.
Or if ocean temperature to increase to 18 C [though not going to happen anytime soon] Utah could get a lot wetter and could get significant increase of it’s snowpack, though Utah is famous for in powdered snow, and one could less of this [and so, really piss off the skiers, who love powdered snow].
Wiki:
“Champagne powder- Very smooth and dry snow, which is good for skiing. The term originates from the ski resorts in the Rocky Mountains, which often have these snow conditions. The Steamboat Ski Resort, in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, holds the trademark for the term Champagne Powder. The name derives from the sparkling wine champagne.”
Skiers will kill for powder snow.
“Northern Utahs mountains saw generous snow accumulation from this weeks storm, but it might be too little and too late.
Snowbasin resort reported 21 inches of snow over 48 hours from a storm that lasted Thursday through Friday and followed another generous Presidents Day storm. Powder Mountain reported 3 feet of snow in the past week. The northern Wasatch Front saw between 1 and 8 inches, according to the National Weather Service. That might be enough to relieve snow lovers, but the regions snowpack totals and water outlook remain dismal.”
http://www.standard.net/Environment/2018/02/24/Utah-s-snowpack-still-far-from-normal-but-late-February-storms-help
And:
Weve got some more storms coming in the next couple days, so that could bump us up more in percentages, Brosten said.
Best-case scenario, Brosten figures some heavy snowstorms could take the region to around 70 percent of normal, which he says is better than 50 percent.
At this time last year, the Weber-Ogden basin was at 172 percent of normal. “
David asks what recovering from Little Ice Age means or how can you tell it’s recovering.
And I would say it related to the increase in average minimum land temperature which has been occuring at fairly consistent rate for at least 150 years.
And I would say that reflects a warming ocean surface temperature, and I would say, reflects an increase in average ocean temperature.
Or our ocean temperature is about 3.5 C, a decrease in this average temperature will cause lower ocean surface temperatures, which in turn will cause lower average minimun land surface temperature.
And over last 150 years the average ocean temperature has been slightly increasing from cooler temperature [and reflected [or “seen”] in lowering sea levels] of Little Ice Age.
But as I have said a lot, I think increasing CO2 levels may cause some increase in global temperature [not sure how much or how exactly is does this- but I my best guess is a doubling of CO2 causes at most about .5 C increase in global temperature OR rising CO2 levels by 2100 should cause less than .5 C increase due to CO2.
Now average land temperature increases a lot more than ocean surface temperature [and obviously a lot less than ocean temperature. Or why it is said that global average temperature has increased by about .6 C over last hundred years- or global land temperature have increased a lot more. And tropical ocean surface temperature has increased the least of entire ocean surface temperature or global land average temperature. And of global land temperatures regions outside tropics have warmed the most and global land temperature outside of tropic, have highest increase in the mean minimum temperature average temperatures.
Temperatures are now higher than at the beginning of the LIA. Why?
In US about %5 of population ski each year.
[I have not done this in decades]
“Resorts in California create more than 8,000 jobs and generate more than half a billion in annual revenue. In 2012, the industrys state economic impact was $2.1 billion.
Last season, the U.S. saw 53.6 million snow sports visits, which is three times more than the number of people who attended NFL games.”
https://www.americaninno.com/boston/ski-industry-stats-total-money-spent-how-many-people-go-skiing-each-year/
–David Appell says:
June 24, 2018 at 1:16 PM
Temperatures are now higher than at the beginning of the LIA. Why?–
First, let’s go over obvious, there is no agreement of when LIA began, is 1200, or 1500 AD or when?
Though there is a lot agreement when it ended which is said to be 1850 AD. And just because there is agreement, does not mean it is actually true, but at least there is some agreement.
So do you want to change the question to, why are temperatures are now higher than at the end of LIA.
Or do you want to discuss how warm the medieval warming period was?
It seems to me we have some air temperature records of mean low temperature starting about 1880.
The latest agreement by a bureaucracy [and I will note that bureaucracies in general have constant record of being wrong throughout history].
Wiki:
“AR5 prefers the term “Medieval Climate Anomaly” (MCA) to “Medieval Warm Period”. Chapter 5, section 5.3.5.1 discussed work since AR4 on the MCA and LIA. It notes that the timing and spatial structure of the MCA and LIA are complex, with different reconstructions exhibiting warm and cold conditions at different times for different regions and seasons. A combination of NH temperature reconstructions shows mostly warm conditions from about 950 to about 1250 and colder conditions from about 1450 to about 1850, which are taken to represent the times of the MCA and LIA.
They express high confidence that the mean NH temperature of the last 30 or 50 years exceed 30- or 50-year means of the past 800 years, and medium confidence that the last 30 years were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports
But as said, if offers something that people could agree with, even if it is wrong.
gbaikie says:
First, lets go over obvious, there is no agreement of when LIA began, is 1200, or 1500 AD or when?
It’s thought it started in the late 1200s due to a string of volcanic eruptions:
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
–gbaikie says:
First, lets go over obvious, there is no agreement of when LIA began, is 1200, or 1500 AD or when?
Its thought it started in the late 1200s due to a string of volcanic eruptions:
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks, Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
—
Well, I don’t know. I think low solar activity plus volcanic activity are probably related.
But as said before, we don’t know what caused cooling.
Generally speaking, I would say land cools ocean. But how land cools ocean, is more difficult to say, other than generally speaking, most likely involving ocean circulation.
And generally, I think, in terms one large volcanic eruption, it probably more important if in tropics. Next, question about one large eruption in tropics, is where it is in the tropics.
But also tend to I think one large eruption can involve other volcanic activity in same time period. So one big nasty eruption, could be also pointing to more volcanic activity, generally globally.
oh, should mention I have not read
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
Yet.
As start reading it:
“Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50‐year‐long episode with four large sulfur‐rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg. The persistence of cold summers is best explained by consequent sea‐ice/ocean feedbacks during a hemispheric summer insolation minimum; large changes in solar irradiance are not required.”
So when said one large eruption causes other volcanic activity, I was referring to some series over 50 years, rather I meant more immediate change in volcanic activity. Of course a series of volcanic eruption in a “50‐year‐long episode” might point to some bigger scale plate tectonic “event”.
Anyhow, I will finish reading it.
Arr, re:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-309313
…I was referring…
Should be … I was not referring…
Back to paper.
“[2] Proxy‐based reconstructions show that Northern Hemisphere (NH) summer temperatures have generally decreased over the past 8 ka, reflecting the regular decline in summer insolation as Earth moved steadily farther from the Sun during NH summer [Wanner et al., 2011, and references therein].”
Have not read Wanner et al., 2011, and references therein [or at least not fresh in my mind] but it seems they talking about one of three cycle effects].
Still reading.
Oh, I had just recently read it.
And says, “The LIA is particularly enigmatic.”
It was good paper and as I recall don’t have much disagreement about it- other than it a start, rather than some complete picture of it, which of course, they don’t claim it is.
But I read it again, I like reading things over again.
Anyways still got to find that ref, but it concludes with:
“The coincidence of repeated explosive volcanism with centuries of lower‐than‐modern solar irradiance (Figure 2a) [Schmidt et al., 2011] indicates that volcanic impacts were likely reinforced by external forcing [Mann et al., 2009], but that an explanation of the LIA does not require a solar trigger.”
Which tend to agree with.
Or if we get a big eruption, I might begin to worry about cooling effects, but just the solar effects, does not [yet] cause me to think we will get any significant reduction in global temperature, though might or probably could get noticeable weather effects, and could effect crops [and that is important].
Of course a big eruption is big problem without even considering the climatic effects.
That ref:
https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Wanner_2011.pdf
Which says: …A clear cyclicity was not found, and the spatiotemporal variability of temperature and humidity/precipitation during the six specific cold events (8200, 6300, 4700, 2700,
1550 and 550 years BP) was very high. Different dynamical processes such as meltwater flux into the North Atlantic, low solar activity, explosive volcanic eruptions, and fluctuations of the thermohaline
circulation likely played a major role. In addition, internal dynamics in the North Atlantic and Pacific area
(including their complex interaction) were likely involved.”
And I will finish reading it
And this:
“We strictly leave out multimillennial-scale phenomena, focus on
centennial-scale events and use an objective statistical procedure.
In order to define the cold periods during the Holocene, suitable
temperature proxies and glacier reconstructions are analysed.”
That would appear to me, as a mistake.
Or I think global climate is controlled by average ocean temperature which currently is 3.5 C. And this is a “multimillennial-scale phenomena”. Though if focused on centuries it could tell you how the ocean is warmed, if you are interested in that [though hard to measure- or have not really measured it yet, at the present time].
Thanks gbalkie. Do you mean the average SST = 3.5 C, or the volume of the ocean?
-David Appell says:
June 25, 2018 at 3:03 PM
Thanks gbaikie. Do you mean the average SST = 3.5 C, or the volume of the ocean?-
Volume average is about 3.5 C
It varies from about 1 to 5 C over the last million years.
Because it remains at and below 5 C, we are in a icebox climate.
Somewhere around 10 C or more, would be a hothouse climate. And we have not been in hothouse climate for millions of years, and we not going to be in a hothouse climate within a time period thousands of years and the current distributional arrangement of land and ocean probably makes a hothouse climate not possible.
So I would not call between 5 to 10 C, a icebox or hothouse climate, icebox and hothouse are the extremes of Earth global climate.
But say, wiki, does not define it this way, hothouse climate for them is global average air temperature of 19 C, which I think is possible in an icebox or icehouse climate.
Or if volume average is 5 C, I think global average temperature could be 19 C or higher. I think 5 C, would have make SST higher than 18 C and it can vary in time periods of centuries even higher than this.
And right now SST is about 17 C and has risen over last century or so by about .5 C.
Sunday June 24 2018, 02:34:35 UTC 2 hours ago 5km WSW of Volcano, Hawaii 5.2 R.
David Appell wrote –
“Yes, everyone knows that air pollution has a global cooling effect.”
According to the GHE believers at Skeptical Science –
“Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act’s broad definition of “air pollutants,” and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare.”
Now David will no doubt claim that although CO2 is a pollutant, and is in the air, due to the miracle of climatological redefinition, air pollution is not really pollutants in the air. Otherwise CO2 would have to possess the magical ability to simultaneously cause global warming and global cooling.
One of the wonderful benefits of having an indescribable GHE, you can claim it is responsible for anything at all, and dare anybody to prove you wrong!
Ain’t pseudoscience grand?
Cheers.
GISS showing a cooling trend for 2018 1.07 1st q 2017
versus +.83 departure 1st q 2018.
Keep cool Salvatore :-))
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1529849453577/001.jpg
good info. thanks
Salvatore Del Prete says:
GISS showing a cooling trend for 2018 1.07 1st q 2017
versus +.83 departure 1st q 2018.
And warmer than 133 months since 1880.
A regular theme here is that some theory is right or wrong.
It is a bit more complex than that.
Read this essay from Isaac Asimov.
https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
AGW hi jacked natural warming and twisted it into the co2/global warming scam.
This is ending as we move forward along with the theory which is wrong ,wrong and wrong.
Natural warming due to what cause(s)?
DA,
Heat.
Have you an alternative suggestion?
Cheers.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/dark_ages_cold_period.pdf
This shows natural forcing in the recent past caused temperatures changes as great or greater then today.
So you agree that forcings change climate.
So why wouldn’t CO2’s forcing change modern climate?
The first paragraph of your link uses the phrase “climate alarmists” twice.
That rather reduces my confidence in its objectivity.
The article does not support AGW and lays it out very well.
The article supports the science of “whatever” rather than hard won practical knowledge same as Salvatore.
“”it” was most likely the result of whatever drives the
natural millennial-scale cycling of Earth’s climate”
Same as Salvatore writing the test of “whatever” is on.
Robertson’s usual way of lying
Gordon Robertson says:
June 24, 2018 at 1:15 AM
Bohren is a skeptic!!! With regard to the theory of GHGs acting as a blanket to trap heat, Bohren claimed the theory is a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.
*
This is an incredibly misleading, distorting interpretation of Craig Bohr’s mindset.
Such an intelligent person does not merit to by misused by a ignorant boaster like Robertson for ridiculous propaganda purposes.
Here is a transcript of a Craig Bohren interview by April Holladay in 2006:
How to get to the bottom of the global warming debate
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm
*
In this interview, Bohren explains among many other things his opinion about the effect of trace gases like CO2.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This increase is most likely a consequence of increased burning of fossil fuels.
Carbon dioxide is an infrared-active gas (I hate the term “greenhouse gas”), and hence all else being equal (an important qualification) we expect more downward infrared radiation (and a heating effect) from the atmosphere with an increase in carbon dioxide.
The detailed consequences of this, however, are unknown and possibly unknowable. By consequences I mean length of growing season, distribution and amount of rain, distribution and amount of sunshine, etc.
And the economic and social consequences are even more uncertain. However the climate changes, it is likely that some regions of the planet will gain, others will lose.
Climate has changed in the past, and there is no reason to believe that it will not change in the future. After all, the last Ice Age ended only about 10,000 years ago, and it is fair to say that another Ice Age would be equally or more catastrophic for Earth than global warming.
How much of the present climate change is a direct consequence of human activity is difficult to say with certainty.
And he moves on with this remarkable sentence:
My biases: The pronouncements of climate modelers, who don’t do experiments, don’t make observations, don’t even confect theories, but rather [in my opinion] play computer games using huge programs containing dozens of separate components the details of which they may be largely ignorant, don’t move me. I am much more impressed by direct evidence: retreating glaciers, longer growing seasons, the migration of species, rising sea level, etc.
Yes, Robertson: Bohren was a skeptic!
But unlike you or Flynn and similar pseudoskeptics, he was a SOUND skeptic, Robertson!
Gordon 1:15am: “With regard to the theory of GHGs acting as a blanket to trap heat, Bohren claimed the theory is a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.”
Yes, Gordon once again, as always, is very unreliable in his comments as he misquotes the masters for personal gain, having his own agenda reasons. Here’s what Bohren’s text p. 37 actually claims about blankets:
“Does the atmosphere “act like a blanket”? No, not really. Blankets, like almost all insulation, suppress convection..If you want a blanket to also reduce net radiation, wrap the blanket with aluminum foil, which has a low emissivity.”
Ball4
Why does Gordon Robertson have to misquote authorities all the time. When you look up an authority you can easily see he is making up stuff.
If Gordon wants to quote someone why does he need to improvise with his own words. Just copy the exact words of the authority and give a link with the quote so posters can determine the context of the quote.
I really wonder about Gordon. He accuses NOAA and NASA of fraud and manipulation of data. As far as I can see, he does this with nearly every post. It would help his cause if you could somehow find a way for himself to be honest. As long as he is so dishonest, with intent, how is it that he feels justified in making claims of some agencies. From posts on this issue it seems Gordon is also lying about the fraud he sees.
Help me Ball4, why does this poster always have to do this dishonest posting.
Norman, by now you should have realized which commenters here are master practitioners of the confidence trick such as Gordon using his own words substituted for and attributed to the masters in the field. Gordon does that for his own gain at the expense of a mark just like a flim-flam man.
And it’s not just Gordon. Climate blogs aren’t the only source of this game, confidence men attempting to gain folks confidence have been around no doubt since the dawn of time. Hollywood has produced many successful films in the genre.
You can learn to turn the confidence trick into your own gain by looking up the original source material which you then master in more ways than you would otherwise as you do. I’ve learned a lot by doing so, trips to the college library are inspired & more fun. Or ordering a text on a subject to dig deeper into the science.
Sometimes it’s entertaining to engage the confidence man (short form con man) in a discussion. Sometimes not, up to you. Just beware the confidence man, being what it means, will resort to confidence tricks to gain your confidence in any exchange. Fact checking can get tedious.
–La Pangolina says:
June 24, 2018 at 9:25 AM
Robertsons usual way of lying
Gordon Robertson says:
June 24, 2018 at 1:15 AM
Bohren is a skeptic!!! With regard to the theory of GHGs acting as a blanket to trap heat, Bohren claimed the theory is a metaphor at best, and at worst, plain silly.
*
This is an incredibly misleading, distorting interpretation of Craig Bohrs mindset.
Such an intelligent person does not merit to by misused by a ignorant boaster like Robertson for ridiculous propaganda purposes.–
Well, Gordon does claim he is lefty.
I have my doubts, but I will obviously defer to his own self judgement.
And it seems your problem is you don’t know what a lefty is.
Generally a lefty has faith in a government, though it has to be
a certain type of government and lefties generally have faith in the wrong type of government. They seem to want to give support to the least supportable type of government. So for example, Obama and the dems. Or Canadian current government [led by a jackass, though maybe a cute and fuzzy jackass].
Left believes the government should control all aspect of all people lives. But I don’t think Gorden likes his present government, nor was overly fond of US Obama government, though probably terrified by Trump.
Gorden seems like a old Lefty, and he should know that new lefties hate old lefties. Which is more proof Left is a religion, and religions hate sub class of the religion more than another different religion {as in Islam, hating different factions of Islam].
But let us move on, and skip down to:
“My biases: The pronouncements of climate modelers, who dont do experiments, dont make observations, dont even confect theories, but rather [in my opinion] play computer games using huge programs containing dozens of separate components the details of which they may be largely ignorant, dont move me. I am much more impressed by direct evidence: retreating glaciers, longer growing seasons, the migration of species, rising sea level, etc.
Yes, Robertson: Bohren was a skeptic!”
I tend to agree with Bohren, but skeptics always disagree with each other. For instance this:
“Bohren explains among many other things his opinion about the effect of trace gases like CO2.
…”
“The detailed consequences of this, however, are unknown and possibly unknowable.”
I think it is quite knowable, but it might take another 50 years.
I think it is quite knowable, but it might take another 50 years.
What might we know in 50 years that we don’t know now?
DA,
I don’t know.
Do you?
Cheers.
How much warming does doubling of CO2 cause.
I think it is .5 C or less.
Lots people think it is about 1 C, and some imagine it is 4.5 C [or more].
If somehow it is 4.5 C, I think that is not a problem.
Or not a problem worth spending trillions of dollars and not really doing much to change it.
If 4.5 C, what does world look like, is very important aspect regarding this matter.
Another aspect about this is if 4.5 C, how quickly would world warm?
And does 4.5 C warming mean the 3.5 C ocean warms to 8 C?
Earth has had a 8 C ocean. What did world look like when it’s ocean was 8 C [or warmer]?
I would say a 8 C ocean has left the icebox climatic, but not reached a hothouse climate, yet. But others might say a 5 C ocean has entered a hothouse climate.
If not going to concern ourselves with long process that would be involved with warming the ocean up by several degrees, then what does this 4.5 C increase due to doubling of CO2 look like?
Does ocean surface warms by 4.5 C?
Or goes from 17 C to average surface temperature of 21.5 C?
And math makes land temperature what?
And global average temperature is what
Or both ocean and land warms by 4.5 C, which gives global average temperature of, what?
Or are talking about global average land temperature increasing by 4.5 C [and don’t care about ocean temperature}.
Or global land surface warms by 10 C, so the 10 C average temperature becomes 20 C, and whatever it works out to be 15 C + 4.5 global average temperature, that is what the surface ocean average temperature is.
I have my ideas, what is yours?
I would take wild guess that you think tropics gets hotter, which currently about 26 C, and goes to say, 30 C??
[That is if the unlikely 4.5 C is caused by doubling of Co2.]
I think it is .5 C or less.
But why?
Based on what?
What data & evidence lead you to that conclusion?
“I think it is .5 C or less.
But why?
Based on what?
What data & evidence lead you to that conclusion?”
It’s my opinion.
And it is close to Richard Lindzen opinion if you need an expert or qualified opinion.
I would also say it is close to Roy Spencer’s view.
Though arguing it is less than 1 C, is difficult.
And I thought it was less than 1 C, a few years ago.
And decades ago, I thought it was less than 3 C.
If Roy thinks it has to be more than .5 C, I would like to hear
his argument. And don’t imagine that Lindzen would argue that it has to be more than .5 C
Thanks for you contributions gbaikie,
Would love your opinion on the following:
When I first starting contributing to this blog, I asked Dr. Spencer’s opinion on CO2 impact. He seemed to think it was minor, and initially, my thought was CO2 acts like a brake to high temperatures. The proxy data seemed to show that CO2 follows temperature. However, as CO2 increases so does biomass. My thought was that since a large portion of solar energy is converted via photosynthesis, more plants would result in less available to become IR. So the dominating temperature control know is the Milankovitch Cycles. This may account for a swing of 6-8 degrees C. Then Salvatore’s Solar/Magnetic Field theory would account for swings of 1-2 degrees C. Then volcanism could impact 1-2 degrees C. And El Nino/La Nina would swing 1-2 degrees C.
The impact of higher solar input (as hydrogen gets used up in the sun) will slowly add more energy into the system. Also, continental drift will slowly impact the Milankovitch Cycles.
So with all that said, I think doubling CO2 may actually result in lower temperatures due to higher biomass and also since the impact from CO2 diminishes at higher concentrations. Your thoughts?
“So with all that said, I think doubling CO2 may actually result in lower temperatures due to higher biomass and also since the impact from CO2 diminishes at higher concentrations. Your thoughts?”
With more CO2, one will have more chemical energy stored over a time period, but it might be of scale of the heat produced by burning fossil fuels, which is small on global scale, or it is near zero.
And higher CO2 allows plants to survive in drier condition, and greening deserts could be small warming effect [can’t say how small as compared to storing chemical energy]. But the entire Sahara desert becoming green would be to large warming effect [or at least a very large regional warming effect].
Thanks gbaikie,
You say “But the entire Sahara desert becoming green would be to large warming effect”
Yes, for average temperature. I was thinking along the lines that maximum temperatures would be reduced though. The bulk of energy from the Sun is in the form of visible light. It is either reflected, ab-sorbed and reradiated, or taken in for photosynthesis.
During the day, highly vegetative areas tend to be cooler than urbanized and desert areas. Though at night, the ability for vegetative areas to cool will be reduced given the higher humidity.
Stepping back, UV is an important factor in Ocean warming. Thus, given the planet orbital cycles, we are close to the Sun when the southern hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun. Given the higher Ocean percentage, we are in an overall warming cycle. I believe La Pangolina mentioned this warming effect would end in about 10,000 years. What I don’t know is if the warming affect will increase or stay the same due to orbital influences. Their may be an ideal obliqueness or tilt that maximizes UV to the Oceans.
So, orbital influences have the most effect on Solar energy input on the Earth System. Not because there is more Solar energy, but how the Earth system processes it. Given the long term proxy data, CO2 is shown to have limited impact above 300 ppm. It may (and I do say may) actually assist in lowering temperatures.
Again, thanks for your post, they are most informative.
gbaikie,
To clarify my point. Doubling of CO2 may result in warming, but not because of CO2, but because we are in an orbital warming trend that will not end for 10,000 years. Though, solar cycles, if we do go in minimum phase, can cause a several decade cooling effect. If we could enumerate the both the solar cycle effect and the orbital effect, we could isolate the CO2 effect. But only if we double CO2.
Your thoughts?
gbaikie says:
Its my opinion.
Oh. But opinions aren’t science.
What do you find wrong with the science (which places ECS between 1.5 and 4.5 C)?
Last year I audited a college course on paleoclimatology. The instructor said that the forcing from orbitals is now changing at -0.003 W/m2/yr.
Meanwhile, the annual change for CO2’s forcing last year was +0.028 W/m2, and for all anthropogenic GHGs was +0.035 W/m2.
PS: Volcanoes cause cooling, not warming (unless they immensely immense.)
PS: A good source on annual GHG forcings:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html
“bilybob says:
June 25, 2018 at 7:34 AM
gbaikie,
To clarify my point. Doubling of CO2 may result in warming, but not because of CO2, but because we are in an orbital warming trend that will not end for 10,000 years. Though, solar cycles, if we do go in minimum phase, can cause a several decade cooling effect. If we could enumerate the both the solar cycle effect and the orbital effect, we could isolate the CO2 effect. But only if we double CO2.
Your thoughts?”
I have questions.
So orbital warming trend, relates to Milankovitch cycles?
So, NASA:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_3.php
“Using these three orbital variations, Milankovitch was able to formulate a comprehensive mathematical model that calculated latitudinal differences in insolation and the corresponding surface temperature for 600,000 years prior to the year 1800. He then attempted to correlate these changes with the growth and retreat of the Ice Ages. To do this, Milankovitch assumed that radiation changes in some latitudes and seasons are more important to ice sheet growth and decay than those in others. Then, at the suggestion of German Climatologist Vladimir Koppen, he chose summer insolation at 65 degrees North as the most important latitude and season to model, reasoning that great ice sheets grew near this latitude and that cooler summers might reduce summer snowmelt, leading to a positive annual snow budget and ice sheet growth.”
So it seems from above, that aspect discussed, is what could be called a cooling cycle. Or it is thought to cause a growth of ice sheets, and a large ice sheet, could be big enough to have global cooling effect [and in the region ice sheet, certainly has a cooling effect}.
It continues
But, for about 50 years, Milankovitch’s theory was largely ignored. Then, in 1976, a study published in the journal Science examined deep-sea sediment cores and found that Milankovitch’s theory did in fact correspond to periods of climate change (Hays et al. 1976). Specifically, the authors were able to extract the record of temperature change going back 450,000 years and found that major variations in climate were closely associated with changes in the geometry (eccentricity, obliquity, and precession) of Earth’s orbit. Indeed, ice ages had occurred when the Earth was going through different stages of orbital variation.”
If cycle is such that cycle caused the glaciers to melt rather than grow, one could call that a warming cycle [in regards to removing the glacier mass which is a cooling effect]
And we don’t currently have a huge ice cap in North America for that warming cycle to melt.
So Milankovitch cycles cause both cooling and warming effects, and above they specifically talking about it’s effect on making the huge ice sheet which are significant part of glacial periods.
I believe read somewhere Milankovitch cycles effect climate even when not in a icebox climate.
Or effect climate even when there are not huge ice sheets being created on continents.
[[Or safe to say, not going have that happen in a Hothouse climate- as you don’t even get polar ice caps. And tropical like conditions at poles]]
And that somewhat support the idea that Milankovitch cycles also warm and cool the ocean.
And I assume that is that you referring to as orbital warming trend.
And I don’t know much about it and I would interested in any details
Thanks again gbaikie,
Looking in the long term, we have the Earth receiving energy from the sun in the form of UV, visible, near IR and far IR and beyond. On a complete revolution of the Earth, it would receive practically the same amount of energy in a year regardless of the Milankovitch cycle. However, the solar energy is processed differently depending on if it hits ocean or land. I think you are correct that the Oceans are the dominate temperature control knob. When the Earth is closest to the sun in the southern hemisphere (as it is now) the percent of energy of the annual total is higher for the Oceans and thus the Oceans tend to become warmer. Eccentricity of the orbit will enhance this affect. The more eccentric, the closer the Earth gets to the sun. The final aspect is the tilt. I think this plays a lesser role but must be accounted for. The ideal tilt may not necessary be one of the extremes to maximize annual solar radiation on to the ocean.
The reverse situation would of course act to cool the oceans. Solar radiation on an annual basis would be minimum for the Oceans. Thus this may explain your range of Ocean temperatures (on millennial scale).
The solar minimums would explain variations on the centennial scale maybe less. Thus LIA, Medieval Warm Period are variation placed on top of Milankovitch cycle. Volcanism depending on the magnitude could impact on decadal scale and sub-decade scale. And ENSO could impact in the sub-decade scale.
LaP:
How much of the present climate change is a direct consequence of human activity is difficult to say with certainty.
1951-2010: 100+ per cent, according to this study:
“A new statistical approach to climate change detection and attribution,” Aurélien Ribes et al, Climate Dynamics, January 2017, Volume 48, Issue 1–2, pp 367–386.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3079-6
DAVID I, say zero all natural climatic change.
What evidence is that based on?
What’s causing all this natural warming you claim is happening?
The sun and associated secondary effects ranging from overall sea surface temperatures, to global cloud coverage, snow coverage ,atmospheric circulation changes , volcanic activity.
What has been the change in the luminosity since 1850?
Show that this change can produce 1 C of warming.
DA,
Who cares?
Show that you are not foolish and ignorant.
Only joking – you are, aren’t you?.
Cheers.
We will know way before 2020.
Do you choose not to understand the role of natural variations, or do you really not understand it?
This change from 1850-2017 was just run of the mill climate change not even close to being unique in rate of warming or degree of warmth.
Until those two items occur this has to be classified as natural warming.
See Figure 3.1 here:
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR_Ch3_Detection_and_Attribution.pdf
Their attribution of the change due to natural forcings is only about 0.1 C since 1880.
That paper looks like it’s derived from Bindoff et al 2013 and is an example of circular reasoning, apparently a popular process in climate change research.
Figure 3.1 derives from Figure 3.2 https://science2017.globalchange.gov/img/figure/figure3_2.png
and assumes ‘that all of the drivers of climate change are human caused … obviously, if all the drivers of climate change are human caused, then all the observed changes must also be caused by humans’:
http://www.cfact.org/2018/03/01/circular-reasoning-with-climate-models/
David, they don’t know what they are talking about. There out to lunch!
.1 c natural forcing lol
Salvatore, they did the calculations. You never have.
Gordon Robertson
I bring this back up down here as it is at different location above.
I did some investigating of your claims about Louis Essen on Relativity.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3297
It seems his major attack on the theory is the Twin Paradox. The clock issue.
There are several sites that explain how it works. All are complex and need a time to really understand.
Here:
http://relativitytrail.com/twin-paradox-relativity.htm
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-relativity-theor/
Scientists are not ignoring this concern and do address it.
I also saw the counter evidence he used to disprove General Relativity. He kind of “Cherry-picked” the evidence to just one test about atomic clocks on a round-the-world trip.
The reason that is a cherry pick is that it is possible to question this one. It deals with really small numbers in the area of uncertainty. However he ignores lots and lots of empirical data like the Meson experiment or particle accelerators which actually do get to relativistic speeds and the effects are much much more noticeable and less prone to error from measuring devices.
Gordon Robertson
I tried posting about topic above, and didn’t post. So give it another shot, here.
Simple: If spaceship going 1/2 speed of light, and shine light ahead and behind spaceship.
Does light leave spaceship at 1.5 light speed, and .5 speed of light with the light leaving back of ship?
g,
No.
The reason is simple – Nature is weird.
Cheers.
😕
Answered above.
Entropic man says:
June 24, 2018 at 9:57 AM
Gbaikie
An observer aboard your ship at 0.5C would see both beams of light receding at 300,000 kilometres/second and at the same wavelength.
A stationary observer ahead of the ship would measure the light arriving at 300,000km/second but see a shorter wavelength due to the Doppler effect.
A stationary observer behind the ship would measure the light arriving at 300,000km/second but see a longer wavelength.
All observers measure the speed of light c as 300,000km/second relative to their own location and velocity.
That is why it is called relativity.
It is counterintuitive but it happens.
Yeah, I agree.
But I wondered if Gordon would agree.
Gordon doesn’t think that time exists, or spacetime, or believe in relativity, special or general.
I think Gordon might be trapped in the multiverse in a universe different than ours with different physical laws.
gbaikie…”Yeah, I agree.
But I wondered if Gordon would agree”.
What the human mind observes in situations involving relativity is irrelevant. The human mind has proved itself of limited use in such situations. I dare say most humans still think the Sun revolves around the Earth, based on relative motion.
The problem with Einstein’s relativity theory is it’s dependence on the human observer AND the human invention of time. I have no issues with the basic equations minus the reference to light. Anyone could calculate relative motion between two reference frames, we used to do it with a simple translation of axes.
There are equations in Newtonian physics to accommodate the calculations of relative velocities/accelerations without a speed of light factor in them.
My problem is with the inference that a measured distance (length) on one frame of reference will change length AS VIEWED BY A HUMAN OBSERVER HOLDING A CLOCK as velocities approach the speed of light.
Is it apparent to no one that the change of length is taking place mathematically in the human mind and not on the observed frame?
If you define motion in the real world based on a human observer holding a clock he invented based on the rotation of the Earth it would be expected that time and distance would change in mathematical equations not based on reality.
Now take the humans and their infernal time pieces off the Earth. Now there is no time and no motion relative to a human observer. Do you really believe that distances as viewed on a different reference frame, would change length as compared to a reference frame when velocities approached the speed of light?
If so, would you please explain how it is possible for a 1 metre long steel ruler to lengthen or shorten based on velocities? As far as I know, the only way for that to happen is with a change in temperature.
gbaikie…”Simple: If spaceship going 1/2 speed of light, and shine light ahead and behind spaceship.
Does light leave spaceship at 1.5 light speed, and .5 speed of light with the light leaving back of ship?”
1.5c and 0.5c are a bit of a stretch. However, stars traveling at a fraction of the speed of light can affect the wavelength of light just as a train running through a station blowing its whistle can affect the speed of sound.
In astronomy it’s called red shifting and blue shifting. The light from a body moving away is shifted toward the red end of the EM spectrum and a star moving toward us is shifted to the blue end. In other words the motion of the stars affect the frequency of the light.
I think Einstein erred when he proclaimed the speed of light as a constant. Experts like Louis Essen think so too. I think it was Essen who claimed it’s bad science to proclaim a constant without proof.
The equations of Lorentz, upon whose equation Einstein based relativity, presume a constant velocity for light. In other words, the basis of relativity theory was defined before the investigation began.
If the frequency and wavelength of EM is related by L.f =c, when L = wavelength, f = frequency, and c = speed of light, how does one explain Doppler shifting from a star moving relative to Earth?
ps. I realize it is the medium that sets the constant. The speed of sound in air varies with the air temperature. It’s different through water.
What can we make of the medium for light? We know the speed of light changes through certain media. It travels at a lower speed through a fibre optic cable. What is there in the so-called emptiness of space for it to move through? Why does it have to remain constant?
Maybe so-called empty space is not empty. Some people still think their is substance to it, like an aether and recently it has been found it is teeming with neutrinos.
A good youtube video about neutrinos and an experiment trying to determine their mass, which is thought to be a fraction of the mass of an electron.
With uncertainties like this about sub-atomic particles, especially those that cannot be detected easily, if at all, why are we going out on a limb and proclaiming the speed of light as a constant?
Please ignore stupid references to the Big Bang, another unfounded thought experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLfSc0LIqiw&feature=youtu.be
“Why does (c) have to remain constant?”
Good question. There is some thought c may not have been constant in each universal epoch but for us c is constant.
All we know is by the best experiment performed c is measured the same, constant, no matter the speed of the light source frame.
Which then means since velocity = distance/time and c velocity is constant no matter the frame, it is distance and time that have to change in each frame relative to the other.
And gravity has the effect of changing spatial cooridinates thus length. Pretty scary but interesting, huh?
ball4…”Which then means since velocity = distance/time and c velocity is constant no matter the frame, it is distance and time that have to change in each frame relative to the other”.
Don’t you see the human element in all of this? We defined the speed of light as a constant over all frames of reference, now we are manipulating the components to make them fit. It’s a mathematical manipulation based on an illusion, not an actual change in those parameters of length and time.
There is no reason why length should change with velocity. If the dimension of an object, traveling through empty space at the speed of light, which meets no resistance or interference, why should it’s length change? How does the speed of light change the forces affecting the atomic structure of the body?
And why should an interval based on the second, which we derived as a constant value based on a fraction of the period of a rotating body (the Earth), change? That infers a change in the angular velocity of the Earth.
The second cannot change unless the Earth speeds up or slows down it’s speed of rotation. Why the heck should it change because a human with a clock is traveling on an inertial frame while observing a body moving on another frame?
“Maybe so-called empty space is not empty. Some people still think their is substance to it, like an aether and recently it has been found it is teeming with neutrinos.”
Wiki:
….” The majority of neutrinos in the vicinity of the Earth are from nuclear reactions in the Sun. In the vicinity of the Earth, about 65 billion (6.5×10^10) solar neutrinos per second pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the Sun.”
So 65 billion pass thru square cm perpendicular to sun and at the speed of light.
With aether is there a direction and velocity related to it?
“We defined the speed of light as a constant over all frames of reference”
No Gordon, c is measured as a constant over all frames of reference.
gbaikie…”So 65 billion pass thru square cm perpendicular to sun and at the speed of light.
With aether is there a direction and velocity related to it?”
Don’t know anything about it, just that it has been a bone of contention since Einstein put forward his theory on relativity. Einstein has admitted that if there is an aether, relativity is wrong.
Here’s something about ether drift circa 1930 by Dayton Miller. Einstein said specifically, if Miller is right, relativity is wrong.
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/MillerCase1929.pdf
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Miller1930.pdf
No one knew anything about neutrinos back then, Pauli hypothesized them in 1930 based on an unexplained missing mass in experiments. He admitted it was wrong scientifically to do that but he seems to have been proved right.
Like the neutron, the neutrino is electrically neutral but it has about 1/200,000nds the mass of the electron. Apparently, neutrinos can create electrons.
If space is full of them, they have never been detected en masse because they have no electrical or magnetic field with which to detect them. So maybe Miller was right.
gbaikie…BTW, unlike what it may appear, I am not into conspiracy theories, nor do I enjoy arguing black is white. Certain subjects fascinate me and the handful I have challenged, like time dilation, dimension alterations, Big Bangs, black holes, evolution, HIV/AIDS, GHE and AGW are but a small part of science.
I go along in general with much of what has been discovered in science but I have become cool to certain modern misinterpretations of original theories and proofs. In the past couple of decades, black hole theory has morphed from the super-dense remnants of exploded stars to a seriously dubious space-time creation.
I do enjoy it when a scientist challenges a paradigm and is proved correct. I’m thinking of Barry Marshall, the Aussie who proved stomach ulcers were created by H. Pylori, a bacterium that can survive in the acidic environment of the stomach lining.
When he first presented his paper for peer review, it was rejected outright and ranked as one of the worst papers every submitted. It was not till Marshall had the courage to drink a concoction containing H. Pylori and became very ill, that anyone took him seriously.
stated earlier…”….just as a train running through a station blowing its whistle can affect the speed of sound”.
Should have read, “…just as a train running through a station blowing its whistle can affect the frequency (wavelength) of sound.
I know the speed of sound is constant in air at a certain temperature. That limit is related to the atomic phenomena in air, it’s the rate at which waves of acoustic energy can be transmitted through air at that temperature.
Why should it be different for waves of EM traveling through different media at different temperatures? I think the speed of light is normally stated for a vacuum like space.
In relativity theory, it is claimed light travels at a constant speed no matter the speed of the transmitting body. The claim is that a body traveling at 0.5 the speed of light will not affect the speed of light transmitted from it. Where’s the proof?
That where this misunderstanding about time dilation comes from. It is claimed the SOL is a constant no matter what therefore length and time must change to accommodate the theory.
Don’t buy that.
Gordon Robertson
Science is not based upon what you can or cannot “buy”.
It is based upon empirical, observational and experimental data. Your opinions mean zero in the world of science.
You treat science as if it were a religion. Maybe too many liberal do this. They reject the established faiths and then replace it with science.
You act like the words of authorities matter to science. They do not. You post about Woods, and Ebsen, and Clausius like they are infallible prophets and have to be right with whatever they claim. You also pick and choose what science you will believe based upon your own feelings about it or based upon your own limited view of how you BELIEVE the Universe words.
Sorry. Did Ebsen ever measure the Speed of Light in a Vacuum to be different? If so where are his findings? Scientists have been measuring the speed of light a long time and found it to be constant. Find evidence it is not!
Also Time, as rate of change, does dilate when an object approaches light speed. I could care less if you can’t accept it. Empirical evidence supports it. Mesons. I gave you a link to do your own testing. DO IT or SHUT UP for once! You reject empirical valid science in favor of your own deluded sense of reality. Get over you self. Either do real experiments (like E. Swanson did). Or quit posting. Your ANTI-SCIENCE is cringe worthy and sad.
norman…”You act like the words of authorities matter to science. They do not. You post about Woods, and Ebsen, and Clausius like they are infallible prophets and have to be right with whatever they claim”.
So, Newton doesn’t matter to science? Just scientists like Tyndall, Callander, and the Swede, who support your views on GHE and AGW.
You don’t seem to get it that science is built on a foundation of science and scientists going back to the era of Newton, and even before. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel each time we do science, we can reach for laws and equations like the Ideal Gas Law and the 2nd law, even if they are several hundred years old.
I am doing what you don’t do, citing sources and giving credit where credit is due. Until anyone can disprove Clausius, Woods, and Essen (Ebsen is a Hillbilly) there works stands, whether it’s over a hundred years old or not.
You have no disproved the 2nd law, you have merely misinterpreted it to suit your pseudo-science related to GHE and AGW.
“Time, as rate of change, does dilate when an object approaches light speed”.
Time is not a rate of change, it’s based on a constant value, the second, that is derived from the periodicity of the Earth’s rotation. Once again, how does a constant value, the second, change at the speed of light?
The second is defined as 1/86,400 of one rotation of the Earth. If time changes at the speed of light, then the Earth’s rotation needs to change as well so the new second can be defined.
Einstein was wrong.
norman…”It seems his major attack on the theory is the Twin Paradox. The clock issue.
There are several sites that explain how it works. All are complex and need a time to really understand”.
*********
The Twin Paradox is actually a reference to the thought experiment in which twins are separated on Earth with one traveling through space at the speed of light and the other remaining on Earth. When the traveler returns he finds his twin has aged and he has not.
The clock version suggests the same time dilation issue.
This has to be one of the most stupid thought experiments foisted on the human mind. Humans do not age based on travel at the speed of light they age based on their cell mechanisms. By the same token, the old clocks to which E referred do not change speeds due to traveling at the speed of light they change speed based on their springs and gear ratios irregularities.
I cannot believe Einstein missed that. He appears to have out-foxed himself with a thought experiment gone awry.
Actually, that’s all his relativity theory is, a thought experiment.
It’s too bad I didn’t notice these sub-conversations until well after the discussions are stale. I could have shed some light on your contentions.
The “Twin Paradox” is not a paradox at all. The twin that accelerates away from the common origin is the one for whom time slows down relative to the other twin.
And, incidentally, the Twin Paradox was not a thought experiment devised by Einstein, but by his critics, who thought the paradox contradicted Relativity.
The conundrum was resolved many decades ago, and you are beating a horse that is not just dead, but thoroughly decomposed.
Kevin Trenberth apparently redefines “climate” to include weather forecasts –
“The fact is that improving weather and seasonal forecasts is now a climate problem: it inherently involves interactions among the atmosphere and ocean and land.
He doesn’t seem to realise that climate is the average of weather – no more no less.
Kevin Trenberth probably believes he is a climate scientist – a contradiction in words.
He might even be annoyed that NOAA is considering dumping “climate” from its mission statement.
What a pity!
Cheers.
Mike…”Kevin Trenberth apparently redefines “climate” to include weather forecasts –”
Trenberth was caught whining in the Climategate emails that he nor anyone else could account for the lack of warming. He called it a travesty.
He admitted something that NOAA later changed retroactively using fudged SST data. The IPCC admitted it formally in 2012, 15 years of a lack of warming from 1998 – 2012. They called it a warming hiatus.
UAH has a 15 year so-called hiatus (hiatus implies a temporary break in continuity), and that’s proof positive that CO2 has no effect in any warming we have experienced.
The alarmists here are after me for challenging the NOAA scientific misconduct. I will credit Trenberth for at least admitted there was no warming to support AGW, 15 years of it according to IPCC data in 2012, and 15 years according to UAH data.
Gordon Robertson says:
UAH has a 15 year so-called hiatus
When? During your cherry picked years?
And so what? There were about 7 such hiatuses in the 20th century. None meant that global warming stopped.
News about sensible politicians for a change:
“India eyeing a new monster 100GW solar-capacity goal”
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/india-eyeing-a-new-monster-100gw-solar-capacity-goal/
“… The cost of a 100GW tender at current prices could be in the ballpark of 100 billion dollars … but renewable energy prices will continue to decrease. If the government insists on domestic manufacturing, though, the cost could be higher because the inexpensive Chinese panels would be inadmissible …
Solar PV plant in say Arizona have a capacity factor of ~30% so the actual output would be ~30GW maximum.
The total generating capacity of China with a comparable population at present is ~1700GW and US ~1000GW in both cases mostly baseload.
On a Energy Return On Invested (EROI) basis solar PV is the least efficient and the least sustainable energy source of all, even if some economically feasible form of storage is assumed.
Indeed, no serious technical solutions, at appropriate scale to curb substantially the world CO2 emissions, do exist yet, except (perhaps) nuclear plants replacing fossil fuels.
Yet by no means does this even remotely mean that AGW merely doesn’t exist, is a scam or a fraud and similar blabber by the idiotic deniers hanging around in this blog.
One may just live by hope and expect climate sensitivity turns out to be low.
It,
You seem confused, or possibly just stupid and ignorant.
Why would anthropogenic global warming necessarily have any relationship to an indescribable Greenhouse Effect?
That is about as stupid as observing that a thermometer may be heated by a person creating heat in the vicinity by lighting a fire, and then invoking a miraculous CO2 Greenhouse Effect as a reason for the hotter thermometer.
Have you tried communicating more clearly? Are you really trying to say that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter? That sounds quite ridiculous, and probably explains why you cannot even describe the nonsensical Greenhouse Effect.
As to climate sensitivity, you obviously do not realise that climate (according to the World Meteorological Organisation, at least), is merely the average of historical observations.
I assume that you are trying to insinuate that CO2 has some magical mathematical influence on numbers. Complete nonsense, of course.
Try saying what you mean, practice the scientific method, and you might appear not quite so stupid, ignorant, or delusionally psychotic. Or continue along your present course, of course. It’s up to you.
Cheers.
idiot…”Yet by no means does this even remotely mean that AGW merely doesnt exist, is a scam or a fraud and similar blabber by the idiotic deniers hanging around in this blog”.
AGW has been a scam for over a century now. No testable hypothesis as Mike points out.
Gordon simply ignores the testable, tested & logical GHE hypotheses that Flynn HAS already repeatedly pointed out. Just another brick in the wall for Gordon.
Ball4,
Unfortunately for you, loudly misrepresenting me does not change the fact that you remain as stupid and ignorant as ever.
Equally unfortunately, claiming that the GHE has been described in useful scientific fashion, without actually being able to produce such a description, shows that you are delusional.
Repeatedly claiming that someone has claimed something does not make it so. For example, Gavin Schmidt claims to be a climate scientist, and Michael Mann claimed he was a Nobel Laureate!
Keep claiming that you can fabricate a CO2 powered heater with items available from your local hardware store. Anybody who believes you is obviously even sillier than yourself!
Off you go – more loud misrepresentations need your help.
Cheers.
I do not misrepresent your descriptions of the GHE at all, Mike, as much as you wish that were true and as often as you repeat the claim, with cheers I copy and paste your GHE descriptions exactly as you write them.
Your written descriptions of the existing GHE have been physically testable, have been tested, and are logical. Keep up the good work.
It is Mike’s claims of magic existing and being able to read minds that is in error, not Mike’s accurately written GHE physics. Carry on.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Chris, so then evaluate this:
“Ivanpah was advertised as designed to produce 940,000 MWh of electricity per year, based on its nameplate capacity and assumed capacity factor.[5] In its second year of operation, Ivanpah’s production of 653,122 MWh of net electricity was 69.5 percent of this value, ramping up from 44.6 percent in the first year. In its third year, the annual production was 74.8% of its advertised value.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility#Ivanpah_Total
DA…”Ivanpah was advertised as designed to produce 940,000 MWh of electricity per year….”
365 days/yr x 24 hours/day = 8760 hr/year
(940,000 mwh/year)(8760 hr/years) = 107 MWh capacity.
One of our hydroelectric dams here in British Columbia, the Revelstoke dam, has a capacity of 6,361 GIGAwatt.hours.
That’s a factor of 6361 x 10^9/107 x 10^6 = 59.4 x 10^3 larger.
That is, one hydroelectric dam has a capacity nearly 60,000 times larger than this solar toy.
Given that the average solar cell output is in the 12 volt range, it means converting all households and businesses to 12 volt appliances. If the solar energy is used to augment the hydro or fossil fuel plants, it means expensive equipment installations to interface the solar energy to current power grids.
The only people who benefit are the owners of the solar grids. Why would anyone else build solar plants based on the current pseudo-science surrounding global warming?
How about maintenance. Solar cells don’t last forever.
division sign went missing.
(940,000 mwh/year)(8760 hr/years) = 107 MWh capacity.
Should be (940,000 mwh/year)/(8760 hr/years) = 107 MWh capacity.
Ivanpah is in the Mohave desert. It serves people who live in the desert. There aren’t a lot of rivers there.
Gordo screws up electrical engineering basics…again.
Solar cells provide about 1/2 volt. Panels, which are arrays of cells, can be built to provide any total voltage, though they are typically constructed for 18 or 36 volt open circuit power. That allows them to charge 12 or 24 volt batteries or to operate inverters supplying AC to the grid.
And, Gordo, your calculation for Ivanpah doesn’t produce “107 MWh capacity”, for but Megawatts of rated capacity. You screwed up the units for the hydro dam too, both times repeating a common mistake among non-engineers and political hacks, like you.
swannie…”Gordo, your calculation for Ivanpah doesnt produce 107 MWh capacity”
I checked my figures. Here they are straight from the a government energy page:
https://www.energy.gov/lpo/ivanpah
“Ivanpah is expected to generate 940,000 megawatt-hours of clean energy per year…”
Wiki claims 940,000 GIGA watt hours/year.
The setup can only support 140,000 homes. Consider each home to have a 100 amp service at 240 volts. That represents an absolute maximum of 24 kilowatts. In reality, each home would have a demand factor which would be less.
24 kW/home x 140,000 homes= 3.36 GW
There are 8760 hours/year, therefore annual load is
3.36 GW x 8760 h/yr = 29434 GWh/year
Someone is BSing, and it ain’t me. It would not surprise me one bit if the eco-weenies in California are lying through their teeth.
gordo, I was referring to your screw up on the units. You wrote:
(940,000 mwh/year)/(8760 hr/years) = 107 MWh capacity.
That should be 107 MW average capacity compared with a rated capacity of 392 MW, which gives a capacity utilization factor of about 37%. The sun don’t shine all day long, so, of course, therre’s less output than the rated (i.e. maximum) output.
E. Swanson, that should be a capacity utilization factor of about 27%..
JDHuffman, Sorry about that. Unlike Sir Gordo, I’m willing to admit that I’m a fallible human who is prone to shoot from the hip on occasion.
While we’re at it, the other side of Gordo’s comparison, the big dam in BC, appears to be similarly flawed. He gave the annual “capacity” of the turbines as 6,361 GIGAwatt-hours. While those turbines might on occasion produce electricity at the maximum rate of 2480 MW, it’s unlikely that they would be operated at that rate for an entire year. If that were to occur, the energy produced would be (2480 MW x 8640 hrs) or 21,427 GigaWattHrs. Using Gordo’s number for annual production, the dam’s annual capacity utilization factor works out to be only 29%, not much different than Ivanpah.
Wiki:
“Capacity factor 20.5% (2016 actual) / 27.4% (Planned)
Annual net output 940 GW·h (planned)[5]
So Gordon your statement that it says 940,000 GWh is FALSE.
And you did screw up the calculations.
How bout a little self-skepticism before posting.
DAVID – will be finding out very soon just how potent or not CO2 is when it comes to climate change.
We already have over 165 years of data on the subject. The proof is in. It’s (past) time to act.
165 years of NATURAL warming David!
Do you have anything new to write? Say, about the evidence?
I want to see how many people will be left in believing in AGW theory by 2020, as the climate is now transitioning to a cooling trend.
Can you imagine a cooling climate trend with not only these so called high CO2 levels but maybe CO2 still increasing as the climate cools.
AGW theory has hi jacked naturally occurring climate changes. It is unfortunate that naturally occurring climatic changes were in a warming mode from 1850-2005 but that has ended in full force in year 2018 and I feel the lag times are now sufficient. A period of 10+ years 2005-2017.
If one looks at the historical climatic records what stands out is this period of time in the climate is in no way unique in regards to the rate of warming or the magnitude of warming ,and that the climate has done this many times before.
Not to mention the lack of correlation of the global climate versus CO2 concentrations and worse yet CO2 following the temperature not leading it.
My theory suggest this year is the transitional year because the two solar requirements necessary for cooling are now in which are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (2005) and following that , a period of time of very low average value solar parameters(2018) which are equal to or exceed typical minimum solar values between sunspot cycles both in degree of magnitude change and duration of time.
My theory is simple which states very low minimal solar conditions will achieve cooling by causing the overall oceanic surface temperatures to cool, while at the same time causing the albedo of the earth to increase slightly.
Less UV/NEAR UV LIGHT translating to lower overall sea surface temperatures which by the way have been in a down trend for many months now.
An increase in explosive major volcanic activity ,global snow/cloud coverage translating into a slightly higher albedo.
The case for an increase in major explosive volcanic activity tied to an increase in galactic cosmic rays, while global cloud cover ,snow cover increases tied to atmospheric circulation changes which are tied to changes in EUV light and an increase in galactic cosmic rays. Due to low average value solar parameters such as the low solar wind, AP index, solar flux etc.
All of the given solar activity moderated by the geo magnetic field which can act in concert or opposition to solar. What makes this period of time more potent is the geo magnetic field (weakening)is acting in concert with solar activity.
A cooling trend by 2020 won’t disprove AGW. It’s happened before and it will happen again.
I say a cooling trend starting now and moving forward WILL destroy AGW theory.
So you’ve said.
Salvatore sez: “I say a cooling trend starting now and moving forward WILL destroy AGW theory.”
Unfounded assertions are easy to write Salvatore. To be convincing, you need experiment & observational confirmation. Your experiment needs to show that AGW theory based on past experiments is now obsolete. You have a very high bar to jump.
You will still not be correct unless you do that even if global climate cools for the next several years. The added CO2 non-condensing component will still be in the mix of positive forcings on climate.
CERES radiometers show that in the SW all-sky TOA global mean flux trends are negative (-0.57 +/- 0.19 W/m^2 per decade) and these measurements either exceed or are close to the 95% significance level for March 2000 September 2016. This is a long enough period to have had an effect, even before your 2005 pure guess.
A Mark 1 eyeball glance at UAH lower troposphere T series show an (arguable magnitude) trend higher after year 2000 despite the downward input SW trend. The other climate forcings are thus measured to be having a positive effect on temperature globally opposite the confidently measured decrease in solar.
Ball4
I plotted linear regressions for UAH V6.0 from the start to 2000 and from 2000 to present.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2019/every/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2000/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2019/every/trend
My mark 1 eyeball sees very little difference in the warming trend.
During your blue line trend, CERES all-sky solar SW does turn down around 2009 and 2013 before recovering to flat line before ending the ~16.5 yr period down the most in the period end mid-2016.
The period also began in 2000 with the highest solar SW in the period. Ref. Loeb 2018 Fig. 9 and Table 7. Given this data, in the period, evidence shows solar SW trend was cycling and overall trended down opposite the UAH v6.0 TLT blue line up trend.
The authors: “These anomalies reflect the influence of internal variations in the climate system, particularly that of ENSO…CERES TOA fluxes exhibit pronounced interannual variability driven primarily by ENSO. SW TOA flux variations in the Arctic are noteworthy and are tied to changes in sea ice coverage.”
entropic…”I plotted linear regressions for UAH V6.0 from the start to 2000 and from 2000 to present”.
w4t is an amateur toy. Look at the real UAH graph on this site, following the red running average. You won’t see the trend you have published from 1998 – 2015. The trend comes from the El Nino of early 2016.
You have to know the context before you number crunch data. Go back to w4t and plug in data for the 2000 – 2015 era, then do 2015 – present for UAH.
Cherry picking is defined as choosing the end points of your data to get the result you want.
Gordon Robertson says:
June 25, 2018 at 6:34 PM
w4t is an amateur toy. Look at the real UAH graph on this site, following the red running average. You wont see the trend you have published from 1998 2015.
*
Is it possible to be so ignorant as pretentious as Robertson is?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2019/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2000/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2019/every/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015/trend
Do you see: ‘from:1998/to:2015‘ ?
Even the dumbest commenter at WUWT – i.e. having the brain of a today’s twelve year old child – behaves more intelligent than you do.
Sie sind ja dumm wie die Nacht, Robertson!
DA…”Cherry picking is defined as choosing the end points of your data to get the result you want”.
I guess the IPCC are cherry-pickers. They used the end points of 1998 and 2012 when they declared the warming hiatus during that period.
binny…”Is it possible to be so ignorant as pretentious as Robertson is?”
Is that a negative trend I see on your w4t graph between 1998 and 2015. And is that a positive trend line crossing it for the same period?
Talk about ignorant.
w4t?????
David Appell says:
“A cooling trend by 2020 wont disprove AGW. Its happened before and it will happen again.”
Actually, the AMO is near a top and it can deduct 0.3 degrees in three decades. A couple of volcanoes on top of that and we can have a multi-decadal pause. The AMO:
https://tinyurl.com/yb8ubyca
No difference in the long run of course (because the ‘O’ means oscillation).
And we could put giant mirrors in space to create a cooling trend.
AGW wouldn’t disappear just because some volcanoes go off. Or if the AMO is in a different phase. Or ENSOs, the PDO, the IPO, the AO, the MJO, the NAO, etc.
Those are all natural variations. AGW exists with them at the same time. And it doesn’t go away when they do.
That’s right, ‘O’ means oscillation, no long term effect.
DA…”A cooling trend by 2020 wont disprove AGW. Its happened before and it will happen again”.
There is a flat trend from 1998 – 2015 that NOAA amended retroactively by fudging the SST. What kind of times are we living in when science is done retroactively by consensus, and by altering confidence levels?
You have no evidence NO.AA did such a thing.
What they did was carefully examine how the data were gathered, and figured out how to improve them.
BTW, adjustments reduce the long-term warming trend.
DA…”You have no evidence NO.AA did such a thing.
What they did was carefully examine how the data were gathered, and figured out how to improve them”.
Is that same care they used in decreasing a confidence level from it’s typical 90% percentile to 48% in order to promote 2014 as the warmest year ever, when it was several tenths C cooler than 1998?
NOAA are shysters. They amended the SST retroactively to produce a positive trend that fit with the Obama regime’s fantasy warming meme.
What do you make of this then Gordon?
https://tinyurl.com/yasuttab:
“When comparing 2017 to 2015, the smaller difference is less than the estimated uncertainty. Based on the best estimates for each of these years, and the uncertainties involved, we believe there is roughly an 80% likelihood that 2017 was warmer than 2015. Consequently, it is likely that 2017 was the 2nd warmest year overall. These uncertainties can be understood using the schematic below where each year’s estimate is represented by a distribution reflecting its uncertainty.”
https://tinyurl.com/ycwunbya
Gordon Robertson says:
Is that same care they used in decreasing a confidence level from its typical 90% percentile to 48% in order to promote 2014 as the warmest year ever, when it was several tenths C cooler than 1998?
Gordon STILL doesn’t understand what the difference is between confidence intervals and probability.
He’s hopeless. He doesn’t want to understand, and it certainly shows.
The excuses and justifications for AGW which will fall on deaf ears if the climatic trend turns down, like I think it will.
As I have said if a cooling trend starts which appears to be happening and continues going forward AGW theory will be destroyed. It is already having a hard time being accepted by many .
If one has conviction that AGW theory is a scam and that solar is the climate driver then this is the time to call for the climate to transition.
So many will not commit to a climate prediction they put if off or just approach the subject so gently. Maybe they have to much to loose if wrong, maybe that is the reason.
I have been EXTREMELY bold. I guess I will be either swimming or sinking with my prediction.
I have plainly said year 2018 is the transitional year for the climate and it cools going forward from here.
The solar criteria is in and on top of that the geo magnetic field is enhancing the solar effects. If it does not happen now next few years ,(global cooling to some degree) it is not going to happen any time soon in my opinion and AGW will live on forever.
It is apparent that just about all of the warming from 1850-2017 is natural in nature.
That said let the climatic test begin. Let us see the trend from 2018 on.
I am not just saying a cooling trend is going to come I am saying precisely when it will start ,how it will start , and why it will start, so if I turn out to be correct I will be on very firm ground.
Salvatore wrote:
I have plainly said year 2018 is the transitional year for the climate and it cools going forward from here.
Well, you’ve said it was 2002, then 2010, 2013, and 2015.
Hope springs eternal, huh?
I did not say year 2002 first wrong.
I did call for cooling earlier at one time, because I was thinking the solar conditions needed to produce cooling were going to be present.
I was wrong in that solar conditions were much more active then I had anticipated, but not NOW! Finally in year 2018 what I was expecting to take place earlier is now in place.
“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 was wrong in that solar conditions were much more active then I had anticipated
You were wrong because you didn’t predict what would happen.
You’ll be making the same excuses in 2018, 2019, 2020, ….
No DAVID. If it does not happen 2018 moving forward it is not going to happen.
I will have no excuses because the sun this time has meant all of my conditions. Not to mention the weakening geo magnetic field.
Unlike your side if it goes against me I will admit to being wrong.
You previously wrote before that all the conditions were met.
“Global cooling has started, and it will be here for sometime to come. All the factors that control the climate are now in, or going toward a colder phase.”
– Salvatore del Prete, December 31, 2010
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/12/dessler-and-spencer-debate-cloud-feedback/#comment-8257
David, please stop trolling.
–What do you find wrong with the science (which places ECS between 1.5 and 4.5 C)?–
The pseudo science that without CO2, Earth average temperature would be -18 C.
Which is variant of: that without greenhouse gases (including ozone), Earth average temperature would be -18 C.
gbaikie…”Which is variant of: that without greenhouse gases (including ozone), Earth average temperature would be -18 C”.
Don’t forget the oceans.
The argument that GHGs have anything to do with raising the temperature of the atmosphere 33C comes from the Flat Earth Society. It comes from people who are not aware of the relationship between volume, pressure, temperature, and the mass of a gas.
Gravity produces a pressure gradient, the Sun produces heat for the temperature, and the volume is fairly constant as is the mass. The oceans serve to stabilize the temperature by storing heat and moving it around.
Happy marriage, GHGs not required.
Come on, I know you could wave your hands faster if you tried.
David, please stop trolling.
Nothing gbaikie.
My contention with the GHG effect is it is a result of the climate/environment not the cause.
The evidence which is overwhelming is from Ice Core data which shows CO2 ALWAYS follows the temperature.
If CO2 is following the temperature it is controlled by the temperature not the other way around.
In addition water vapor is much more important to the GHG effect then CO2 and that to I think is tied to what the climate is doing.
Also if the climate cools in spite of the added CO2 non condensing component as Bal states that will only strengthen my argument.
I will be on very firm ground
“Also if the climate cools in spite of the added CO2 non condensing component as Bal(l4) states that will only strengthen my argument.”
Not in any way as in an overall downtrend the monotonic added CO2 effect will be a component of the overall downtrend temperatures in same way as uptrend temperatures since CO2 doesn’t condense out at Earth STP. CO2 effect (or effect of any noncondensing IR active gas) on climate is not a function of an overall trend being positive or negative in any period.
This would not be true for water vapor which does condense out at Earth STP.
More jibberish.
Salvatore “More jibberish”.
Whay do you expect from ball4, who thinks heat does not exist and that we should stop using the word?
Gordon thinks heat exists as a substance that can flow in an iron bar and continues to use the term as was used in the 1800s instead of the modern term enthalpy H which Gordon has confused with Clausius U.
U and EMR are not heat Gordon, neither is Q since there is no entity heat nor work in an object though some authors continue to inhabit the past with Gordon.
ball4…”Gordon thinks heat exists as a substance that can flow in an iron bar….”
The substance is called energy, in this case thermal energy, aka heat. It is passed from valence electron to valence electron in the iron bar just as electric charge would be conveyed.
Charge operates differently than heat. Charge is an electrical phenomenon. it just is. Heat as thermal energy causes electrons to rise to higher energy levels and that increases the temperature in the vicinity. As it propagates down the bar, the energy diminishes as the energy is absorbed by each atom.
That energy is heat and that’s why the theory still remains.
Modernists have become confused, which is on par for much of modern science. Egos have pervaded science while intelligence has subsequently diminished. Scientists are just not as smart today as they were in the past because the rigour and discipline once required have diminished.
“The substance is called energy..”
How much does your substance called “energy” weigh at Earth surface Gordon? What color is this substance or is the substance colorless, what odor does it have? How solid is your substance or is it more like fluid water or a gas? What is the surface texture, its emissivity, transmissivity, reflectivity, the substance’s other properties?
Science has never been able to identify any of these properities of the substance flowing in your iron bar Gordon and actually found elegant experiments proving there is no heat or energy substance flowing in the iron bar & that nonexistant heat is only a measure of how hot or cold the bar may be.
Now Gordon writes he has overturned all this simply by assertion without any testing at all to set science back to the 1800s. Because Gordon claims modern science is confused and lacks Gordon’s level of rigor and discipline in assertion! Gordon seems to be the only one that has ever seen this substance in action so fill us in on your substance’s properties Gordon.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Salvatore del Prete
“The evidence which is overwhelming is from Ice Core data which shows CO2 ALWAYS follows the temperature.
If CO2 is following the temperature it is controlled by the temperature not the other way around”
Mostly the paleoclimate data agrees with you. Tempreature leads the change and CO2 amplifies the temperature change.
However you are mistaken in thinking that temperature ALWAYS leads CO2. The Permean extinction and the PETM are both candidates for CO2 driving temperature.
The current rise is not natural. There is no known natural mechanism capable of increasing CO2 from 280ppm to 410ppm in 140 years. The current rise is artificial. The CO2 is coming from our industrial activity. It is leading and causing the temperature change.
E,
Correlation is not causation.
I would ask if you were able to describe an effect which would cause additional CO2 in the atmosphere to make thermometers hotter, but I know you can’t.
You are just presenting the usual GHE believer religious dogma, hoping someone will believe you. I’m sure there is one born every minute. Can you monetise the madness, though?
It seems the trough is slowly emptying. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Salvatore wrote:
The evidence which is overwhelming is from Ice Core data which shows CO2 ALWAYS follows the temperature.
This is like saying an outdoor swimming pool only fills up when it rains, while ignoring the hose streaming water into it.
“Nothing gbaikie.
My contention with the GHG effect is it is a result of the climate/environment not the cause.”
I don’t think CO2 is vaguely a control knob.
My contention is that sunlight warms a tropical ocean.
And a tropical ocean on Mars would have water vapor.
{and the 25 trillion tonnes of CO2 of Mars atmosphere would not
be the control knob, rather it would be existence of the water in the tropics of Mars}.
“The evidence which is overwhelming is from Ice Core data which shows CO2 ALWAYS follows the temperature.
If CO2 is following the temperature it is controlled by the temperature not the other way around.
In addition water vapor is much more important to the GHG effect then CO2 and that to I think is tied to what the climate is doing.”
If there is any radiant effect related to Co2, Water vapor would greater radiant effect. But I tend to think that because water vapor condenses, this is a more important effect, rather it’s radiant effect. And that water evaporates, makes the ocean the heat engine of world.
That reminds me, what world look like if ocean was fresh water, rather than salt water?
But you can’t control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. If you try to put more in, it will just condense and rain out.
You can only get more water vapor in the atmosphere by first increasing the temperature of the atmosphere, and on Earth CO2 is probably the best/easiest way to do that. That’s why CO2 is the control knob.
–David Appell says:
June 26, 2018 at 9:22 PM
But you cant control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. If you try to put more in, it will just condense and rain out.–
Even if you don’t put more in, it will condense and rain out [or snow out].
–You can only get more water vapor in the atmosphere by first increasing the temperature of the atmosphere–
No, you just have to keep the water warm and it evaporates, and higher the temperature the more it evaporates, or if hot enough, the water boils- with Mars it can boil at 10 C.
So, on Mars if kept a million tonnes of water at 10 C, it continues t0 boil like or similar to how it would on Earth when water is 100 C.
And if with Mars if it is kept at 5 C, it doesn’t boil, but would evaporate pretty quickly, and how much it evaporates depends on surface area, 10 billion square meters could evaporate a million tonnes of water fairly quickly- within a day or two. And since entire Mars atmosphere has billions of tonnes of water, it is not going cause the million tonnes of water vapor to condense and rain out within days or weeks. But if first, add say a billion tonnes of water vapor, then add million tonnes, then it should take less time before a million tonnes of water vapor rains out.
gbalklie says:
No, you just have to keep the water warm and it evaporates, and higher the temperature the more it evaporates, or if hot enough, the water boils- with Mars it can boil at 10 C.
No. {Sigh.} This has nothing to do with Mars, or any planet.
You can’t put more water vapor into the atmosphere than its saturation pressure. See the Clausius-Claperyon equation and its derivation.
http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
Not according to this data.
Do you know that’s a cartoon? Much of the CO2 curve comes from a carbon model. Some of the points for CO2 are 10 Myrs apart, not a continuous line like pictured. 10 Myrs between graph points is far too little resolution to infer a relationship between temperature and CO2.
Notice the CO2 excursion during the PETM doesn’t even show up on that graph.
That graph is junk.
If you say so David.
Sez the guy who cannot even describe what the GHE is, in any way that makes sense.
He believes that putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
I know, I know, nobody could possibly be that stupid and ignorant – unless they are a GHE true believer, of course!
Cheers,
binny (aka la p)…”Maybe you got a PhD, Appell. But here you behave as dumb, ignorant and arrogant as does Robertson”.
Major difference, Robertson knows what he’s talking about, as opposed to you, DA, and the rest of the alarmists.
Ha ha ha ha!
The most ignorant, uneducated and pretentious person commenting on this blog says about himself “Robertson knows what he’s talking about”…
And even today he still hasn’t understood anything about time series which are really the simplest matter we talk here about.
And then this tremendous boastfulness in criticising persons like Einstein and Lorentz, without being able to give the shadow of a proof of what he pretends!
Ha ha ha ha!
binny…”And even today he still hasnt understood anything about time series which are really the simplest matter we talk here about”.
You just posted a graph from wood4trees in which the 1998 – 2015 series shows a negative slope, yet you crossed it with a positive slope representing the series from 1979 – present.
You have yet to explain that even though I have asked several times. In other words, what is the meaning of a longer term time series when its average consists of 18 years with no warming? And it’s first 18 years consisted of a trend representing a recovery from cooling.
You’re a number cruncher, I won’t hold my breath waiting for an intelligent reply.
Gordo wrote:
A Dunning-Krueger award for you…
Gordo would have us ignore more than 100 years of advances in Physics. Here’s some “food for thought”:
https://journals.aps.org/125years
swannie…”Gordo would have us ignore more than 100 years of advances in Physics”.
Many of them are misguided alterations, not advances.
The 2nd law has survived intact since 1850 or so. Clausius defined entropy to support the 2nd law as S = integral dQ/T. If you look around the Net today you will see every such nonsense regarding the meaning of entropy and just as much bs about the 2nd law.
There have been no advances in either definition yet we have developed absolute pseudo-science in climate science related to the misinterpretation of both.
Be sure to remember Gordon in any real process S = integral dQ/T is always positive. If dQ is positive and T is positive then integral dQ/t is positive and the process passes the 2LOT.
Gordon seems to forget this at times of Gordon’s choosing. Which is almost all the time like as long as integral dQ/T is positive for energy flowing from cold object to warm object then that real process passes the 2LOT.
Pretty sure Gordon will remember to forget that in the not too distant future.
Gordo wrote:
Clausius (1850): “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Thompson (1851): “It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects.”
Planck’s proposition (1897): “It is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a complete cycle, and produce no effect except the raising of a weight and cooling of a heat reservoir.”
KelvinPlanck statement from text book: “It is impossible to devise a cyclically operating device, the sole effect of which is to absorb energy in the form of heat from a single thermal reservoir and to deliver an equivalent amount of work.”
These concepts pre-date the realization that EM radiation is made up of photons which exhibit momentum. Photons from whatever source are absorbed by matter and, as a result, the kinetic energy of the material increases. In short, EM radiation, when absorbed, heats the body in which it is absorbed. The temperature of the source of the EM radiation doesn’t matter. That’s why the temperatures of everything within a closed, insulated space, as measured by an IR thermometer, are almost the same at equilibrium, as each body radiates and absorbs EM IR radiation between every other body within the space.
This is it! The climate should cool and therefore render AGW theory obsolete.
That is what will happen to AGW theory if cooling starts, no question about it.
AGW will still have some ardent supporters but they will be on the loosing side of the debate.
Notice how the ardent supporters of this theory will dismiss anything that goes against their belief, the belief that AGW.
Keep believing.
I notice how Salvatore will dismiss any experiment that goes against his climate beliefs: the belief that AGW theory will be rendered obsolete whenever the climate cools.
The climate has already cooled for several years yet Salvatore ignores the UAH data proof or any data that goes against his belief system even though solar was decreasing in the period. Salvatore has not produced any experimental evidence supporting his asserted faith in his belief system. Very telling.
How much cooling have we had Ball?
Are we below 1980-2010 means yet ? Are we below 1950-1979 means yet?
“How much cooling have we had Ball?”
Eyeballing the v6.0 UAH chart: cooling 0.6C to 1C trend over several years and several times. AGW theory was not rendered obsolete.
And warming of about 1.2C while solar was measured trending down over ~16.5 years from 2000. All…ALL in the measured UAH & CERES data.
You will have to tell me what the 1980 – 2010 mean is and the 1950-1979 mean. Certainly already below the 1981-2010 avg. many times. Lasting at times for ~4-5 years below that avg. Cooling period might happen again, if it does will not obsolete AGW theory as that theory is based on experiments and 1000s of observations of which Salvatore has: 0. Salvatore has strong belief though.
But we were in a natural climatic overall warming trend back then, unlike what is happening now.
I said so many times that the overall climatic trend from 1850-2005 was for warming due to natural climatic factors with fluctuation of +/- 1c due to ENSO/VOLCANIC ACTIVITY but it was all in the same climatic regime the one that we came out of when the Little Ice Age ended.
So that is a non argument, because the overall trend was higher unlike what I think will be happening now which will be the overall trend will be lower.
Maybe so Salvatore, there is a nonzero chance of that happening as chaos is by nature unpredictable & still those circumstances won’t in any way obsolete experiment and observational based basic science supporting AGW.
If you would just lay off that unsupported claim, you will have a better chance of applause, looking good in the future chaos ahead.
ball4…”Eyeballing the v6.0 UAH chart: cooling 0.6C to 1C trend over several years and several times. AGW theory was not rendered obsolete”.
There is nothing in the UAH data to support AGW. Nothing more than a consensus that rising global temps must be due to CO2.
Well, the UAH left most dot is lower than the right most dot on climate timescale so there is at least something in the UAH data to support AGW. Others more advanced, more accomplished than Gordon stuck in the 1800s have performed the attribution studies which Gordon needs to do a lot of extra work to understand.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is nothing in the UAH data to support AGW.”
Explain the warming seen by UAH.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
I said so many times that the overall climatic trend from 1850-2005 was for warming due to natural climatic factors
You’ve claimed that. You haven’t shown the slightest amount of evidence for it, though.
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through May 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
Can you read Ball. That is from Dr. Spencer.
What I am saying is that is no longer going to be the case as we move forward from here.
“from January 1979 through May 2018”
Ok, then see you in 2057, not 2020.
Until 2057 then, if you desire applause, lay off the unsupported claim a cooling trend of that duration will render proper experiments and observational theory obsolete. The same science will understand where the cooling trend came from, if it materializes, since we have enough observatories in place now to do so.
2020 or sooner
Then over several years to 2020 the already demonstrated UAH climate trends of cooling 0.6C to 1C trend over several years will compute to a new heretofore unseen in UAH cooling trend of around 1.8C to 3C per decade vs. Salvatores comparison Dr. Spencers warming trend January 1979 through May 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
Even that will take a decade to 2028 to show a new decadal trend in UAH series has established itself and Salvatore right given the conditions now exist that Salvatore needs. See you in 2028 for applause if your new 1.8C to 3C monotonic down trend materializes by then and is not just a several year cycle down and back up as already shown several times post Jan. 1979.
As La Pangolina pointed out +.42c has to be added to the satellite temperature data to derive how far above average global temperatures are based on the 1951-1980 baseline.
I think this baseline is a better indicator of where we are and is the one I am going to use, to see how the current climate contrast with the past.
So in reality the +.18c satellite temperature deviation based on 1981-2010 is deceiving when going back to the 1951-1980 period where it would be +.60c above means.
We can say since the period 1951-1980 we have had at a minimum +.60c of warming probably more like +.70c up to year 2017.
That said in order to have serious global cooling satellite monthly temperatures are going to have to fall considerably below the 1981-2010 baseline.
Have to approach this in an honest way.
I think this baseline is a better indicator of where we are and is the one I am going to use, to see how the current climate contrast with the past.
Comparing today’s climate to the past does not depend on the choice of baseline.
It does not depend on it but it gives one a better feeling of where the climate has gone over the past 50 some years.
Meaning David, and you should be happy, if the temperatures trend to 0 deviation from 1981-2010 means, it will not be low enough.
Needs to fall lower.
You have to subtract two numbers. Whether you subtract 3.0 from 4.0 or -0.1 from 0.9, you get the same number. Don’t be fooled by the absolute size of the anomalies.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
June 26, 2018 at 5:06 AM
As La Pangolina pointed out +.42c has to be added to the satellite temperature data to derive how far above average global temperatures are based on the 1951-1980 baseline.
*
No. I did the inverse, namely pointing out that .42 C has to be subtracted from the GISS data to let GISS and UAH data be based on the same 1981-2010 baseline.
*
I think this baseline is a better indicator of where we are and is the one I am going to use, to see how the current climate contrast with the past.
No. Because all temperature measurement organisations have their own baseline due to historical decisions:
– NOAA 1901-2000
– GISS, BEST 1951-1980
– Had-CRUT 1961-1990
– JMA 1971-2000
But most of them moved already or will slowly but surely move to 1981-2010, as this is the World Meteorological Organization’s standard since Feb 2018.
Please keep on present standards, Salvatore!
I forgot in the list below ‘…baseline due to historical decisions:’
– RSS 1979-1998
Doesn’t it make more sense to have one standard baseline that goes back in time as far as possible so we can get a better feeling of what is going on?
The 1981-2010 baseline is high so even global temperatures with no deviation from this baseline are still high when contrasted to global temperatures around 1960.
Salvatore, I agree with you on this. The math works out the same, but using something like 1880-2010 for GISS, their first 30 years, would give numbers more readily seen as indicative of warming since (close to) the preindustrial era. Had_CRUT could do better, with 1850-1880.
But generally the uncertainty of each decade’s anomalies increases back through time, so maybe that’s why the WMO picks the most recent 3 decades for their baseline.
binny…”No. I did the inverse, namely pointing out that .42 C has to be subtracted from the GISS data to let GISS and UAH data be based on the same 1981-2010 baseline”.
You are saying that a fabricated time series developed from the fabricated NOAA time series is somehow related to the UAH time series.
You Germans can be funny.
NO.AA doesn’t lie. But Gordon sure does.
BTW, what’s the relevance of the bullet hole in the window to this topic?
Have I missed something?
It is dangerous to be a scientist at the University of Alabama. In 2010 three biologists were killed and three wounded by a disgruntled colleague.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Alabama_in_Huntsville_shooting
As it is in southern California:
“Scientist Fatally Shot While Camping With His Daughters”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/us/scientist-shot-dead-daughters.html
myki…”As it is in southern California:
Scientist Fatally Shot While Camping With His Daughters”
Quite a difference. This is an unexplained murder off campus. The UAH killing was by a professor on campus. Also, Roy’s office complex was hit by a bullet in a separate incident, hence your shattered window query. No one knows if the office was targeted but there was a protest rally nearby.
So?
All these incidents indicate is a problem with gun control.
What is the relevance to “antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism”.
A protest of what?
What would make me change my mind?
Temperatures from now – next few years continue to rise from these levels.
I am practical.
Antarctica is apparently not warming, and if Antarctica has not been warming much over last couple thousand years, then I would tend to agree with all that you said.
UAH v6.0 says the LT over Antarctica has warmed 0.31 C since 1979.
David Appell says:
June 26, 2018 at 5:14 PM
UAH v6.0 says the LT over Antarctica has warmed 0.31 C since 1979.
As I often told you, Mr Appell, your knowledge is at the same level as that of Robertson, i.e. zero.
UAU 6.0 LT’s linear estimate for Antarctica from 1979 till 2018:
0.002 ± 0.025 °C / decade
Wrong, buddy. The linear trend for UAH LT v6.0 SoPol Land is 0.078 +/- 0.086 C/decade.
data source:
https://tinyurl.com/ycshmept
Sorry to insist, Dr Appell!
Linear estimate for SoPol in °C / decade:
2.5E-05 | 0.00527
0.00021 | 0.05767
2.9E-05 | 0.62679
0.01368 | 472
0.00537 | 185.434
0.00295 ± 0.025
The estimate moved from 0.002 up to 0.003 °C after a complete reload.
I agree that the UAH v6.0 LT SoPol trend is 0.003 +/- 0.049 C/dec (95% confidence level, no autocorrelation).
But that’s because the LT above the southern ocean is cooling (-0.03 C/dec).
I consider “Antarctica” to be the continent, viz. SoPol land. For that I find the trend I gave above. You?
David Appell says:
June 27, 2018 at 9:40 AM
The linear trend for UAH LT v6.0 SoPol Land is 0.078 +/- 0.086 C/decade.
Sorry, my bad: I didn’t see your addendum compared with
UAH v6.0 says the LT over Antarctica has warmed 0.31 C since 1979.
Because under Antarctica UAH6.0 understands:
60S – 82.5S
without land/ocean distinction.
The linear estimate for UAH6.0 SoPol land is indeed at
0.078 ± 0.044 C/decade.
The standard error interval would be far higher if autocorrelation and Quenouille correction were applied.
You see that when you compare Excel’s linear estimate with Kevin Cowtan’s output for time series with heavy standard deviations like e.g. short time periods, or Earth zones where uncertainty is higher, like Ant(Arctic).
UAH covers the entire globe. Scroll to the bottom of https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
PS: I explicitedly said I didn’t include autocorrelation.
DA…”UAH v6.0 says the LT over Antarctica has warmed 0.31 C since 1979″.
The sats don’t cover much of the Antarctic land mass. The temps are likely inflated due to the warming spot high on the Antarctic Peninsula.
UAH covers the entire globe.
See the bottom of https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
gbaikie says:
June 26, 2018 at 5:06 PM
Antarctica is apparently not warming…
That depends on where you measure.
In the Peninsula, some GHCN stations report +3 C /decade! In Vostok and Amundsen-Scott, 0.1 C. In Mirinyj, there is no warming at all.
But the average GHCN V3 trend is… 0.214 C / decade.
binny…”But the average GHCN V3 trend is 0.214 C / decade”.
That would indicate to an intelligent mind that GHCN, aka NOAA, are liars. They have literally no surface stations in those latitudes and they derive the guesstimates using statistical algorithms in a climate model.
Gordon, you were caught lying about this at least once before.
Don’t you have any sense of honor and integrity?
David, please stop trolling.
The above was suppose to be a reply to
bilybob
June 26, 2018
In the above thread
(With “Smartphone” I can not manage to link to the entry)
30 years ago Hansen made the famous testimony about the upcoming global warming , based on their claimed warming potency of CO2 and their models the global temperature should be at least 1c warmer by now .
The temperature today is exactly the same as it was 30 years ago, You don’t have to be a scientist to see the CO2 doesn’t do what they claim it does, you just look at the thermometer.
https://goo.gl/URKvvT
https://goo.gl/wy79AY
Ha ha
https://goo.gl/g41Lb8
eben…”30 years ago Hansen made the famous testimony about the upcoming global warming , based on their claimed warming potency of CO2…”
Within 10 years of his 1988 propaganda spiel, he recanted, blaming his climate model for having erred.
Gordon Robertson lies again.
“UAU 6.0 LTs linear estimate for Antarctica from 1979 till 2018:
0.002 0.025 C / decade”
Or
“But the average GHCN V3 trend is 0.214 C / decade.”
Either if from the 1970’S is pretty slow rate of warming compared other land temperature increases.
But was referring to in long term warming, such as over 2000 years.
But if only 100 or 200 years, that would be interesting.
I dreamt last night that under the Kristian-Robert Law heat could never transfer from a cooler to a warmer object. No object could emit photons toward a warmer object and no object could absorb photons from a cooler object.
My telescope could see the Sun, Mercury and Venus. It could not see Mars, Jupiter or Saturn.
My eyes could only see objects warmer than 37C. Everything else was blackness.
E,
You are confused. Who said an object cannot emit photons in any particular direction? You must be under the influence of some climatological delusion.
As to an object being unable to increase its temperature by absorbing photons less energetic than those which the object is emitting, this is true.
An example – try to heat a microgramme of liquid water using all the heat energy contained in all the ice in the universe. You will fail.
As to your eyes, they will not respond visually to anything colder than about 550 C, about the lowest temperature at which a visible red first appears. As you seem to be unaware of basic physics, if you cannot find facts elsewhere, let me know, and I will provide answers (provided of course that I am satisfied you have made reasonable efforts to help yourself, before pointlessly wasting my time).
Your dreams are not reality. On a par with dreaming that the GHE exists, or that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. Dreams can be really weird.
Cheers.
How do you get bioluminescence and triboluminescenc without the high temperatures?
E,
What part of –
“As you seem to be unaware of basic physics, if you cannot find facts elsewhere, let me know, and I will provide answers (provided of course that I am satisfied you have made reasonable efforts to help yourself, before pointlessly wasting my time).”
– did you not understand?
Do you assume that others are stupid and ignorant because you are stupid and ignorant, or is there some other cogent reason for appearing stupid and ignorant?
Do you suffer from a mental defect which prevents you from comprehending reasonably plain English? If you did not understand what I wrote, why not simply ask for explanation in simpler terms?
Ah well, all part of the ridiculously tattered tapestry of GHE life, I suppose. Carry on.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn, gordon robertson
I prtefer subtlety to spelling everything out, but perhaps that is necessary for engineers with limited education outside their speciality.
You claim that no visible light can be emitrted by an object below 550C.
Yet bacteria and fireflies emit light using the luciferase reaction at room temperature.
Under Kristian and Gordon’s rules how can a photon emitted by a firefly at 20C be absorbed by my eye at 37C?
Entropic Man, please stop trolling.
entropic…”…heat could never transfer from a cooler to a warmer object. No object could emit photons toward a warmer object and no object could absorb photons from a cooler object”.
Once again, you are confusing heat with electromagnetic energy. You need to study the relationship between heat and EM at the atomic level. Without that understanding you will continue to confuse the two.
No body emits EM toward another body, the object emits isotropically because electrons in its atomic structure are emitting EM in that manner. ‘IF’ another body intercepts that EM, whether it absorbs the EM or rejects it, depends on the energy level of the EM and the requirements of the target atom’s electron.
EM from a hotter body has the required energy/frequency to be absorbed by the electrons in a cooler body. The reverse is not true.
You are confusing blackbody theory with the real world. Kircheoff defined a BB as one which MUST absorb any EM incident upon it. Therefore, if you have two BBs at different temps radiating at each other, it is presumed both bodies must accept the radiation of the other.
Kircheoff proposed that theory only for BBs at the same temperature. It was never intended as a representation of bodies at different temperatures. Furthermore, he offered his theory some 60 odd years before Bohr proposed that electrons emit and absorb EM in the way described.
Either the 2nd law is correct or it is not. If it is correct, then Bohr’s explanation fits and the application of Kircheoff of BBs at different temperatures does not.
If temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of atoms/molecules in a gas, then for the 2nd law to fit, there must be a dramatic drop-off, from cold to hot, in the absorp-tion between bodies as they move away from thermal equilibrium.
I think the notion is wrong that bodies have a ratio of absorp-tion, with both absorbing, as they move away from thermal equilibrium. I think there has to be a sharp cut-off in absorp-tion for the hotter body.
I think that’s because if you have bodies at thermal equilibrium, to have one hotter than the other, you must heat one body or cool one body. If one is heated, even a slight increase in temperature will raise the hotter receiving electrons to a higher energy level (presuming a uniform, idealized heating).
This is not a situation where there is a gradient between energy levels, it’s quantum…all or nothing. Once electrons move to that higher energy level there is no communication between them and the Em from electrons in the cooler body.
Don’t blame me, blame quantum theory.
GR writes:
I think thats because if you have bodies at thermal equilibrium, to have one hotter than the other, you must heat one body or cool one body. If one is heated, even a slight increase in temperature will raise the hotter receiving electrons to a higher energy level (presuming a uniform, idealized heating).
Wrong.
Energy levels are quantized. That means not just any old “slight increase” in temperature will do.
DA…”Energy levels are quantized. That means not just any old slight increase in temperature will do”.
It would be nice if you’d stop shooting your mouth off about things you clearly don’t understand. ‘Wrong’ from an armchair expert does not negate what I posted.
I said in my post that energy levels are quantized, however, the energy level changes with the temperature. Electrons in atoms at a higher temperature have higher energy levels than electrons in cooler bodies.
With regard to temperature, there is no gradient between energy levels. This is not a situation where bodies of slightly different temperatures can exchange heat via EM emissions. There are rules for absorp-tion and the rules are based on quantized energy levels.
Once a body becomes hotter, it’s energy levels are higher than those in a cooler body. That means emissions from the cooler body cannot satisfy the requirements of electrons in a hotter body, which have higher energy levels.
Gordon Robertson says:
I said in my post that energy levels are quantized, however, the energy level changes with the temperature.
They do??
Tell us how the ground state electron’s energy of the hydrogen atom changes with temperature.
Give the formula for E0(T).
Mike Flynn
But if you have photons from a colder body being absorbed by a higher one, this hot object will have more NET energy than if it was surrounded by very low emitting space. Now if the hot object has more than one energy input (Sun and atmosphere), the combination of both those energy inputs will lead to a higher surface steady state temperature than if the atmosphere energy input was not there.
You constantly make the claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun won’t make it hotter. You have zero evidence for this assertion. I think it is wrong and have shown you why (not enough IR in solar energy at CO2 absorb bands to make a difference), but you have never attempted to support this assertion. You make it all the time but you have no evidence or support for the claim. Posters have asked you for evidence but you ignore these requests.
Why is this? Why are you unable to find any evidence to support you major claim. I have found evidence you claim is bogus but you have not given evidence to support it.
N,
You don’t seem to be disagreeing with my facts about hotter bodies not being made hotter by photons emitted by colder bodies.
As to thermometers being made hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, this is a claim apparently made by foolish Warmists, although, as they never describe this supposed GHE in any way which enables the examination of this implication, no scientific enquiry can be made.
What you think or dream is irrelevant. I merely point out that nobody has actually described the GHE in any remotely scientific fashion. You have resorted to misrepresenting me, claiming that I know more than all the climatological experts in the world, and have managed to describe the GHE in a useful fashion.
It is quite obvious that I do know more than anyone who claims that they can describe the GHE in any normal scientific fashion – if they could, they would, but they haven’t, so they can’t!
Dream on, Norman. No GHE. No unicorns. Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist, and Michael Mann is not a Nobel Laureate.
CO2 heats nothing. Anybody who believes it does is delusional, or just foolish and ignorant.
Cheers.
Flynn writes 5:55am: “What you think or dream is irrelevant.”
Good point Mike. Relevant experiments and observations have shown:
1) thermometers being made hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between an IR Sun and a thermometer.
2) Mike Flynn has actually described the GHE in a scientific fashion, repeatedly.
3) Added CO2 heats stuff
4) One can heat a microgramme of liquid water using the heat energy contained in ice
5) Human eyes will respond visually to anything colder than about 550 C.
Mike’s dreams are weird as written but science is exact as that which can be measured. There is no magic or mind reading as Mike claims either.
Cheers!
Mike Flynn
All those words and not even an attempt to support your claim that adding CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer would not make the thermometer temperature go up. Why do you not support your claim and go off on a stupid unrelated tangent of unicorns and dreams. Things not remotely connected to you providing proof that a thermometer will not get warmer.
There is some evidence you might be wrong with the continuing slow increase in global temperatures. You have provided zero proof of you claims.
YOU: “You don’t seem to be disagreeing with my facts about hotter bodies not being made hotter by photons emitted by colder bodies.”
Of course not. That is a correct view. That is not what is taking place with Earth. It is receiving photons from the colder atmosphere AND the warmer Sun. The combination of both these photon inputs leads to a higher steady state temperature.
Anonymous Norman dreams: “But if you have photons from a colder body being absorbed by a higher one”
“But if” reminds me of “Ifs and buts were candy and nuts”.
Dreams and fantasy are not science.
JDHuffman
You are certainly a very dumb poster. Go study some science of heat transfer and get back to me when you have something of value to communicate. As of now you are just an opinionated idiot wasting time and pretending you are smart. You are a disruptive troll that has nothing of value to say. I was happy when you did not jump into my posts. I do not like communicating with dumb disruptive trolls. Go hide under a bridge, it is what you are best at.
Anonymous Norman must believe personal attacks and insults make up for his deficiencies in science.
JDHuffman
No I do not believe that at all. I am not insulting you but stating observed fact about you online posting.
You don’t care one bit about any science. You just disrupt and troll.
If you showed signs of intelligence, reason, a desire to learn and interact on a scientific level my response to you would be respect and consideration. You deserve nothing positive. You remind me most closely to a mosquito buzzing around at night by my ear, very annoying and adding zero useful information.
At least Gordon Robertson has some interesting posts. You have nothing and I am hoping you quit bothering me. I am not interested in the least with the stinky garbage you are peddling.
I waste a lot of words stating to you GET LOST, I am not interested in anything you have to say. Bother someone who cares.
Anonymous Norman, you’re not one of those people that believes they can make themselves feel better by insulting others, are you?
JDHuffman
No I do not feel better insulting people. I just don’t want to communicate with you. What is hard for you to understand about that?
Tell you what, if you post a good sound scientific argument and respond in a rational, logical fashion (unlike how you responded to the concept of view factors and IR flux additions) then I will be happy to communicate with you in a respectful and rational way. Do this and all will be well. If you don’t want to then please just GO AWAY, how is that?
Illogical, irrational, and anonymous Norman, if you don’t want to communicate with me, then why are you doing it?
JDHuffman
I was just testing to see if you could be anything other than a disruptive worthless troll. I find with your last stupid troll post you have no value other than troll tactics. I offered to be reasonable and you countered with your stupid disruptive troll BS.
Be Gone!
Illogical, irrational, and anonymous Norman, if you don’t want to communicate with me, then why are you doing it?
Or do you need professional help?
JDHuffman the troll is probably just some redneck kid living near Gastonia, NC, pretending to be a meteorologist.
E. Swanson, your fixation with promoting inaccuracies continues.
Do you ever get anything right?
Norman, please stop trolling.
norman…”Now if the hot object has more than one energy input (Sun and atmosphere), the combination of both those energy inputs will lead to a higher surface steady state temperature”
They can’t combine, one is from a hotter source and the other from a source that is cooler or in thermal equilibrium. Furthermore, their bandwidths don’t overlap and the intensity from the atmosphere is a fraction of that from the Sun.
They won’t add.
Gordon Robertson
Sorry you are just wrong. Empirical evidence will clearly show the error of your ways. I have shown you many times. I guess one more time won’t hurt (doubt it will help).
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b343ac25182f.png
Yesterday’s data at Desert Rock Nevada. You are wrong to say that the intensity of atmosphere is a fraction of that from the Sun.
Now you have made this claim and tried to support it with a complete bogus version of quantum physics but you have zero proof of it.
YOU: “They can’t combine, one is from a hotter source and the other from a source that is cooler or in thermal equilibrium. Furthermore, their bandwidths don’t overlap”
E. Swanson’s blue/green plate experimentally proves you are wrong. You have not done even one experiment or referred to any that supports your twisted version of physics.
Please post a link to an experiment that proves that fluxes do not add. Prove that E. Swanson’s green plate, at a lower temperature, did not drive the blue plate temperature to a higher steady state temperature. The energy emitted by the green plate was absorbed by the blue plate (the two fluxes added) and you get a higher temperature. If E. Swanson could get the emissivities of the plates one could graph the energy exchange. I think one could get the amount of energy the the blue plate receives from the light by seeing its steady state temperature before the green plate is moved in. Evidence proves you wrong. If you want to be right about anything come up with proof! If not then you have zero credibility and are an Internet Crackpot with delusions of grandeur.
I would not so boldly state Einstein is wrong, at least not with some good evidence.
Did you ever find a source from Essen where he proved the Speed of Light in a Vacuum was not a constant? I think you made the claim he had proof. But I guess his proved vanished or got eaten by the dog. Gordon, you need to find some evidence for your ideas. Quit the lazy routine and try to do some science, just once!!
Norman,
You are crazy. There is no GHE. You cannot even describe it in faintly scientific terms.
And yet you claim that you can raise the temperature of a hotter object by forcing it to absorb energy from a colder source!
What arrant idiocy! You will have to claim that a colder object, while giving energy to a hotter, does not cool down in the process! Easy for you, just redefine physics to suit yourself.
One the one hand you claim that an object with increased energy becomes hotter, but an object losing energy does not become cooler. This leads to the ridiculous situation where your hotter object cannot ever cool down, because you have said that a cooler object, although losing energy, does not get cooler.
You may be just stupid and ignorant, rather than delusionally psychotic, but it is impossible to give preference to one state or the other, without further information.
You cannot even bring yourself to state that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, can you? You would be in the silly situation where increasing the amount of CO2 to the point that if no sunlight at all reached the thermometer (being completely blocked by the CO2), then the thermometer would reach its maximum temperature! Gore’s millions of degrees, perhaps?
Carry on claiming that a cooler body can heat a hotter one while simultaneously getting colder itself, and try not to be deafened by the laughter! Heating through cooling! Sounds like the sort of nonsense that someone like Hansen could utter with a straight face!
No GHE. No CO2 heating. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Are you tripping on LSD? Your post is about as sensible as a human on a trip.
Not sure what you are attempting to state, it seems rather stupid and pointless. Why does Roy’s blog have the World’s dumbest skeptics?
It is not even remotely possible to engage in a rational discussion with the Skeptics on this blog.
YOU: “And yet you claim that you can raise the temperature of a hotter object by forcing it to absorb energy from a colder source!”
When did I claim this?
Idiot learn to read. Quit smoking the weed and posting. Your rants are really really poor quality. I know pot makes you ignorant morons believe you are the smartest people in the world but the facts are you are quite a bit of a dunce.
I state that a POWERED OBJECT (do you have an idea of what that means?) will reach a higher temperature if you increase the energy it receives from the surroundings which could be a cold object just as long as it is warmer than colder surroundings. E. Swanson has clearly shown this as has Roy Spencer.
Get off the drugs already.
Here you state lunatic understanding: “One the one hand you claim that an object with increased energy becomes hotter, but an object losing energy does not become cooler. This leads to the ridiculous situation where your hotter object cannot ever cool down, because you have said that a cooler object, although losing energy, does not get cooler.”
A powered hot object will not COOL Down dunce of the ages!! Wow you are one stupid poster. How dumb can you go. Hope you don’t reach the level of JDHuffman but I think you are getting awful close.
The cold object will reach a steady state temperature and will not cool down. Look at E. Swanson test. It will remain at the steady state condition indefinitely as long as he continues to supply power.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
Look at the test dolt. Learn something even if it hurts.
Do you see the blue plate temperature going down? Do you see the cooler green plate temperature going down? NO! Not as long as power is supplied to the blue plate. The Sun supplies power to the Earth continuously. It rotates but some part of the Earth is always receiving power from the Sun.
Mike Flynn
YOU: “You cannot even bring yourself to state that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, can you? You would be in the silly situation where increasing the amount of CO2 to the point that if no sunlight at all reached the thermometer (being completely blocked by the CO2), then the thermometer would reach its maximum temperature! Gores millions of degrees, perhaps?”
I have already stated the evidence suggests adding CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will warm it. CO2 absorbs very little solar energy. How many times do you need to be told this?
Here look:
http://sustainablebalance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Solar-Spectrum-GballEditz.png
A very small amount of the total 1360 W/m^2 is absorbed by CO2. Scientists know this. You obviously are unable to learn this reality.
CO2 will emit IR based upon its temperature and concentration. The higher temperature the more IR emitted. The greater concentration the more IR emitted (if the temperature is the same). Currently the CO2 in our atmosphere will be responsible for anywhere from 10 to 20% of the DWIR. In dry areas it approaches 20% in wetter areas the H2O and CO2 emission overlaps and CO2 has a lesser contribution.
If the DWIR is 400 W/m^2 (as in hot summer night in Nevada desert) then about 80 W/m^2 would be from CO2. This is much higher than the tiny amount of IR absorbed by CO2 from the Sun. So based upon reality, at this time, it would seem that CO2 addition will cause the thermometer in the Sun to reach a higher temperature.
You have done nothing at all to support you claim that it would not. You will never provide this supporting evidence. You will make the same claim over and over perhaps for several years to come. Never coming to the realization that you don’t have a clue about what you are stating and never able to support what you believe to be true.
N,
You wrote –
“I have already stated the evidence suggests adding CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will warm it. CO2 absorbs very little solar energy.”
Indeed. At 400 ppm or so, it is not surprising.
It doesn’t matter, does it? If it stops just a tiny amount from reaching the surface, the surface temperature is reduced – not increased.
Confusing daytime with night time won’t help.
All you have to do is explain why blocking more of the Sun’s radiation from reaching the surface makes the surface hotter. I don’t believe you can without redefining the laws of physics, but feel free to try and convince someone else.
Cheers.
Norman,
You are getting there.
Your heater (the Sun), is around 150 million kms. or so away from the Earth’s surface.
All you have to explain is how reducing the amount of energy from the Sun results in the surface getting hotter.
Whether you block the Sun with CO2 or H2O gas, or clouds, dust, a parasol or a roof, the result is cooling, not heating. More blockage, and thus less energy available, does not, and can not result in increased temperatures (unless you are a climatologist of the GHE persuasion).
If you can bring yourself to address facts, you will discover why GHE proponents are living in a world of fantasy. Over to you!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I have already explained it to you. If you become coherent and rational you could perhaps be able to understand it.
Adding CO2 blocks much less energy than CO2 will emit. So more CO2 will add to the amount it emits but will still be an insignificant amount of energy absorbed. It is really very simple you just need to think even a moment about it. You will not think about it at all but continue to post your endless dribble of nonsense that only a couple posters are interested in, ones that know less physics than you.
Little blockage, lots of emission equal higher temperatures. Simple, easy to understand. What is your problem?
N,
You are confusing yourself. Neither CO2 nor anything else can emit more energy than it absorbs. Trying to confuse the issue by ignoring total energy, and invoking the magic of climatology won’t work.
You have forgotten that any energy emitted from the Earths surface is coming from a body at a lower temperature than that of the Suns surface. So the CO2, having already been heated by the Sun at around 5500 K, cannot get hotter by virtue of the fact that the Earths surface is much colder than the Sun. If you turn off the Sun, (night time), the CO2 will cool. All the radiation from the Earths surface can’t stop it
Still no GHE. Putting more obstruction between the Sun and a thermometer will not make the thermometer hotter. No miraculous flux addition or energy multiplication. CO2 provides not additional heat. None.
Keep at it. Think up a storm. Let me know how you get on.
Cheers.
Norman believes: “Adding CO2 blocks much less energy than CO2 will emit. So more CO2 will add to the amount it emits but will still be an insignificant amount of energy absorbed.”
WRONG!
CO2 will emit what it absorbs. The 2 micron photons from the Sun contain more energy than the 15 micron photons from Earth.
Norman just does not understand:
1) Photon energy
2) Radiative fluxes
3) The graphic from Desert Rock
4) The solar spectrum
5) The fallacies in Swanson’s “experiment”
Not to mention a few other things…
That’s why he must lash out and insult others. He is so frustrated he must take out his frustration by attacking and insulting.
JDBuffman
The disruptive troll has to disrupt.
So troll do you have an actual number of the W/m^2 for you made up point?
YOU: “CO2 will emit what it absorbs. The 2 micron photons from the Sun contain more energy than the 15 micron photons from Earth.”
Troll declarations based upon nothing. What are some soild numbers?
I have found them in the past but for you I won’t even attempt a look. You posted it, you come up with numbers. You won’t. Disruptive trolls don’t do real science. They pretend they know things but never actually provide anything. They pretend then know but when you push them their lack of knowledge is all you find.
Again you are a most disruptive troll. I almost think you are the idiot g* that was banned when he attacked Roy Spencer’s intelligence posting under a new identity.
You give 5 points about what you allege is my lack of understanding but you do not give details to any. This is another troll tactic. Act like you have this superior knowledge but when pressed to explain no real knowledge is there. Just all fake and pretend. Too bad you had to latch on to me.
Norman, I didn’t insult you at all. I merely pointed out where you were wrong. If you sincerely want to learn, you need to apologize for your last comment.
Then, I will be glad to explain.
I don’t comment much, and I certainly don’t have the interest in arguing back and forth, as you seem to want to do. Correct your mistakes and learn, or not. Your choice.
N,
Ice just below freezing emits more than 300 W/m2.
Add this to the flux from sunlight, and tell me how much hotter a thermometer will get.
I am being sarcastic, of course, because I have no understanding of why you are so stupid and ignorant. Maybe it is hereditary. What is your opinion?
Cheers.
“Add this to the flux from sunlight, and tell me how much hotter a thermometer will get.”
Whether the thermometer gets hotter or cooler depends on the magnitude of the radiated flux being blocked by your added ice Mike, so your question is not well specified indicating and demonstrating your lack of accomplishment in the field.
JDHuffman
The mistakes are not mine. I understand the physics very well and if wrong will update and correct.
You will need to provide evidence for your claim. If you don’t have time to find this data then please do not make assertions you are not willing to support.
Again: YOU: “CO2 will emit what it absorbs. The 2 micron photons from the Sun contain more energy than the 15 micron photons from Earth.”
Troll declarations based upon nothing. What are some soild numbers?
You ask for an apology. None will be given from me unless you answer the question I asked. If you do not, my claim that you are a disruptive troll is correct and does not need any apology or change.
I know you won’t answer it one way or the other.
Are you g*e*r returned?
Mike Flynn
YOU ASK: “Ice just below freezing emits more than 300 W/m2.
Add this to the flux from sunlight, and tell me how much hotter a thermometer will get.”
You are not providing enough information for me to answer the question.
If the ice is blocking surroundings that are warmer than it is, then the ice blocking the surroundings will lead to a cooler reading on the thermometer. If the ice emitting 300 W/m^2 is much warmer than the surroundings (3K space emission), the thermometer will warm.
Also ice is not a good analogy for CO2. Ice absorbs nearly all IR that reaches it. It would reduce the solar energy to the thermometer by about half, it would allow the visible light through if it was really clear ice.
Also you are ignoring the elephant in the room! What is your evidence or proof that adding CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer will NOT increase the temperature the thermometer reads. You are ignoring this question with every one of your posts to me. Why do you need to ignore supporting your claim. You need to be on a GEICO commercial.
Does a Climate Skeptic Troll make assertions and declarations without any supporting evidence? Does GEICO save you 15% on Car insurance?
Norman Grinvalds, there will be no answers from me until you apologize.
Mike Flynn repeats his usual disinformation:
Remember one of your previous points. If a block of ice is emitting all that IR EM radiation, why doesn’t the ice cool to a still lower temperature? For example, in a well insulated ice house with walls also near the freezing point, if the coolers are shut off, wouldn’t the blocks of ice continue to cool? Well, no, each block emits and absorbs IR EM radiant energy from the other blocks, thus their individual temperatures remain about the same. As energy leaks thru the walls from outside, the blocks begin to warm and then melt, but their temperatures will remain nearly the same.
For ice at 273K, and 0.98 emissivity, S/B yields 308 Watts/m^2.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Norman Grinvalds, there will be no answers from me until you apologize.”
Great news, I don’t want to talk to you at all.
Then why do you keep mentioning me, and responding? Are you unable to do what you say? That’s the way with obsessions, it’s so hard to say “no”.
swannie…”If a block of ice is emitting all that IR EM radiation, why doesnt the ice cool to a still lower temperature?”
Because it’s in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. Ice does not exist as a separate entity, it forms when the environment surrounding it falls to 0C or so. In order for it to be colder than 0C the environment must be colder.
If ice emits IR it has to cool but if it’s surroundings are at the same temperature it can’t cool significantly. It will be receiving IR from its surroundings at the same time.
If the situation changes, say the environment warms a few degrees, the ice will warm as well. At least, till the range of )c, where it will change state.
It seems clear to me that the direction of radiation from ice, whether it is absorbing or emitting, depends on the S-B equation.
I don’t think it’s necessarily true that all objects must emit EM at all times. It has to depend on the temperature gradient between the bodies and their environment.
If you had a significant heat source surrounding ice, and you pointed an IR detector at the ice, would it show a temperature? Good question. Like, if you had a pot of boiling water and you dropped an ice cube in the water and pointed an IR meter at it, would the meter detect the ice cube as a separate entity?
If you dropped a half-dozen ice cubes in a pot of boiling water, the detector might notice an anomaly in the heat of the water, but is it detecting IR from ice or cooler anomalies in the IR spectrum of the water?
Sigh!! So much to learn. Does it never end?
Gordon Robertson
Where do you come up with this stuff and why?
YOU: “I don’t think it’s necessarily true that all objects must emit EM at all times. It has to depend on the temperature gradient between the bodies and their environment.”
What I said to Mike Flynn also applies to your posts:
ME: “Does a Climate Skeptic Troll make assertions and declarations without any supporting evidence? Does GEICO save you 15% on Car insurance?”
About your ice and surroundings I can give you some evidence for what actually happens.
This video is of the ice bucket challenge. The cold ice water looks like black ink poured on the people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UihaeuvumBM
Can you see ice with an FLIR. You bet you can, at night in the Cold Arctic. You should buy an FLIR and play with one. It will help you understand IR and you won’t have to make up so much false and misleading statements that you have zero supporting evidence for.
http://www.flir.eu/marine/display/?id=52805
Gordo, perhaps you’re “forgetting” what Craig Bohren wrote:
Need I say more?
Norman, E Swanson and Ball4, please stop trolling.
norman…”But if you have photons from a colder body being absorbed by a higher one, this hot object will have more NET energy….”
There is no such things as net energy in a radiative heat transfer. The 2nd law makes it abundantly clear that heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation makes that just as clear. It is based on experiments done by Stefan and others (Tyndall) which all featured a heat transfer from a hot object to a cooler surrounding, or, in one case, where the cooling rate of an object was observed when conduction and convection were suppressed.
Stefan at no time described a two way heat transfer and where that pseudo-science comes from is not clear. It appears, however, you have bought into it hook, line, and sinker and you have altered the 2nd law to make the nonsense fit.
It may interest Mike that Stefan based his equation,
j = sigma T^4, on an experiment by Tyndall in which he heated a platinum wire electrically and measured the relative radiance from the wire as it changed colours from red to white hot.
In Tyndall’s experiment, he directed the EM given off the heated platinum wire through the same apparatus he used to compared absorp-tion of EM by different gases. He directed the EM from the wire onto one side of a thermopyle, a device that outputs electrical current in proportion to heat. The other end of the thermopyle was heated by EM from a reference heat source and the output of the thermopyle went to a galvanometer. Tyndall could them find a relative level of EM radiation as the platinum wire was heated electrically.
It is abundantly clear that Tyndall’s experiment, and others by Dulong and Petite, featured heat transfer from hot to cold. There was no reference whatsoever to a two-way heat transfer, the heat was transferred only in one direction.
Later, Boltzmann, who was a student of Stefan, confirmed Stefan’s equation using statistical means based on Maxwell’s radiation pressure theory.
Gordon Robertson
How many times have we been through this. I keep correcting your point and you continue to ignore it.
HEAT TRANSFER is one way. No one disputes that. Radiative heat transfer is the NET energy at a surface you are looking at. It is the NET energy of the amount of energy lost from the surface by emission minus the energy absorbed by the surface from the surroundings. Over and over we go and you still don’t have a clue.
I have linked you to many sites that clearly state this and you reject real science in favor of your fantasy science and make believe universe.
Heat transfer is always from hot to cold because in a NET energy transfer, the hot object is always emitting more energy than it is absorbing.
Once again for you: “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.”
Can you read this paragraph?
From this source:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
Gordon Robertson says:
“There is no such things as net energy in a radiative heat transfer. The 2nd law makes it abundantly clear that heat can NEVER, by its own means, be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body.”
Amazing that Gordon still pretends not to understand his favorite ancient scientist.
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body WITHOUT SOME OTHER CHANGE, CONNECTED THEREWITH, OCCURRING AT THE SAME TIME.”
(Emphasis mine)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Clausius_statement
Change of topic.is earth the only body in our solar system experiencing any warming or cooling.or don’t we know?the reasoning being if global warming is caused solely by solar activity and not CO2 as some astrophysicists say then it stands to reason all other bodies should warm or cool in line with the earth.I have tried to find temp records for the inner planets and the moon.there doesn’t appear to be any.am I wasting my time
Earth’s average temperature is about 15 C and Earth average temperature hundred years ago was said to be about 15 C.
Earth average temperature over last hundred year has risen by about .6 C, but hundred years ago we didn’t know Earth’s exact temperature, and to some extent, we still don’t.
But we knew 100 years ago the average temperature of Earth, better than we currently know average temperature of any other planet or moon.
Or Mars average temperature somewhere around -50 to -60 C. Someone might pick a number, but one should not consider it very accurate.
Wrong gbalkie. Earth’s global mean surface temperature has risen 1.0 C since the pre-industrial era. Land surface temperatures, add 50% to get 2.7 F.
The pre-industrial era was more than 100 years ago.
“Land surface temperatures, add 50% to get 2.7 F.”
1.5 C is 2.7 F
Doesn’t matter — that was the last time the climate wasn’t perturbed by man, so that’s an obvious era to compare modern temps to. Thanks.
How much has the surface temperature of the Earth’s ocean been warmed by man [and woman]?
Temperatures have risen by 1 C, most of that since 1970.
That depends on where you measure.
No. D. Appell means here the global average:
https://tinyurl.com/ybwhvjzj
You could take any other temperature measurement series.
La Pangolina thanks again for more great data.
We may not agree on AGW but I like your approach it is sound and you have sent valuable data.
Salvatore De Prete says:
June 28, 2018 at 5:14 AM
You are welcome, Salvatore.
As you can see below, some people are less honest, and distort correct data until it matches what they want to show, namely their pseudoskeptic narrative:
https://tinyurl.com/yap8b6nx
You clearly see here that commenter phil manipulated the Had-CRUT data by detrending (!!!) and offsetting it with arbitrarily chosen values until he obtained a ‘match’ with UAH6.0.
How is it possible to detrend a time series in order to let it look in a graph like another one? That is unscientific and dishonest behavior. Offsetting with arbitrary values isn’t much better.
*
You asked me recently about the baseline difference for GISS data between the reference periods 1951-1980 and 1981-2010 (it was 0.421).
A similar answer I would have given you if you had asked the same for Had-CRUT4 data. There, the baseline difference between Had-CRUT’s reference period 1960-1990 and UAH’s is 0.294.
Thus when you wish to compare Had-CRUT4 data with UAH in WFT, you have to subtract that difference from each Had-CRUT anomaly by entering the difference’s negated value into the offset field.
(Doing the inverse by adding the same value to each UAH anomaly would give the same result. But it isn’t correct, as UAH has no data between 1961-1990 allowing you to verify the correctness of the shift.)
Thus a WFT graph correctly comparing Had-CRUT4 and UAH6.0 looks like this:
https://tinyurl.com/yao54y7w
Do you agree?
Thus a WFT graph correctly comparing Had-CRUT4 and UAH6.0 looks like this:
Comparing the two is meaningless, since they don’t measure the same thing. Duh.
La Pangolina,
Thus a WFT graph correctly comparing Had-CRUT4 and UAH6.0 looks like this: https://tinyurl.com/yao54y7w
But no !!!
You do not see the difference in high frequency variability ???
The honest and physically acceptable comparison is this one : https://tinyurl.com/yap8b6nx
phi, The UAH LT doesn’t measure surface temperature, instead providing a measure at about half way thru the mass of the atmosphere. The UAH LT product is claimed to remove much of the known cooling trend in the Stratosphere, but this is based on theoretical models, so the LT isn’t a real measurement, but a calculated result. You are trying to compare apples and oranges.
E. Swanson,
Well tried but completely missed. Weather balloons confirm UAH tendencies.
E. Swanson,
For the apples to oranges, it’s even worse. You are close to heresy. According to the church of climatology, the link between TLT and TS is sacrosanct (see Ramanathan et al., 1978).
La Pangolina,
Offsetting with arbitrary values isn’t much better.
If you want to be taken seriously, you should avoid writing such nonsense.
Anomalies have precisely the characteristics of being arbitrary. You are completely free to choose the offset. It is only generally more convenient to use an offset which allows an overlapping anywhere.
phi, The data from weather balloons must first be converted to simulated satellite brightness temperatures before said comparison is undertaken. That requires a mathematical model and it’s not clear to me that those models are accurate.
As for Ramanathan et al. (1978), the MSU/AMSU satellite data was still 12 years in the future (1990), so there’s no way the one dimensional model could be linked to the TLT in Ramanathan’s work. Perhaps you are suggesting that Ramanathan’s model is the foundation for Spencer and Christy’s work, but they didn’t reference Ramanathan in their 1990 papers in SCIENCE and J. Climate.
E. Swanson,
The data from weather balloons must first be converted to simulated satellite brightness temperatures before said comparison is undertaken.
No. Why ?
Weather balloons confirm by in situ measurements the trend of low troposphere temperatures. That’s all.
For Ramanathan, it was just to recall that the quantitative theory of the greenhouse effect is based on a restrictive and arbitrary assumption about the temperature gradient. If this hypothesis is not verified, for example if the comparative evolution of surface and lower troposphere temperatures do not follow this hypothesis, it is just the theory that collapses.
phi, Why? That’s the way Spencer and Christy do it. Why don’t you ask them? But, remember that there are 4 groups which analyze the MSU/AMSU data and each provide different results. Are you suggesting that the data from RSS or NOAA STAR also agree with the sonde data? Since the UAH, RSS and NOAA STAR data products exhibit different trends, your claim is clearly incorrect.
Yes, there are differences depending on the sources. The new RSS version has a stronger trend but the divergence persists. Othereise, no, my claim is not clearly incorrect. That’s what we get with UAH data and it’s consistent with proxies.
Right, so to some extent, we can’t even measure Earth’s average temperature, and even less able of measuring other planets average temperatures.
https://tinyurl.com/yap8b6nx
The legend does not pass but I think we can understand what is done.
The bottom line is that this graph is confirmed by observations.
Phi,
Why do you feel justified in detrending had*crut in that way? Makes no sense.
The hf variation of LT and surface are not the same, nor are they expected to be.
Nate,
TLTs are used as a proxy for surface temperature. The link between TS and TLT is strong and physically understood. TLT must amplify surface variations because of the change in absolute humidity with temperature. It is well verified but only at high frequency so there is a problem with either TS or TLT trends. The justification to correct TS and not TLT :
1. The adjustment and aggregation methods for surface temperatures are based on the slope conservation of homogeneous sections. This method is effective for rendering high frequencies but unfortunately at the expense of the reliability of low frequencies.
2. https://tinyurl.com/yb2jxol6
Phi,
The data is the data, aggregated to produce an accurate record of global surface average. Several independent groups are doing this in slightly different ways. They produce quite similar trends.
In contrast, the TLT data evaluated by two groups produces wildly different trends, and different as a function of time. There is a real problem with at least one of the TLT trends.
You can’t arbitrarily detrend data to your liking, and call it honest. A big no no.
You can try to model it with theory.
‘aggregation methods for surface temperatures are based on the slope conservation of homogeneous sections. This method is effective for rendering high frequencies but unfortunately at the expense of the reliability of low frequencies.’
In plain english please. And provide evidence for this assertion.
Nate,
The data is the data, aggregated to produce an accurate record of global surface average.
Certainly not and I do not see what would allow you to affirm this.
They produce quite similar trends.
With largely identical sources and basically identical methods, why would not this be the case?
You cant arbitrarily detrend data to your liking, and call it honest. A big no no.
This is absolutely not arbitrary in that it involves matching the variabilities at high and low frequencies. That said, this operation is a powerful explanatory hypothesis. If you have better, I’m interested.
In plain english please.
Sorry, I do not know how to do better.
And provide evidence for this assertion.
Hansen et al. 2001 page 3 and Figure 1.
Phi,
The figure you made me hunt down is illustrating a problem with a station move from urban to rural. It is not explaining how they solve this (uncommon) problem.
This does not prove your assertion that ‘This method is effective for rendering high frequencies but unfortunately at the expense of the reliability of low frequencies.’
You havent by any means shown how the methods used are increasing the trends by ~ 50% over actual. That is just an assertion.
The data is the data, unless you can analyze it differently and produce your own set with a lower trend. You cannot just adjust it to your liking.
The hf is larger in LT than at surface. That is what the data shows. Forcing them to be the same makes no sense.
Nate,
It is not explaining how they solve this (uncommon) problem.
It is not uncommun and it is not explained because it is not solved!
I directed you towards this figure because it describes the fundamental mechanism of formation of the series of temperatures. This is valid for adjustments but also for aggregation. So : This method is effective for rendering high frequencies but unfortunately at the expense of the reliability of low frequencies.
You havent by any means shown how the methods used are increasing the trends by ~ 50%
The review of the method shows that it is not reliable for long-term trends, but this review does not quantify the bias. That’s why I’m using TLTs here as a reference.
The data is the data
Yes, and the surface temperature curves are not a representation of these data but somehow the integration of the derivative of the homogeneous sections.
You cannot just adjust it to your liking.
I’ve already said, this is a powerful non-arbitrary explanatory hypothesis and if you have better, I’m interested.
The hf is larger in LT than at surface. That is what the data shows.
Yes and it’s what is expected based on our knowledge of how the atmosphere works. We expect the same from low frequencies. This is not the case, therefore:
a) We do not even understand the physics of the atmosphere basics and it is perfectly useless to gloss over the greenhouse effect which is a much more subtle phenomenon.
b) TLT trends are false (satellites and balloons), they are consistent with high quality proxies and it is also necessary to explain why the trends of all proxies are false while they are based on different physics.
c) TS trends are false. It would not be surprising because the methods used do not ensure the fidelity of long-term trends.
‘The review of the method shows that it is not reliable for long-term trends, but this review does not quantify the bias.’
You are not reviewing the methods. You are not quoting sources describing what is actually done, (ie using rural data to homogenize). You are simply hand waving about one type of problem that occurs and over-generalizing it.
How often does this problem arise? It could be 0.1 % of sites. You don’t say.
Larger HF variance in TLT. ‘Yes and its what is expected based on our knowledge of how the atmosphere works. We expect the same from low frequencies. This is not the case, therefore’
‘We’ expect exactly the same variance from low frequencies? Cite please?
The HF comes from ENSO primarily, which is from the tropical pacific. That energy takes the form of latent heat that shows up strongly in the LT.
Should long term heating over Siberian arctic produce the same enhanced LT signature? Not obvious.
The job of science is to understand what we get. Not change what we get to match our (overly simplified) expectations.
That is antithetical to science.
‘Thats why Im using TLTs here as a reference.’
You are arbitrarily choosing the lowest TLT record, and still lowering its trend arbitrarily by another 30% at that!
You are engaging in a fantasy of what you’d like the data to show.
Not science. Mental masturbation. Not persuasive.
Phi,
BTW,
Isn’t the problem of LF tropospheric warming amplification exclusively an issue of the tropics?
“Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere”
https://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/SanterEtal.Science2005.pdf
Nate,
I’m still answering you, probably for the last time because the discussion is useless with people like you stuck in ideological assumptions.
I’m not going to give you a course on the methods used to construct temperature curves, you will find a lot of literature on the subject. Hansen’s figure has the merit of briefly summarizing the principle. I can just point out that the effect of this method on the US series is for example to increase the warming by about 0.5 ° C over 50 years (http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/04 / Figure5.png) and that this order of magnitude is found almost everywhere the data are available.
Tropospheric amplification is not specifically related to ENSO but is the consequence of a simple and well understood physical phenomenon (variation of the absolute humidity with temperature). It is true that, given the atmospheric circulation, this amplification is not expressed at high latitudes. The bottom line is that the overall effect is expected at all frequencies.
Otherwise, before lecturing, learn first what is a scientific reasoning and what is a hypothesis. Then, you obviously have no idea how surface temperatures are treated, learn and then just come and criticize what you miss today.
To finish :
Should long term heating over Siberian arctic produce the same enhanced LT signature? Not obvious.
Should long term intertropical surface heating produce enhanced LT signature? Obviously.
But…
https://www.mwenb.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Christy-fig-2.jpg
The job of science is to understand what we get. Not change what we get to match our (overly simplified) expectations.
Well said.
But…
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif
Blog science is not reliable-(Steve Goddard, puleez).
‘Im still answering you, probably for the last time because the discussion is useless with people like you stuck in ideological assumptions.’
My ideology is the scientific method. I admit it. You are the one making unsupported assertions, that seem to be based on strong biases.
I am simply asking for the evidence, and the reasoning behind them.
‘Im not going to give you a course on the methods used to construct temperature curves, you will find a lot of literature on the subject.’
Ok, you expect us to simply trust that your claims are accurate, that you know what your doing, etc..
You’re not going substantiate your claims with any actual evidence or detail, because that would take too much effort.
Then why bother making wild claims? What rot.
“Should long term intertropical surface heating produce enhanced LT signature? Obviously.”
Ok global HF is due to ENSO which is from tropics. Tropics has greater enhancement.
Hence, IMO, global HF and LF need not have same LT enhancement.
‘I can just point out that the effect of this method on the US series is for example to increase the warming by about 0.5 ° C over 50 years (http://berkeleyearth.org/‘
But I don’t get it. That is not the conclusion of the Berkeley Earth people.
Very different result for tropical troposphere warming than Christy graph.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/pdf
The job of science is to understand what we get. Not change what we get to match our (overly simplified) expectations.
[Nate]
Indeed, the paper I posted is trying ‘to understand what we get’ with radiosonde data.
The data we get needs to be analyzed, correctly. We got several data sets and analyses of LT that don’t agree.
In that case you seem to advocate cherry picking the data and analysis that works best for your belief.
RSS was lowest in trend and used to be the favorite of skeptics. No more.
UAH is now lowest, and is now the favorite.
Meanwhile no mention of RATPAC which agrees more with RSS.
La Pag:
Warming is usually defined at linear_trend*number_of_years.
Calculate.
Gordon, about half the energy received at the surface is from the sun and about half is from the atmosphere. Look it up.
DA,
Yes, yes. Unfortunately, the Sun refuses to shine at night. It doesnt even shine brightly enough after about midday, or in winter, or when it’s cloudy or raining, to stop surface temperatures from dropping, does it?
Not even brightly enough to stop the Earth from cooling a lot after four and a half billion years!
Look it up.
Cheers.
Mike: A welcome touch of reality for those obsessed with fraction of a degree temperature changes – and let’s not forget that in a really cold spell, the air will be below freezing from the ground right up to the stratosphere. Clearly CO2 is powerless to prevent this from happening!
“Unfortunately, the Sun refuses to shine at night.”
Now Mike tries to tell us the sun turns off and doesn’t shine at night. No Mike, you can deny it all you want but the sun is always shining, always on, as there is no sunshade in space despite your claims to the contrary.
Ball4: you are of course being deliberately obtuse when referring to Mike’s comment that the sun doesn’t shine at night time.
It certainly doesn’t shine in the Arctic over the winter months from October to March.
I suppose you want a peer-reviewed article to this effect?
Carbon500 I note your strawman about the arctic isn’t what Mike wrote. I copied his writing verbatim, you are evidently the commenter being obtuse.
Well, who would have thought it? Fancy that!
Ball4,
You are getting quite desperate. Would you prefer that i said that night is characterised by the absence of sunlight?
I know Trenberth shows all the continents illuminated at the same time in his spurious energy budget cartoons, but he is as deluded as you.
Carry on with the climatological evasions. Still no GHE. No CO2 heating.
Cheers.
“Would you prefer that i said that night is characterised by the absence of sunlight?”
I don’t prefer you word your comments in any particular way Mike, my view is you should feel free to comment as you wish.
The entertainment in your commenting is robust, the science not so much but you do explain Earth’s existing GHE accurately & repeatedly. Feel free to be upset and desperate as you wish.
Otherwise poor science is to be expected from a commenter with such a strong belief system as you rather than science comments based on actual experimental results.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Unfortunately, the Sun refuses to shine at night.
Now Mike tries to tell us the sun turns off and doesnt shine at night.”
You misrepresent what I say, and erect a straw man to argue with.
Night is the absence of sunlight. Maybe you could read what I wrote, and support any disagreement you might have.
You cannot describe the GHE yourself, can you? You just make the bizarre assertion that I have! You are a fool if you think that any rational person will support your belief in something you cannot actually describe or quantify!
Still no GHE. Claiming that I am the only person in the world to have described it (but you can’t actually find this non-existent description just now), would be funny, if it wasn’t so ridiculous!
I appreciate the flattery, but it still won’t create a GHE, will it?
Carry on carrying on.
Cheers.
Mike becomes ever more desperate: “You misrepresent what I say..”
No, I copied and pasted your words verbatim.
“You cannot describe the GHE yourself, can you?”
Yes actually but I’d use the same exact words Mike uses to describe the existing GHE logically, testably and accurately so there is no need for me to improve on Mike’s GHE descriptions.
“Claiming that I am the only person in the world to have described it..”
More desperation on Mike’s part, I make no such claim, Mike has described the existing GHE the same is in any text book on the subject.
“but you can’t actually find this non-existent description just now”
Sure I can, as much as you wish I cannot. The internet does not forget. Nature creates the GHE Mike just as you have accurately described the GHE repeatedly. Keep up the good work Mike, and try not to act so desperate.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4: what strawman? You said “Now Mike tries to tell us the sun turns off and doesn’t shine at night. No Mike, you can deny it all you want but the sun is always shining, always on, as there is no sunshade in space despite your claims to the contrary.”
Your strawman: “It certainly doesn’t shine in the Arctic over the winter months from October to March.”
Mike did not write about those months in the arctic that is just you being obtuse.
David Appell does not understand radiative fluxes.
JD…”David Appell does not understand radiative fluxes”.
DA keeps asking me how sunlight can burn skin if heat is not being transferred directly from the Sun. I have tried pointing out that the same EM can carry the voice of an announcer at a radio station over many miles to a radio receiver without the announcer going along with it.
DA does not understand energy conversion.
ENERGY CONVERSION, not energy absence.
EM is energy just like molecular energy kinetic energy is energy. Both represent heat, viz. the transfer of energy, viz. the ability to do work.
DA…”EM is energy just like molecular energy kinetic energy is energy. Both represent heat, viz. the transfer of energy, viz. the ability to do work”.
EM is given off a body at the expense of heat. The body cools when it emits EM. That is, heat is converted to EM.
If heat is lost during the conversion how can both represent heat? This is the fundamental problem with the AGW theory, alarmists are thoroughly confused about the relationship between heat and EM.
There is another problem. Heat is governed by the 2nd law, at least from the perspective of humans. Atoms don’t really care about human laws. The 2nd law states explicitly that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body.
This is not just a mindless law with loopholes, it is based on the way electrons convert heat to EM and back. Of course, Clausius did not know about electrons since they had not been discovered in his day. However, he had the brilliance to reason that atoms had properties that prevented them transferring heat from colder bodies (atoms) to hotter bodies.
Clausius worked out the 2nd law at the macro level using P, V, and T (heat engine). He was one of the first to recognize that internal energy was not requirement if you could define the initial external conditions. However, he also realized that internal energy, U, is related to the external quantities Q and W in the 1st law. He defined U.
The 2nd law was brilliantly worked out and it still applies to this day. If you read the development of the 2nd law by Clausius, he left no loopholes wherein net EM energy is a factor.
EM is not heat and has no relationship to it other than its relationship to heat dissipation and to the increase in heat when it is absorbed. However, EM in systems with bodies of different temperatures, must operate within the requirements of the 2nd law and the meaning of that is obvious to me.
Gordo, wrote:
As usual, you are confusing the internal kinetic energy of a body (heat) with the transfer of energy between bodies via EM radiation (power). Clausius was concerned with mechanical devices of his day which converted heat to power and his so-called “Second Law” was a way to describe such systems, following after work by Carnot. Your deviant interpretation of physics and your stubborn refusal to accept later findings by many scientists just paints you as being a troll, not an engineer, as you have claimed to be.
E Swanson, please stop trolling.
DA…”Gordon, about half the energy received at the surface is from the sun and about half is from the atmosphere. Look it up”.
I am not interested in fabrications from the likes of Trenberth, NOAA, or GISS.
That’s because you’re closed-minded, have no better data, and automatically reject anything that threatens your Dunning-Kruger view of the world.
David, please stop trolling.
30-day average SOI now minus 6 and trending downward.
Weekly NINO3.4 index +0.4 and trending upwards.
El Nino, are you around the corner?
M,
And who cares? Oh, the average! Oh, the trend! Oh, the stupidity! Oh, the complete and utter pointlessness!
Cheers.
If you believe in AGW, why would one be so concerned about the naturally occurring ENSO?
The only explanation is they think the globe will not warm absent a favorable ENSO state. That says much about the confidence they have about AGW theory.
In the big picture overall sea surface temperatures and the North Atlantic in particular are the climate changers not the state of ENSO which changes constantly over short periods of time.
Why are El Nino seasons getting warmer?
And La Nina seasons?
And neutral seasons?
“And who cares?”
Well, MF and SDP obviously. Why are they so nervous?
Could it be related to this?
if temperatures do not show a decline by then(summer of 2018) in conjunction with very low solar activity we will be in trouble with our global cooling forecast.
Salvatore del Prete, 6/2/2017
It seems like your the one who is nervous Myki
Actually, I am quivering in anticipation.
An El Nino will mean egg on face for somebody here (not for the first time).
Myki, no matter what, Salvatore will make an excuse when SSTs again warm. He always has.
PS: There is a lot more to the climate system than SSTs, but Salvatore prefers to ignore that.
David, please stop trolling.
Myki,
And precisely why do you think I care about the SOI, the trend, or El Nino? Why would I be nervous?
Are you quite mad?
Cheers.
Why?
Because you saw fit to post two comments on my simple statement of fact.
If you didn’t care, why bother commenting?
Gotcha!
M,
You dream. I do not care about the SOI, trend, or any index you may care to mention. My care factor remains zero.
You might also state as a fact that you are stupid, ignorant and gullible to boot.
I could care less, I suppose. I comment as I wish – I certainly don’t feel compelled to dance to your tune.
Try for another gotcha – that attempt was a resounding failure.
Cheers.
That’s 3 comments!
As Shakespeare wrote:
“”methinks the lady doth protest too much”.
Another gotcha!
Myki, please stop trolling.
“Arctic Ocean almost totally ice-covered Map”
June 27, 2018
https://www.iceagenow.info/arctic-ocean-almost-totally-ice-covered-map/
An interesting link, jimc. But I wish that we’d been told where the map came from – NOAA? No? If not, where?
I had a look around, couldn’t find the source, but came across the following comments on the National Snow and Ice Data Center (USA):
“The Arctic sea ice extent for May 2018 was 12.2 million square kilometers (4.7 million square miles). This was the second lowest May extent in the 39-year satellite record, and is 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) above May 2016, the record low for the month. Compared to May 2016, the ice cover remained slightly more extensive in the Barents and Kara Seas, within Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, and the southern Beaufort Sea, but less extensive in the Chukchi and East Greenland Seas.”
Nothing surprising here. Meteorologist William Burroughs in his book ‘Climate Change’ (Published in 2001) points out that the Arctic pack ice varies from about seven million square kilometers in summer to a maximum of about fifteen million square kilometers in early spring. He also tells us that from year to year the extent of ice cover can fluctuate by several million square kilometers.
The data above certainly suggests that the alarmist’s speculative horror tales are not about to come true.
Arctic sea-ice reaches maximum extent several months after the peak cooling in mid-winter, usually in March. The minimum extent typically appears in September. The September minimum has exhibited the greatest change, so data for May or June does not tell the whole story.
https://tinyurl.com/ydxc4xn
I agree that May or June data doesn’t tell the whole story.
However, given that satellite measurements have only been available for a relatively short time (since 1979) and that the year to year extent of ice cover can fluctuate by several million square kilometers, I would argue that we’re a long way from the whole story in any case.
A readers letter from the UK’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper (on page 23 on Tuesday October 1st 2013) from Captain Derek Blacker RN (retd.), Director of Naval Oceanography and Meteorology 1982-84 made the following observations:
I was a meteorologist during the Seventies when glaciers in Europe and other continents had been growing for the previous ten years, and pack ice had been increasing during winters to cover almost all of the Denmark Strait between Iceland and Greenland. Scientists were then warning that the Earth could be entering another ice age. The current deliberations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have conveniently overlooked this. Before insisting that humans have been the main cause of global warming an explanation of this apparent anomaly should be promulgated.
After reading this letter, I took a look at information supplied by the Icelandic Meteorological Office. During the first two decades of the twentieth century, “heavy sea ice was quite common along the coasts of Iceland, but in the 1920s a drastic change occurred. Sea ice along the coasts of Iceland became an uncommon event, and almost a forgotten phenomenon around the middle of the century. An abrupt change occurred in the mid-1960s. Heavy sea ice formed almost each year following that period, but since 1980 widespread and long-lasting sea ice off Iceland is seen at rather irregular intervals.”
Some of the important fishing areas around Iceland are located on the shallow banks off the coast of Greenland at about 63 degrees N. These banks can be ice-covered during most of the year, causing difficulties for the fishing vessels. Ice edges form tongues which extend like giant hooks when viewed from a satellite, extending for many kilometres (over 100km for example) and curving back towards the main ice sheet. These ice tongues, which can change rapidly from one day to another, are particularly important for fishing vessels operating near the ice edge. In some cases the ice tongues can turn back towards the main ice pack and vessels near the ice edge can be trapped. Consequently trawlers need accurate ice edge maps updated every day.
William James Burroughs comments in his book ‘Climate Change’ that the Central England Temperature (CET) ‘confirms the exceptionally low temperatures of the 1690s and in particular the cold springs of this decade. Equally striking is the sudden warming from the 1690s to the 1730s. In less than forty years the conditions went from the depths of the little ice age to something comparable to the warmest decades of the twentieth century’.
Given all this, surely the whole story is far from known and complete. The real-world problems encountered by trawlers for example paint a quite different picture to the one by the dangerous man-made global warming alarmists.
The Arctic Ocean, where most of the sea-ice appears, is further to the North than Iceland or the area at 63N latitude in your quote. Much of the sea-ice along the east coast of Greenland is actually moving ice which exited the Arctic Ocean thru the Fram Strait, thus weather conditions over the Arctic would be expected to influence that flow. And, such local observation does not necessarily hold for the entire area covered by sea-ice.
E. Swanson – your comments on ice flow from the Arctic Ocean are
interesting, thanks!
“..alarmists speculative horror tales..”
Scotland’s largest city has enjoyed its hottest June day in history.
The mercury hit 31.6C in Glasgow, which weather forecasters round up to 32C. Thursday beat Wednesday’s record as Scotland’s hottest day in 23 years.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-44635107
Myki: So what? There’s always been a temperature record being broken somewhere – take a look for example at the Central England Temperature record (CET) which goes back to 1659.
myki…”The city beat Wednesday’s high of 31.3C in Aviemore in the Highlands, and came close to matching the hottest June day ever recorded in Scotland – 32.2C at Ochtertyre in Perth and Kinross in 1893.
Hottest day ever in Scotland was in 1893. That was long before CO2 became a propaganda statement.
“The city beat Wednesday’s high of 31.3C in Aviemore in the Highlands, and came close to matching the hottest June day ever recorded in Scotland – 32.2C at Ochtertyre in Perth and Kinross in 1893”.
Of course, Had-crut, along with NOAA, will be rushing to delete that record from the historical temperature record.
Highest daily low temperature set Tuesday in Oman, 42.6C (108.7F)
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/hottest-low-temperature-quriyat-oman-wxc/index.html
“Both Quriyat (also sometimes spelled Qurayyat) and Khasab are along the Gulf of Oman, which Miller explains is one of the warmest bodies of water in the world, with temperatures regularly hitting 30 C (86 F).”
Having one of highest ocean surface temperature, combined with very dry land- which warm up air to high temperature. And in addition having a urban heat island effect. Not vaguely unexpected to have high temperatures during the night.
Oman also has very high economic growth, high living standards, and fairly fast population growth.
[But also seems to have a high proportion ex-pats- don’t know where they living, who knows, I don’t know, it might be where have even higher [daytime] temperature. Or perhaps, some cold place like Canada].
gbalkie: yes, as I wrote, a new record daily low. Thanks.
PS: Ex-pats have absolutely nothing to do with the new temperature record. Nor does Mars.
–PS: Ex-pats have absolutely nothing to do with the new temperature record. Nor does Mars.–
PS, perhaps they will go to Mars.
Myki,
If it was hotter 23 years ago, then today is cooler. It has cooled since the higher temperature 23 years ago.
Warming? What warming?
Cheers.
carbon…”An interesting link, jimc. But I wish that wed been told where the map came from NOAA? No? If not, where?”
Danish Meteorological Institute….
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php
Thanks Gordon, much appreciated!
Carbon500 says:
Meteorologist William Burroughs in his book Climate Change (Published in 2001) points out that the Arctic pack ice varies from about seven million square kilometers in summer to a maximum of about fifteen million square kilometers in early spring.
He needs to update. These days the March max is in the 14s, and the September mins about 4-5 Mkm2.
I’m aware of the max/min changes DA, but yes – fair comment. The issue of interest I’m drawing attention to is the variability from year to year – in an earlier post I quoted a statement from Burroughs that ‘from year to year the extent of ice cover can fluctuate by several million square kilometers.’
No doubt he’s updated his figures in the later edition of his book.
Yes, sure it can fluctuate.
But its trend is down down down.
I agree,La Pangolina.
Tante grazie
E Swanson asked (presumably as a gotcha) –
“If a block of ice is emitting all that IR EM radiation, why doesnt the ice cool to a still lower temperature?
Once E Swanson has established the answer to his gotcha, he will realise why there is no GHE.
Others may find out for themselves if they dont know. Standard physics – no climatological magic required!
Cheers.
Gordon Robertson
YOU ASKED: “If you had a significant heat source surrounding ice, and you pointed an IR detector at the ice, would it show a temperature? Good question. Like, if you had a pot of boiling water and you dropped an ice cube in the water and pointed an IR meter at it, would the meter detect the ice cube as a separate entity?”
Two examples of people doing just that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HolKr-pvi3A
And then this longer one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9VIL0DSPSM
Please watch this video at around 5:37. The person puts and ice tray of ice into really hot water. At 5:37 an ice cube floats in front of the temperature spot and reads 15.8 C. As the ice moves off and the spot is back on the hot water it reads 176.8. This longer video answers you questions.
Way to go Norman.
N,
And there you see an example of possibly leaping to a wrong conclusion.
I hope you are not silly enough to believe that ice can be heated to 15 C and remain solid. Climatological GHE believers often have so little knowledge of physics that they believe the impossible on a regular bass.
Here is a Wikipedia quote –
“As well as absorbing radiation, water vapour occasionally emits radiation in all directions, . . . ”
Do you think this is true for real water vapour, or only special climatological water vapour?
Would you believe the rest of the Wikipedia entry? Someone like David Appell might. What about you?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
There are different possibilities. The setting on the FLIR maybe hotter water on top of the ice that emits slightly more IR.
The spot may have overlap with the much hotter water. Based upon the angle of the FLIR some IR may be reflecting off the ice surface from a warmer surrounding. Lots of possibilities and not even close to the point. Gordon Robertson asks if ice in hot water would give a temperature signal. This video did not specifically try to get a good reading of the ice, it was just some ice floated by. The temperature was much colder was the more significant point.
On the water vapor issue, the writer probably just used the wrong word. Maybe they will reedit and choose another word. Should be continuously I believe rather than occasionally.
-Norman says:
June 28, 2018 at 7:59 PM
Mike Flynn
There are different possibilities. The setting on the FLIR maybe hotter water on top of the ice that emits slightly more IR.-
Ice floats in water.
When the ice cubes were pushed under the hot water, they “disappeared”.
“Gordon Robertson asks if ice in hot water would give a temperature signal.”
In hot water they don’t, floating on top of water, they do.
gbaikie…”Gordon Robertson asks if ice in hot water would give a temperature signal.
In hot water they dont, floating on top of water, they do”.
The interesting thing for me is that the ice cubes in the tray should about 0C but when they were dumped in the hot water, the blue blobs representing them immediately rose to +5C or so. Then they rapidly warmed to 20C.
The temperature differential between the coldest and hottest objects is shown to the right of the screen. The water temp dropped below 80C with all the cubes in it but the blue blobs representing the ice quickly changed temperature.
The IR camera, according to Fluke, receives IR energy on a pixelated grid (photocell matrix). Then it uses a mathematical calculation to convert each pixel to an apparent temperature. Seems to me there are factors interfering with the camera’s ability to measure the ice temp once it is in hot water.
I can’t see ice existing at temps above 0C but I have no idea what the effect of hot water is on the ice.
“The interesting thing for me is that the ice cubes in the tray should about 0C but when they were dumped in the hot water, the blue blobs representing them immediately rose to +5C or so. Then they rapidly warmed to 20C.”
Ice should be 0 C or colder. Ice in hot water is still 0 C or colder.
Any temperature reading different is simply measuring the ice wrong.
It is measuring stuff which is not H20 ice. It could be number of different things, and that probably, is interesting.
Perhaps, it has something to do with surface tension of water.
GR, again, an individual photon does not have a temperature.
How do I know? Because you can’t give me an equation for its temperature as a function of frequency (or wavelength, take you pick).
“David Appell says:
June 29, 2018 at 2:56 AM
GR, again, an individual photon does not have a temperature.
How do I know? Because you cant give me an equation for its temperature as a function of frequency (or wavelength, take you pick).”
One photon has no temperature [you need a lot more than one to warm anything] but can detect one [or few hundred photons] and that can be used to measure the temperature of the source of photon.
Photons from the sun corona are going to be different than from a block of ice, but photons from corona are not to warm any more than those from a block of ice [not enough of them from corona].
gbaikie…”Any temperature reading different is simply measuring the ice wrong”.
I’ll go with that.
Part of the reason I asked if the ice would show up had to do with decades of experience working with electronic instruments. If you have a detector in an array receiving IR frequencies I seriously doubt, as Fluke claims, that each pixel detector’s output is analyzed. It’s far more likely that an average is taken of pixels over an area of the detector.
Can you imagine the wiring bundle coming from a detector with megapixels? Then there would be the circuitry to analyze each pixel. Not likely.
If you have a cell in a photocell receiving IR of different frequencies, it cannot react to each frequency separately, it has to average them. Even though the FLIR is showing the ice cubes at a lower temperature, it’s not showing the temperature at 0C, or even close. I am guessing it is averaging higher frequencies from the hot water and the lower frequencies from the ice, resulting in a warmer temperature for the ice, ranging from 5C to 20C.
I suspected that the more powerful IR from the hot water would drown out the less intense ice cube and felt surprised at the detail. Obviously the FLIR has a means of focusing small areas of the panorama. Even at that, it’s equally obvious, given the temperatures for ice, ranging from 5C to 20C as time passes, that the FLIR is not capturing those areas precisely. It seems to be averaging the hotter water with the colder ice.
It raises the question then about what a FLIR or one of its kin is seeing when pointed at clear sky, or clouds. If one is pointed at clear sky and measures -50C, obviously it’s averaging temperatures at various depths based on an averaging of frequencies received.
If it’s not as cold as -50C, it’s still well below surface temps and there’s no way IR from such cooler regions is absorbed by the surface, let alone warming it to a temperature higher than it is heated by solar energy.
norman…”This longer video answers you questions.”
Not really, it raises more questions.
When he puts the hot water pot on the table with the ice cubes in a tray behind it, the temperature range to the right of the screen reads about 0C (deep blue) for ice cubes in the tray and over 80C for the water.
When he dumps all the ice cubes in the water, the lowest temperature (blue) is suddenly +5C or so and the ice temperature rapidly rises to 20C, as one might expect. However, the cubes are still in the form of ice.
The FLIR camera is certainly picking up the correct temperature for ice when the cubes are in the tray but not once they are in the water. Ice does not radiate at +5C and higher.
Interesting experiment, however.
note….here’s an explanation from Fluke on how IR cameras work.
http://en-us.fluke.com/training/training-library/measurements/how-infrared-cameras-work.html
“Each pixel in the sensor array reacts to the infrared energy focused on it and produces an electronic signal. The camera processor takes the signal from each pixel and applies a mathematical calculation to it to create a color map of the apparent temperature of the object”.
Note the reference to the signal from each pixel being applied to a mathematical algorithm that creates a colour map of the APPARENT temperature. The cameras do not detect temperature, they detect IR frequencies and convert them to an apparent temperature using a mathematical calculation.
Gordon, no one who knows what they’re talking about thinks that an individual photon has a temperature.
DA…”Gordon, no one who knows what theyre talking about thinks that an individual photon has a temperature”.
When you’re talking about something the size of a pixel, you are talking bazillions of photons, provided there is such a thing.
N,
I’m not sure what you are trying to say.
Ice is known to be colder than hotter water. A temperature measuring device that does not show this is not fit for purpose.
What is is significant about ice being colder than hot water?
As to Wikipedia, whether you think the writer “probably” used the wrong word is immaterial. What he wrote was nonsense. The rest of what he wrote is similarly nonsensical, but you are free to believe it if you wish.
Keep believing in the non-existent GHE. If you have such faith in its existence, you should be able to describe it rigorously and unambiguously in your own words.
How hard can it be?
Cheers.
David Appell
“EM is energy just like molecular energy kinetic energy is energy. Both represent heat, viz. the transfer of energy, viz. the ability to do work.”
If you think of EMR as heat, then the following nonsense follows:
– Heat will flow spontaneously from a cold to warm body….regardless of whether the system is open or closed.
– Heat is transferred between two bodies at the same temperature
– A person could heat their soup by placing it in the freezer.
– A person could heat their coffee with
ice cubes
To avoid such silliness, heat is often defined as the NET energy exchanged between bodies with different temperature. Figure it out.
*******
“Gordon, about half the energy received at the surface is from the sun and about half is from the atmosphere. Look it up.”
According to Trenberth, 333 w/m^2
is from the atmosphere and 161 w/m^2 is from the sun.
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/large_image_for_image_content/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2011_900x645.jpg
Actually about 1/3rd from the Sun, 2/3rds from the atmosphere.
DA,
Let me see, then.
161 W/m2 from the Sun.
300 W/m2 from ice.
Which one makes a thermometer hotter? An ordinary thermometer, not one which reacts to W/m2, might be useful, don’t you think?
Cheers.
snape…”According to Trenberth, 333 w/m^2
is from the atmosphere and 161 w/m^2 is from the sun”.
Trenberth is clearly wrong. Seems to me he has been confounded with the same issues you describe when one confused EM with heat.
Why is Trenberth “clearly wrong?”
Explain.
DA,
Maybe because he is stupid and ignorant, do you think? Or do you think it is more likely he is suffering from delusional psychosis?
The world wonders.
Cheers..
DA…”Why is Trenberth clearly wrong?
Explain.”
Because I said so.
MYKI – first of all I never predicted what the state of ENSO may or may not be.
Secondly I have said what matters for the climate are overall oceanic surface temperatures in particularly the North Atlantic.
Thirdly – the only wrong prediction I have ever made was I thought solar activity post 2010 was going to be much lower then it was and thus have a climatic impact back then instead of now.
Fourth- I have called for year 2018 to be a transitional year and so far so good.
Now I do not deny temperatures presently are high in contrast to 1850(not unique however) but I think it is natural in nature and in order to sideline AGW theory there has to be a .5 to 1.0c drop in temperature the sooner the better.
I think the magnitude of the fall at the beginning of the drop(if it comes)is much more important rather then the duration.
I will also say this because I am a realist, if the global temperatures do not go down from here moving forward over the next few years AGW theory will live on.
I also think if the global temperatures do not drop from now over the next few years given the state of solar they are going to remain high and probably go higher. If that should happen AGW will on pretty firm ground. I would have to even admit to that.
There comes a time when the reality of the situation will cause one to have to change his/her mind, but that time has not arrived yet. The test is on and what the climate does given we have low solar (cooler) increasing co2(warmer ) will determine much in my opinion.
Finally I would like a clear cut verdict one way or the other.
Lets make it simple for you.
I predict that the probability of a new global average temperature record within the next 12 months to be about 50%.
What do you say? (You have already predicted cooling so you must give a probability much, much less than me).
I say no. 0% chance if my theory on the climate is correct.
“I predict that the probability of a new global average temperature record within the next 12 months to be about 50%.”
Monthly average temperature?
Or with a spike higher than .8 C on UAH?
It seems unlikely, or less than 50%.
But it seems you will need it for religious reasons. Or it seems the the religion is going from bad to worst.
Also if get it one time in a month, it would tend to indicate, months being higher. And so far, we have had months being cooler, that it start warmer, go higher than .3 C in next couple months seems likely or about 50%, as likely as remaining near .2 C or lower.
A climb of + .3 C over next couple months, would seem to improve the odds, and staying same or lowering it, decreases odds even lower.
I tend to think it seems unusual we keeping with constant range last few months, and likely to break either direction.
Monthly average temperature, from any of the major data sets.
I assume your estimate is about 25% (which is plausible).
myki…”I predict that the probability of a new global average temperature record within the next 12 months to be about 50%”.
With the cheaters at NOAA and GISS, anything is possible. I am not seeing any records from UAH other than 1998 and 2016.
Lets make it easy for you.
Your probability estimate for a new UAH record in the next 12 months is ???
The AGW clowns are out frolicking this morning, I see.
They’re reporting Earth only gets 161 Watts/m^2 from the Sun. They must then believe the Sun has a temperature of -42 C! (That’s the corresponding S/B temperature.)
? : )
The suns surface temperature is 5777 K and its radius is 696000 Km. The radius of the earths orbit is 149.6e6 km. Thus the solar intensity at the earth orbit is 1368 W/m**2. The earths albedo is roughly 0.3. Thus its surface (four times the area of its disk) receives an average of 240 W/m**2. Ignoring the effect of the fourth power character of S-B on averaging, some part of the earth would have to average -18 degree C to radiate that much power intensity back out to space.
JDHuffman says:
June 29, 2018 at 7:04 AM
The AGW clowns are out frolicking this morning, I see.
Theyre reporting Earth only gets 161 Watts/m^2 from the Sun.
When I look at such a genial sentence, I rather get the impression that pseudoskeptics like you are losing their orientation.
Incoming fron the Sun at TOA: about 340 W/m2
Reflected by clouds and atmosphere: about 80 W/m2
Absorbed by the atmosphere: about 80 W/m2
Reflected by the surface: about 20 W/m2
Where is your problem, Huffman?
Could you describe it by numbers instead of ridiculously mocking other people?
La Pangolina, it’s easier to just let people mock themselves:
“Incoming fron [sic] the Sun at TOA: about 340 W/m2.”
1. JDHuffman says:
June 29, 2018 at 8:46 AM
“Incoming fron [sic] the Sun at TOA: about 340 W/m2.”
Thanks for the [sic] Huffamn! It perfectly shows how you are riding on minuscule detais.
2. JDHuffman says:
June 29, 2018 at 9:24 AM
As explained elsewhere, radiative fluxes cannot be treated arithmetically, in general. They cannot be added, and they cannot be averaged.
2.1 Where is your VALUABLE source concerning what you pretend here, Huffman? Show me a link (but not from Chiefio, Trickszone, Goddard or the like).
*
Thats why the clowns want to use 240. It makes it appear the Sun cannot heat the Earth.
2.2 The main thing you show here, Huffman, is that like Robertson and Flynn, you are the clown.
Never and never did anybody peretend that the Sun cannot heat the Earth. That is YOUR invention.
See Entropic Man’s correct answer to your nonsense, Huffman.
1. “Thanks for the [sic] Huffamn! [sic]”
Glad to help, again.
2.1 “Where is your VALUABLE source concerning what you pretend here, Huffman?”
Consider a simple example: the average of 5 and 225 is 115. But the average of 5^2 and 225^2 is 25325. Is 115 equal to 25325, in any language?
2.2 “Never and never did anybody peretend [sic] that the Sun cannot heat the Earth.”
I was sarcastically referring to the bogus 33 C. Sometimes sarcasm in lost in translation. (It’s kinda like “never and never”.) That’s not your fault.
As explained elsewhere, radiative fluxes cannot be treated arithmetically, in general. They cannot be added, and they cannot be averaged.
The 340 W/m^2 is the AVERAGE. It is the result of dividing 1360 by 4. After albedo, typical average you see is 240 W/m^2. As jimc explained above, 240 W/m^2 corresponds to a surface S/B temperature of -18 C.
That’s why the clowns want to use 240. It makes it appear the Sun cannot heat the Earth.
But, done correctly, 960 W/m^2 (4 * 240) corresponds to a surface S/B temperature of about 88 C.
Huffingman wrote:,
No, your calculation is wrong because you have eliminated the effect of the larger area of the Earth’s surface relative to the disk the size of the Earth which intercepts the solar energy at TOA. The proper S-B calculation must use the entire surface to calculate the average temperature.
(A second clown shows up to twist and distort science.)
E. Swanson, the S/B equation calculates the equilibrium temperature, not the “average”.
As already explained, it’s the -18 C result that is wrong.
Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to understand.
Huffingman, The S-B equation is used to calculate the IR EM energy flowing from the surface of a body. One can reverse the calculation and find the temperature of that body, knowing the total energy emitted. For the Earth, the incoming energy can be assumed to fall on 1/4 of the surface area, which is the reason the insolation is divided by 4 to give the energy flowing away from the surface, on average. Apparently, you can’t understand even that minor point of fact.
E. Swanson, you’ve confused yourself again.
You can’t divide a flux. You are confusing “flux” with “energy”. Let me give you a quick example.
Flat plate, perfect black body, one square meter area, negligible thickness, perfect insulation on back. Source provides 1000 Watts/m^2, perpendicularly. Temperature at equilibrium = 91 C.
Now divide the plate into 4 equal smaller plates. Each smaller plate only receives 250 Watts. -Do you divide the flux by 4?
As I indicated earlier, I don’t expect you to understand.
So mysterious, JD. How does 960 w/m^2 give you 88c?
And of course you need to divide by 4. The globe is radiating all over. The sun is not shining directly down all over, is it?
swannie…”The S-B equation is used to calculate the IR EM energy flowing from the surface of a body. One can reverse the calculation and find the temperature of that body, knowing the total energy emitted”.
More creative alarmist math. How do you calculate the surface temperature without knowing the other temperature? You also need the surface area from which the radiation was emitted.
When the S-B equation was created, based on the work of Stefan, they knew nothing about EM. They thought heat was flowing from the surface in rays and they gave the flow units of W/m^2, which is units for heat. It makes no sense to give EM units of W/m^2 since it contains no heat.
EM has the potential to produce heat, however, in a cooler body, after it is converted to heat, but that does not apply from a cooler body to a warmer body.
Anonymous Nate, your comment is unintelligible,
Please try again.
Huffingman, I love it when some clown, after being informed that he stepped into some poop, then turns around and jumps in the s**t with both feet. Solar energy hitting the Earth is intercepted with an area roughly equal to a disk with diameter equal to the Earth’s average diameter. Said energy flow then exits the Earth over an area 4 times that of said disk. The factor of 4 is a necessary part of computing the balance of energy flow using S-B.
Gordo, Have you lost it? The IR EM radiant energy exiting TOA is going toward deep space. The second term of the S-B equation is the 2.7 K cosmic background radiation, which adds almost zero to the Earth’s surface energy (that’s “heat” in your deviant physics), thus the second term in the S-B equation can be ignored.
E. Swanson, yes, I’m enjoying your performance a lot.
As predicted, you can not understand. First you said: “No, your calculation is wrong…”
But, it was YOU that got it wrong. I wasn’t talking about a sphere, I was talking about a surface. You can’t understand how the S/B Law is applied.
Next, you said: “The S-B equation is used to calculate the IR EM energy…”
NO! The S/B equation calculates the equilibrium temperature for ALL relevant flux, not just IR!
I even provided you with an example, which you could not grasp.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-309840
Your inability to learn matches your juvenile activities, like wanting to be first to comment at each UAH monthly reporting. You’re so obsessed with yourself, you will stay up all night to promote your flawed “experiment”.
What a clown!
JD,
Nothing could be clearer: How does 960 w/m^2 give you 88c, which you claimed?
With real physics, it gives T >> 88C.
The factor of 4. All of humanity understands why it is needed, except you. Explain your logic.
Anonymous Nate, you’re still not making any sense. It is not my job to try to interpret you. It is you job to communicate coherently.
What does “T > > 88C” mean?
WTF are you talking about?
Huffingman, Since you are still quite confused, here’s the Stefan-Boltzman Law:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
It’s used to calculate black body radiant energy flow, though the equation may be inverted to calculate temperature if radiant energy and emissivity are known.
E. Swanson, it’s “Boltzmann”.
If you are trying to teach things you know nothing about, at least try to get the spelling right.
Are you related to Snape?
JD/Ger*an,
‘But, done correctly, 960 W/m^2 (4 * 240) corresponds to a surface S/B temperature of about 88 C’
You are talking nonsense, not me. Explain how you get 88 C from 960 W/m^2.
Nate, E Swanson, please stop trolling.
JD/Ger*an,
‘Anonymous Nate, you’re still not making any sense. It is not my job to try to interpret you. It is you job to communicate coherently.’
Your own statements don’t make sense to you?
Only Ger*an has achieved this level of evasion, distraction, diversion.
If you can’t/won’t backup your own statements, why make them?
Nate, please STOP trolling.
“But, done correctly, 960 W/m^2 (4 * 240) corresponds to a surface S/B temperature of about 88 C.”
Well, I guess, not sure about the “done correctly”
In the tropics [and regardless of season] for 6 hours a day.
Or whenever the sun is closer to zenith, which occurs outside tropics during summer.
JD…”Theyre reporting Earth only gets 161 Watts/m^2 from the Sun. They must then believe the Sun has a temperature of -42 C! (Thats the corresponding S/B temperature.)”
The 161 W/m^2 comes from Trenberth and he admitted it is not based on measurement. When I feel Old Sol beating down on us on a hot summer’s day, and I feel the radiation from the surface, they are not even close.
phi says:
June 29, 2018 at 12:03 AM
But no !!!
You do not see the difference in high frequency variability ???
Like all pseudoskeptic people, you produce a graph by using tricks you do not explain, and then give an ‘explanation’ which in fact doesn’t explain anything valuable.
Thus:
1. Where is, in the 1979-2018 graph below, this ‘difference in high frequency variability’ you are so proudly telling about?
https://tinyurl.com/yc9acega
2. I await a reference to a paper showing that this ‘difference in high frequency variability’ is not based on you private invention, but is accepted state of the art in time series statistics evaluation.
Like all pseudoskeptic
Compliment que je vous retourne aimablement, il vous sied bien mieux qu’ moi.
1. Open your eyes and if that’s not enough, remove the trend of both series.
2. Blablabla.
Otherwise,
a) tropospheric amplification is a well-known phenomenon and no one understands why it is missing from the TLT-TS trend comparison,
b) The choice to fix Had CRUT (https://tinyurl.com/yap8b6nx) rather than UAH is justified here: https://tinyurl.com/yb2jxol6
I add an element that is generally misunderstood. The adjustment and aggregation methods for surface temperatures are based on the slope conservation of homogeneous sections. This method is effective for rendering high frequencies but unfortunately at the expense of the reliability of low frequencies. This reason alone would be enough to justify the necessary trend correction on TS rather than on TLT.
binny…”Where is, in the 1979-2018 graph below, this difference in high frequency variability you are so proudly telling about?”
Once again, binny checks in with a completely doctored graph, showing Had-crut fitting very closely to the UAH temperature series.
Here’s the real Had-crut series, which does not even remotely resemble the UAH series:
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_decadesmooth_global.png
Gordon Robertson says:
June 29, 2018 at 4:26 PM
Once again, binny checks in with a completely doctored graph, showing Had-crut fitting very closely to the UAH temperature series.
Once again, Robertson shows how ignorant and pretentious he is.
He is not even able to discern differences and similarities between two graphs plotted on windows of completely different size and showing completely different running means.
One thing is clear: ‘Gordon Robertson’ is 100% a faked name.
Because I can’t imagine a real Robertson who would ever risk being laughed at by all his relatives, friends and acquaintances for the daily nonsense he publishes here!
binny…”He is not even able to discern differences and similarities between two graphs plotted on windows of completely different size and showing completely different running means”.
Why would he want to when he can look at the originals and see there is little in common?
“Because I can’t imagine a real Robertson who would ever risk being laughed at by all his relatives, friends and acquaintances ….”
Unlike you Teutonic types, we Scots are able to laugh at ourselves. We are exposed to self-effacing good humour from an early age.
The famous James Clerc Maxwell was called ‘Daftie’ at school, a Scottish term for stupid. Maxwell shook it off and went on to become a genius…something like me. I’m not sure if he was as good-looking as me. Not likely.
We are also encouraged to be skeptical unlike the Teutonic fetish for authority figures.
La Pangolina, please stop trolling.
Zu Befehl, Chef!
La P, PST.
Swanson
“No, your calculation is wrong because you have eliminated the effect of the larger area of the Earths surface relative to the disk the size of the Earth which intercepts the solar energy at TOA.”
Flat earthers think the earth IS a disk. Maybe that’s why Duffman thinks it’s unnecessary to take the area of a sphere into account?
(A third clown arrives.)
Snape, I remember you were “teaching” about TOA and solar flux from a previous thread. So, you should be especially funny here.
S,
The energy budget cartoons produced by the likes of Trenberth show the Earth as a flat disk.
Stupid and ignorant, wouldn’t you say?
The exceptionally gullible might believe any conclusions drawn from such a nonsensical piece of pseudoscience. Maybe it was only meant for children – in which case it might need more connection to reality.
Cheers.
“Fifty-five million years ago, the Earth was ice-less. Winters were balmy. Palm trees flourished all the way to the poles. As evidenced by fossils, crocodiles and broad-leaved, water-loving plants existed north of the Arctic Circle. This world had warmer oceans, featuring deep ocean temperatures 12 degrees Celsius higher than now. For any climate scientist who enjoys stretching the limits of current theory by imagining ancient worlds, the ever-warm polar regions of the mid-Cretaceous have long presented a paradox.”
http://news.mit.edu/2013/demystifying-the-cretaceous-hothouse
I would say not only were winters and nights pleasantly warm, but also summer and during the days, it was pleasantly warm.
And our 3.5 C oceans are no where near 12 C.
But they are nearer to 5 C than 1 C, and our oceans have been 1 to 5 C in last few million years.
It does not seem that our world will due to natural forces alone, will be able warm the ocean to 5 C in the coming thousands of years.
But it seems likely the human might want the oceans to be nearer 5 C then compared to nearer 3 C. And therefore I think it is quite possible that even within centuries the ocean could be warm to closer to 5 C.
Within a few centuries, it is difficult to predict what humans will be doing. And unlike most sfi, it seems unlikely humans will be living around different stars in our galaxy. Though living in outer worlds of our solar system seems likely and we likely map the all the outer worlds of our solar system [including all space rock larger than 100 meter diameter- which is in the millions or perhaps tens of millions]. Venus is natural hub of our solar system. Mercury distance would be place to go to first, if you want get to outer solar systems locations. And a hub of outer worlds would be Juptier’s L-points. And Juptier’s Trojans space rocks, will be mined [Trojans being another name for L-4 and 5].
Planets are gravitation gateways, and Jupiter is a big gravity well and which is surrounded by unlimited resources. And probably would a location for the solar system’s star port. Though a gravitational gateway of planetary size is less important if one has the rocket propulsion with capabilities needed to travel to the stars.
Anyhow within few centuries it is unlikely we will be traveling to other stars, but it is the high speed travel within solar system would benefit by going to gravitation gateways.
[In terms of star travel, one probably want to map all blackholes or steep gravity wells within 100 lightyears of Earth and that by itself might take centuries. And if found one which was particularly useful, it might hasten star travel or just having better starships or people just using generational ship in some very aggressive fashion- faster, bigger, and very expensive generational ships {which probably would be built at Juptier distance}.]
Anyhow in centuries, Earth will probably continue to become a nicer place to live, and people leaving Earth will probably do it mostly related to getting work or living in space because it is cheaper, or religious/political reasons.
And returning to point, a warmer world does not mean a hotter world. Anyhow another paper:
A human-induced hothouse climate?
Abstract
“Hothouse climate has been approached or achieved more than a dozen times in Phanerozoic history. Geologically rapid onset of hothouses in 104–105 yr occurs as HEATT (haline euxinic acidic thermal transgression) episodes, which generally persist for less than 1 million years….”
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/2/article/i1052-5173-22-2-4.htm
So Phanerozoic is “covers 541 million years to the present”- wiki
And what is HEATT? euxinic means, wiki, ‘ Euxinia or euxinic conditions occur when water is both anoxic and sulfidic. This means that there is no oxygen (O2) and a raised level of free hydrogen sulfide (H2S).’
And:
“In our recent model, we suggested that geologically short hothouse excursions that typically last less than 1 million years be named HEATT episodes, where HEATT stands for Haline Euxinic Acidic Thermal Transgression. We hypothesized that changes in the Earth system should be governed by principles of global heat transport as they relate to planetary windbelts and ocean circulation. We then synthesized geologic, paleontologic, paleoceanographic, and paleoclimatic data, and integrated those results so as to test theoretical predictions,” says Kidder, ”
https://www.ohio-forum.com/2014/03/hot-past-from-greenhouse-to-hothouse/
So modeling if pseudo science of GHE married paleoclimatic climate. But they do admit there is isn’t enough fossil fuels to burn.
But lots of fun anyhow.
gbaikie…”Fifty-five million years ago, the Earth was ice-less. Winters were balmy. Palm trees flourished all the way to the poles”.
I remember it well, blissful times….
“Planets are gravitation gateways, and Jupiter is a big gravity well….”
I have been out recently observing Jupiter in the southern sky. Stands out like a sore thumb compared to background stars. Very bright. Mars trails it by a couple of hours to the southeast but is still faint. It’s supposed to get bright by the end of July.
Venus is very bright in the western sky.
Using those three planets I have been trying to visualize the plane in which most of the planets revolve around the Sun. It’s quite tilted, giving on an immersion in the reality of the universe.
A question still to be answered is why the planets tend to revolve in the same plane. Some dreamers think it’s because the debris left over from the Sun’s fictitious formation from a dust cloud left remnants that formed into planets. That, to me, ranks down there with the Big Bang theory.
I much prefer, “I don’t know”.
“A question still to be answered is why the planets tend to revolve in the same plane. ”
Here is article which gives a explanation:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/03/01/why-do-all-the-planets-orbit-in-the-same-plane/#1fae6c6956c6
What in general or in specific do you disagree about?
I could explain it differently- I wrote a post and it was different, and I deleted it- but I don’t disagree with how it explained there, it is concise and includes more stuff and has pictures.
gbaikie…”What in general or in specific do you disagree about?”
They explanation is far too cute.
If planets formed from debris surrounding a star how did they get perfectly symmetrical into spheres?
If the stars formed from molecules, where did the molecules come from in that density and why are stars mainly hydrogen and helium?
How did the planets get and maintain the exact angular momentum required to remain in orbit? If you stopped a satellite’s momentum revolving around the Earth, it would accelerate toward the Earth.
Why are the planets so different? You have gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn and rocky planets like Mars. Earth, Venus, and Mercury?
I’m afraid astronomy is a desperate discipline in which they fabricate what they don’t understand. In astronomy there is really nothing to observe with other than radio-telescopes. Most observations are done using gas spectra from stars.
I prefer not to understand. I prefer mystery to bad theories.
–They explanation is far too cute.
If planets formed from debris surrounding a star how did they get perfectly symmetrical into spheres?–
A definition of a planet is a spherical body- which is a body get enough mass, that it’s gravity causes it to be spherical.
Or Ceres is a dwarf planet and it is spherical. If too small and does not have enough gravity to make it spherical, it’s a asteroid or comet [which come in all kinds of shapes, such as dogbone asteriod, 216 Kleopatra:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/216_Kleopatra ]
“If the stars formed from molecules, where did the molecules come from in that density and why are stars mainly hydrogen and helium?”
The universe is mostly hydrogen and helium, and universe is mostly lacking stars and planet- it’s empty space with hydrogen and helium gas. There a lot hydrogen and helium gas in space space, though not sure if gases in space exceed the mass of stars, planets, etc. I will google it: amount of gases in intersellar space:
“The interstellar medium is composed of multiple phases, distinguished by whether matter is ionic, atomic, or molecular, and the temperature and density of the matter. The interstellar medium is composed primarily of hydrogen followed by helium with trace amounts of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen comparatively to hydrogen.” wiki
Change to: Total mass of gases in interstellar space
“Astronomers estimate that the total mass of gas and dust in the Milky Way Galaxy is equal to about 15% of the mass contained in stars. This means that the mass of the interstellar matter in our Galaxy amounts to about 10 billion times the mass of the Sun.”
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/astronomy/chapter/the-interstellar-medium/
How about: total mass of intergalactic medium
question: How much of the universe’s matter is in interstellar gases?
reply:
skydoc28
7 points
·
3 years ago
·
edited 3 years ago
You mean ordinary matter? Because we still have no proper theory of quantifying dark matter. Excluding dark matter and energy, only one-tenth of ordinary matter is believed to be found in stars..so that means 9/10th of ordinary matter is dispersed in the interstellar medium.
EDIT: What I gave you above was a rough estimation of my previous knowledge that around 4.9% of all matter was ordinary matter http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/earliest-image-universe-4-9-percent-regular-matter/ …and that 0.5% of total mass of universe(when dark matter and dark energy was included) was contained in the stars .
EDIT2: Now to be exact…after seeing the referenced paper in the comments and some more research…My summary: 94.1 % of all ordinary matter in the observable is contained in the interstellar and intergalactic mediums, according to the “The Cosmic Energy Inventory”: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406095
The percentage of ordinary matter is divided as: stars = 5.9%, Interstellar Medium (ISM) = 1.7%, and Intergalactic Medium (IGM) = 92.4%. The total mass ordinary matter in observable universe is estimated to be 1.7 x 1053 kg . Total mass of ordinary matter in all stars is roughly 1052 kg.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2oqo8x/how_much_of_the_universes_matter_is_in/
Anyhow there is a lot gas in universe.
“How did the planets get and maintain the exact angular momentum required to remain in orbit? If you stopped a satellites momentum revolving around the Earth, it would accelerate toward the Earth.”
And if stopped Earth, it accelerates towards Sun.
And if accelerate earth it could leave the Sun gravity well, it needs about 12.1 Km/sec. And going about 30 km/sec. Easier- less energy needed- to leave the Sun’s gravity well. This true of all planets [all inner planets, I should say, but mostly the case with all] But with deceleration or acceleration, you have to go in “correct direction” random direction, gets a bit complicated. Randomly, it’s unlikely to hit sun or escape from the sun. Though the starship Enterprise can easily leave the sun in almost direction it goes in, but have go in a fairly precise direction to hit the sun.
“Why are the planets so different? You have gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn and rocky planets like Mars. Earth, Venus, and Mercury?”
Largely it about there different masses. The Moon is 1/80th of Earth mass. And Moon has 1/6th gravity at surface as Earth. Mars and Mercury are about 1/3rd Earth gravity. Venus is nearly same mass as Earth- but as far as I know, Venus had no ocean.
Earth has plate tectonic activity, which Venus, Mars, Mercury or our Moon, currently doesn’t have.
Gas gaint orbit in large volume of space, and at fairly slow orbital speed, this allows gravity to attract mass to it. But there many ideas about why they are so massive.
Or with Earth going 30 kn/sec, bodies hit it, rather than Earth having gravity having any significant attractive element involved. Or if impactors were attracted to earth, they would hit earth at it’s escape velocity which is 11 km per second, whereas the average impact velocity of earth impactors is about +20 km/sec [or it’s related to Earth’s orbital velocity of 30 km/sec rather than Earth’s force of gravity].
Watching Jupiter for a bit tonight in the southern sky and noticed a bright star almost overhead. Raised my curiosity as to its identity.
Could not make out which constellation it might be due to city lights. Went for a walk and found a darker spot in a local park and noticed the Big Dipper almost overheat and the outer two handle stars point right at three stars in a narrow angle, shallower than the water molecule. The bright star was one of them.
I now think it is Acturis, a Red Giant in the Bootes constellation. It’s supposed to be the brightest star in the Northern Hemisphere and only Jupiter is brighter at 11:30 PM PDT.
I was talking about the plane of the planets. If you find the Big Dipper (Ursa Major), the outer stars on the dipper point at Polaris, which is the outermost star in the Little Dipper’s handle.
Polaris is pointed to by the Earth’s axis in the North. In other words, the north-south axis through the Earth points at Polaris. However, the Earth is tilted 23 degrees to it’s orbital plane around the Sun, and the other planets are within 7 degrees of that plane.
I know roughly where Polaris is located from my location in Vancouver, Canada and imagining the N-S axis pointing at it, I also imagine a plane perpendicular to that axis to get a ballpark direction for the Earth’s plane of revolution about the Sun.
From where I am located in Vancouver, it’s like the Earth is lying almost on its side with the perpendicular orbital plane pointing into the sky at an angle to my horizontal plane of about 45 degrees.
If I locate Jupiter in the southern sky, I can imagine a circle going through Jupiter, around Venus in the western sky, below and around the Earth, and back up around Mars to Jupiter.
From 10 PM, or so, when the sky gets dark, with Jupiter and Venus both visible, the west to east rotation of the Earth becomes apparent as Jupiter moves east to west and Venus sets in the western sky. Venus is gone by around midnight but Jupiter does not set till 5 am.
gbaikie…”Gas gaint orbit in large volume of space, and at fairly slow orbital speed, this allows gravity to attract mass to it. But there many ideas about why they are so massive”.
When I studied engineering we calculated orbital velocities and the velocity of a planet has to be fairly precise to maintain orbit. If it slows down it will spiral into the Sun and if too fast it will take off in a tangential direction. The orbit is a resultant path between the force of gravity and the momentum of the planet.
Suppose Jupiter was approaching our solar system and came under the influence of the Sun’s gravity. If it was going too fast, it would be drawn to the Sun but it’s momentum would draw it away in a parabolic or hyperbolic orbit. If going too slow, it would be dragged into the Sun.
I am think that the planets would have to have had precise velocities to have been captured by the Sun. However, if they formed out of debris from the Sun, how did they get the required momentum?
Jupiter and Saturn, as gas giants, as far as I recall from my year in astronomy, are comprised of frozen gases like methane. However, Jupiter has moons (Europa, Gannymede, Io, Callisto, etc.) in orbit about it that might support life. How did those moons get captured.
I was speculating the other day about what would happen to our atmosphere is the Sun went out. Layers of frozen nitrogen, oxygen, etc.?????
There are theories about our own Moon that it came from the Earth. I think that is highly unlikely due to the precise orbital velocity required to keep it in orbit. There’s no way a mass like the Moon could overcome the escape velocity of our planet then go into orbit. The orbital velocity required a kilometres/second.
Meantime the Earth is orbiting the Sun at 30 km/s. Neat trick if you can do it…to get a mass like the Moon in orbit around the Earth.
I don’t think many astronomers study engineering. ☺
gbaikie…”A definition of a planet is a spherical body- which is a body get enough mass, that its gravity causes it to be spherical”.
I could understand that if it began like a snowball which was rolled in snow till it was a couple of feet across. That would mean the planets all began as dust clouds but where is the mechanism to begin the snowball effect?
gbaikie…”…with deceleration or acceleration, you have to go in correct direction …”
For sure. I’d say you had to accelerate in present direction. With the correct acceleration the planet would break off in a tangential direction although it would likely be a curved trajectory till it broke free.
You would not want to accelerate (decelerate??) in the opposite tangential direction. If you slow the Earth down it will lose orbit. Not sure what accelerating out the way would accomplish. I think we’d likely be sucked back to our present orbit once acceleration ended.
Might be a solution to global warming, to accelerate in forward direction till the Earth moved to a larger orbit. ☺
“Suppose Jupiter was approaching our solar system and came under the influence of the Sun’s gravity. If it was going too fast..”
If a rock, or gas giant approaches our solar system at 1 mph, then it will leave the system at 1 mph, unless it loses velocity.
It could lose velocity by hitting something in our solar system, and it could gain or lose velocity by what is called a gravity assist- which is stealing or giving orbital velocity to some body in the solar system [does not involve hitting them].
“I am think that the planets would have to have had precise velocities to have been captured by the Sun. However, if they formed out of debris from the Sun, how did they get the required momentum?”
They started with it- is simple answer.
Take two rocks separate by 1 million km. Gravity is weak force but it works over large distance. They will very slowly move towards each other [and accelerate the closer they get], and likely miss each other. and if have billions rocks, it likely a few will hit each other.
So a sun start with gas in volume of space which has total mass gas greater than the Sun. Obviously possible gases don’t condense into a sun- the gas is not dense enough so as to become even denser, but if gas cloud does dense it will result momentum.
“Meantime the Earth is orbiting the Sun at 30 km/s. Neat trick if you can do it…to get a mass like the Moon in orbit around the Earth.”
One reason why the Giant-impact hypothesis is favored:
“The giant-impact hypothesis, sometimes called the Big Splash, or the Theia Impact suggests that the Moon formed out of the debris left over from a collision between Earth and an astronomical body the size of Mars, approximately 4.5 billion years ago”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
“gbaikie…”A definition of a planet is a spherical body- which is a body get enough mass, that its gravity causes it to be spherical”.
I could understand that if it began like a snowball which was rolled in snow till it was a couple of feet across. That would mean the planets all began as dust clouds but where is the mechanism to begin the snowball effect?”
One could say, they are working on it. But, that can be said about all science.
There is a lot of water in space, and/or there is a lot of oxygen as compared to other elements- though of course a lot more Hydrogen than oxygen.
So your “snowball effect” might not be very far away from the truth.
“You would not want to accelerate (decelerate??) in the opposite tangential direction. If you slow the Earth down it will lose orbit. ”
If Earth suddenly gains or loses about 2 Km per sec, it crosses Venus or Mars orbits. It is hohmann transfer.
If constant slow loss or gain to orbital velocity all along the orbital path [or a constant year of adding/subtracting velocity], it spirals in or out {constantly making smaller or larger orbital circles, rather making the “circle” more elliptical- which is a hohmann transfer].
Hohmann is efficient way reach Mars or Venus orbital distance, and low and constant thrust which spirals in or out, is not efficient use of rocket power. So, one times it right to hits the other planet’s gravity well and can use that gravity to keep in the planet’s orbit [steal or give orbital momentum- or smash into the planet or flyby it].
“Not sure what accelerating out the way would accomplish. I think we’d likely be sucked back to our present orbit once acceleration ended.”
Either “way” gets you “sucked back to our present orbit”, or as said about if you “flyby a planet” the more elliptical orbit come back to cross Earth’s original orbital distance.
Now, I am interested in getting to Mars faster using a non-hohmann transfer, what that does is return you the earth distance but a closer distance to sun. So start at Earth distance, go out to Mars distance and return to say Venus distance, or to go faster, Mercury distance.
People have hard time understanding what I am talking about. I could be wrong, but I would love to argue about it. It not as efficient as hohmann, but is efficent if you want to get to Mars faster [3 months].
gbaikie…”If Earth suddenly gains or loses about 2 Km per sec, it crosses Venus or Mars orbits. It is hohmann transfer”.
Don’t know if you have read Velikovsky (Worlds in Collision). The premise of the book is close to what you are suggesting but not due to a change of tangential velocity.
Many have panned the book as sci-fi, but I think it’s worth the read just for the research he has done on the Ancients who witnessed certain phenomena in the sky according to whatever history they left.
I don’t recall much about the book, having read it decades ago, but according to this wiki article he postulated Venus broke off from Jupiter causing a collision with Earth, changing our orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision
That part I find highly speculative based on what I have claimed about the precise angular velocities required to enter a solar orbit. However, Velikovsky uses the argument to explain Ancient observations, like the Sun rising to about 10 degrees then reversing direction. That would indicated that the Earth had instantly flipped over on its axis.
I would think any Ancients noticing such an effect would also report on a massive planet nearby.
The biggest objection from astronomers seems to be what I have mentioned about celestial mechanics. However, what if Venus was already orbiting the Sun and had a glancing blow from a sizable body passing through our solar system that accelerated it along the lines of what we have discussed?
The chances of it increasing it orbit and coming close to Earth is not great but Velikovsky implied that electrostatic charges between the two planets caused the problem, not a collision.
I would think a catastrophic situation like that would have severe ramifications. The interesting part is that V used that theory to predict the surface temperature of Venus and he was far closer than what scientists had predicted.
Like I said, it’s not worth reading the book for the science but it is worth the read for the research he has done. As someone with a background in science I did not find it offensive.
gbaikie…”People have hard time understanding what I am talking about. I could be wrong…”
I don’t think it matters if you are wrong, it’s going through the exercise and trying to understand what is involved.
From what I have seen of the Hohmann effect, it is based on what I mentioned briefy in a recent post. If the Earth is in it’s present orbit and is accelerated enough to break orbit, it’s path will be a curve as depicted in wiki’s explanation of Hohmann.
Same with a spacecraft in Earth orbit suddenly accelerating due to a burst of rocket fire. It’s tendency is to go straight in a direction tangential to the Earth’s gravity field but it will remain under the influence of gravity hence the curve. It seems to me that Hohmann is calculating that curve to put it in a wider orbit.
I’m not quite following your swing out by Mars then in by Venus. You seem to be using a slingshot arrangement using gravitational forces. Can you elaborate?
“Im not quite following your swing out by Mars then in by Venus. You seem to be using a slingshot arrangement using gravitational forces. Can you elaborate?”
Yes, one could say it involves a powered gravity assist.
I am not sure it “works” from Low earth orbit, but I there are couple reason one “should” leave Earth for Mars from High earth orbit, or plan on staging at Earth/moon L-1.
The standard assumption is staging in Low Earth orbit. And there is common saying, the LEO is halfway to anywhere. And obviously one can lift more payload to LEO per rocket as compared to higher orbit.
So, bring the pieces together at High Earth orbit, Say Earth/moon L-1.
And from L-1, return to Earth at highly elliptical trajectory, and have rocket burn occur when say, 200 km from Earth. Or perigee of the orbit is about 200 Km and apogee is 200,000 km.
You do rocket burn close to earth because of bonus of oberth effect, wiki:
“In astronautics, a powered flyby, or Oberth maneuver, is a maneuver in which a spacecraft falls into a gravitational well, and then accelerates when its fall reaches maximum speed.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect.
So, nothing particularly unusual, so far.
Now, hohmann transfer goes in direction or vector of Earth’s orbit, and I think what should be done is to add thrust so as to not in direction of earth orbit- or it’s definitionally, a non-hohmann planetary transfer.
Or add rocket delta-v which adds to a different vector.
So changing vector, costs velocity or delta-v, and that inefficient part of this.
But what are doing is going a shorter distance to Mars.
So I will explain that.
If leave from Mercury to go the Mars, it takes less time to get to Mars than it takes to go from Earth to Mars [about 6 months]
And if going from mercury to Mars and pass or cross Earth orbital distance, there about 3 month to get from crossing Earth orbital distance to arriving at Mars. And the distance traveled from crossing earth orbital distance is much shorter distance as compared to a hohmann earth the Mars trajectory.
So not traveling faster, but travelling a shorter distance and this why one gets to Mars faster.
Or one travels about 500 million km to get to Mars, and want to reduce to about 150 million km.
And one could go this distance of 150 million km and arrive at mars without going fast compare to orbital speed of Mars.
And Mercury to Mars, arrives slower than planet mars orbital speed as compared to Earth to Mars transfer.
Now the normal against argument of getting to Mars fast, is that if using hohmann trajectory you end up a Mars distance going too fast, and then you need huge amount to rocket power to slow down [or could hit Mars atmosphere at very high velocity and/or both]. So, not doing that.
And really, roughly, what talking about is old school of how people thought you would get to Mars, before the new idea of hohmann transfer was invented. Basically point at mars and blast your rockets towards it, or it’s the way the star Enterpise would get to Mars [because Enterpise has endless amounts of rocket power].
So using a lot delta-v or rocket power to change to, a trajectory of Mercury or Venus to Mars trajectory, but starting from Earth distance.
One needed advantage is the starting from higher in gravity well which important in terms of a chemical rocket which has limits on amount delta-v [which limit is about 18 to 20 Km per sec- it’s well below that] and therefore could accelerate enough payload- it’s about +6 km per sec or more delta-v than compared hohmann transfer which starts a high orbit, but my point is getting there twice as fast, makes it worth it, as far as I see it [in terms of crew- not cargo missions. Though, if had cheap enough lunar rocket fuel, available, then it could be used for the expensive/much needed before yesterday type “overnight delivery” cargo].
Gordon,
While you’re wondering about the planets being in a plane, you might wonder the same thing about the Milky Way.
Best wishes,
Lewis…”While youre wondering about the planets being in a plane, you might wonder the same thing about the Milky Way”.
There is so much to wonder about out there. Spiral galaxies, where did the angular momentum come from? Binary stars, how did they start orbiting each other?
How large is the universe? Is there an end to it? If so, what’s on the other side?
Gordon Robertson
THE orbital manoeuvering man is Buzz Aldrin.
For a rendezvous in orbit, perhaps a Soyuz en route to the space station, he came up with the following rule of thumb. These are the effects of brief bursts of acceleration.
It was summarised by Larry Niven in “The Integral Trees”
“East takes you out, out takes you West, West takes you in, in takes you East. North and South bring you home.”
East is the direction in which you are moving around your orbit. Accelerate East and you move out to a higher orbit, moving out.
Accelerate out and your orbit becomes more elliptical. You slow relative to the space station and drop behind it in orbit.
Accelerate West and you drop to a lower orbit, moving in.
Accelerate in and your orbit becomes more elliptical, but this time you speed up relative to the space station.
North and South bring you home. They change the inclination of your orbit. You move away from the space station for 1/4 orbit then back towards it for 1/4 orbit. After 1/2 orbit you are back beside the space station.
——————
Apply the same rules to the Earth and a brief acceleration produces these results.
Accelerate East along the orbit and Earth moves to a higher orbit, further from the Sun at all points.
Accelerate out and the orbit bcomes more elliptical, higher apogee, lower perigee distance.
Accelerate West and Earth moves to a lower orbit, c!oser to the Sun.
Accelerate in and the orbit becomes more elliptical as above.
Accelerate North or South and you change the plane of Earh’s orbit.
Thx
entropic…”Apply the same rules to the Earth and a brief acceleration produces these results”.
Thanks for info. The key word is a ‘brief’ acceleration. Sustained acceleration could push you right out of orbit.
The key to the orbital changes you mention is maintaining orbital velocity. If it changes drastically you either break free of Earth’s gravity or Earth’s gravity begins to pull you in as velocity decreases too much.
Gordon Robertson says:
June 29, 2018 at 7:24 PM
Why would he want to when he can look at the originals and see there is little in common?
*
You evidently did not understand that using this graph
crudata.uea.ac.uk/~timo/diag/tempts_decadesmooth_global.png
you are showing a completely different view on Had-CRUT4, namely their decadal smooth:
https://tinyurl.com/y8sn7zr4
Already this above differs from their annual series by a lot:
https://tinyurl.com/yb2fzroz
as you can see in a comparison:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530354969481/001.jpg
If Roy Spencer would present a decadal smooth of his UAH 6.0 time series, you would see what you don’t understand.
*
And what you also still don’t understand is the concept of anomalies wrt baselines.
The WFT graph is correct, even if you are convinced it is faked. That is your problem.
Here is a graph showing the Had-CRUT4 monthly series with 1961-1990 baseline:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530359225756/001.jpg
And here is its end starting in 1979, baselined wrt UAH, with UAH6.0 TLT in comparison:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1530359334832/001.jpg
Even Anthony Watts (!!!) has definitely understood the concept some years ago, as another pseudoskeptic ‘of your shoe size’ tried to misrepresent the differences between NOAA and Had-CRUT4 in a WUWT guest post.
*
Yes, Robertson: you are indeed a genius.
A genius in superficiality, misrepresentation, and confusing, diverting, denigrating, discrediting, denying all he doesn’t understand let alone would be able to accept.
This is painful to watch and highlights why climate alarmists don’t usually debate this issue in public.
https://youtu.be/3guEO7UjZ3Q
I like David’s passion even if I disagree with him.
He’s consistent anyway. As rude in person as he is blogging. Using the same tiresome talking points there as he does here.
La Pangolina, I think is reasonable.
If the climate does indeed cool over the next few years starting now I think people like him would at least start to wonder if I just might be correct. Just like I will if the climate does not cool.
There’s a commentator on this blog who seems to think the sun is shining straight down on every square meter of the planet at once (960 w/m^2 absorbed by surface/atmosphere). That flux, he reasons, should not be divided:
“the clowns want to use 240. It makes it appear the Sun cannot heat the Earth.”
******
Hmmm…….is there something the genius has overlooked? This might be a helpful link:
*NIGHT*
“the time of darkness between one day and the next: the part of the day when no light from the sun can be seen and most people and animals sleep. : the darkness that occurs during the nighttime.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/night
******
Of course, even on the sunlit side of the planet, only a small portion of surface area gets the full 960 w/m^2.
But that’s a battle for another day….er…night.
The ground surface can vary by about 50 K from night to day.
The air surface can vary by about 20 K from night to day.
A greenhouse air temperature can have less variation from night to day.
And the temperature within a solar pond can have very little variation from night to day. And a solar pond can maintain a temperature of 80 C during night and day.
So how does 240 watts cause a solar pond to to have constant temperature of 80 C?
Anonymous Snape gets everything wrong, as usual.
No wonder she hides her identity.
Gbaikie
http://edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/renew/pond.htm
Yes, that is an example. There are natural solar ponds, but one make them, if you have use for 80 C water, and want to make salt water into less salty water, and/or want very salty water- perhaps to mine it.
Though thermal solar is used a lot if people have any sense.
Or this guy’s opinion:
“So Why are PV Panels More Popular?
If you are going into the business of selling solar panels, to make more money you need a virtual plug-and-play product. Solar thermal panels are part of a relatively complex system that is not as easy to retrofit into existing homes and businesses. The profit margins on PV are usually higher than solar thermal. PV has more use for utilities and commercially than solar thermal, so there are larger potential markets and profits are higher. You hear more about PV because more companies want to make them, not because they are more useful to residential customers.”
So solar thermal is more reasonable than a solar pond which would take up more area. But if have lots of land and want lots of hot water, solar pond might be cheaper.
But point is 240 watts heats a blackbody to -18 C and not warmer.
At Mars one gets 600 Watts, so it will not make solar pond reach 80 C. Rather it’s about 320 K [47 C]- can warm a blackbody to 47 C.
Of course with sunlight you can magnify the light, but most solar pond don’t use magnified light [though some have played with using magnified sunlight to some extent].
https://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/03/hot-panels-practical-but-not-yet-popular-%E2%80%93-a-solar-overview/
Or put a control handle on garden hose, fill with with water. Leave garden hose in sun for few hours, and get uncomfortably hot water from heated water in hose.
Probably more like about 1 hour, and during sunlight which is 3 hours before and after noon {sun near zenith}.
Snape, Gbaikie
From Snape’s link.
“This gradient zone acts as a transparent insulator permitting sunlight to reach the bottom zone but also entrapping it there. ”
Why does this sound familiar?
E,
Because you are stupid and ignorant? Another miracle due to excessive belief in the miraculous properties of CO2?
Cheers.
“Why does this sound familiar?”
That both ocean and solar pond, have mechanisms that inhibit convectional heat lose.
And both are like a greenhouse?
We see the Huff n Puff rebuttal tactic:
When a theory is shown to be nonsense, change the subject by attacking your opponents character:
“Anonymous Snape gets everything wrong, as usual.
No wonder she hides her identity.”
Snape, please stop trolling.
Anonymous Snape, how did I attack your character?
Are you ashamed of being female?
What “theory” do you believe you have made “nonsense”.
Again, you get everything wrong.
Nothing new under the Sun, as they say.
Dr Roy’s moderation team (Chic) has been slacking. Just upthread, from Huff n puff:
“Your inability to learn matches your juvenile activities…..
What a clown!”
******
Chic, if you get your kicks from scolding people, maybe you could be a little more balanced?
Snape, please stop trolling.
Anonymous Ms Snape is soooo desperate.
I’m flattered, Snape. Much as I’d like to be, I’m not affiliated with Dr. Roy’s EMT.
Huff n puff
Here’s your argument…….every square meter of the planet, at every moment, receives 960 w/m^2, as though the sun is directly overhead. This flux should therefore not be divided/averaged.
Would you like to walk it back?
(BTW, as inferred from my link, 1/2 the planet is currently receiving 0 w/m^2 solar radiation. What temperature does that work out to using Stefan Boltzman? )
Sorry, anonymous Ms Snape, but that is NOT my argument.
Being constantly desperate, you have mis-represented what I have stated, as usual.
Would you like to walk it back?
PS As I advised your brother-in-pseudoscience, Swanson, it’s “Boltzmann”. Try to get something correct.
S,
Molten steel in a crucible has a temperature which does not depend on the immediate presence of sunlight.
What temperature does that work out to using any formula you like?
What is the relevance of your witless gotcha? Do you have a point, or are just indulging in stupid and ignorant trolling for fun? Your comments certainly provide amusement for me – do you receive as much benefit?
Cheers.
Entropic man
“”This gradient zone acts as a transparent insulator permitting sunlight to reach the bottom zone but also entrapping it there. ”
Why does this sound familiar?”
I had the same thought. Ironic that Gbaikie is an AGW skeptic.
S,
Did you have the same stupid and ignorant thought because you are are also stupid and ignorant?
The real irony is that you believe you are smart and knowledgeable, rather than stupid and ignorant.
You still cannot even describe the GHE in any useful way, can you? Just more pseudoscientific nonsense.
Cheers.
“I had the same thought. Ironic that Gbaikie is an AGW skeptic.”
Of course I am skeptic.
That is a proper view in regards to science.
But I am pretty certain GHE theory is not even a theory, and it is pseudoscience. Or as I like to say, a cargo cult.
{though I could be insulting cargo cults}
That is not a matter of any doubt, rather it seems obvious that cargo cult rituals is not going to be effective at bringing the US military cargo planes back to the island.
But in terms of topic of climate, as said, I consider myself a lukewarmer.
Greenhouse gases might cause some warming effect.
Might cause the average temperature of planet Earth to be higher.
But if warming effect is talking making something hotter, that would be obviously from the intensity of sunlight.
Mars has weaker sunlight, therefore it’s surface or a solar pond can not get as hot as on Earth, which has a more intense sunlight- due to it being closer to the sun.
But GHE “theory” is not specifically about the idea of backradiation making the a surface warmer- or has provided no given clues of how this is suppose to work.
Rather that is wild imagination of some of it’s believers which most your sacred priests don’t even support.
Now, that GHE theory is pseudoscience, does explain how you all can get some weird ideas.
Pseudoscience always breeds all kinds of stupid ideas. And those who cling to them, fanatically.
All religions have their fanatics, and religions in history, generally think having fanatics is “useful”.
But also fanatics are always regarded as being quite “wrong” about the religion which they are fanatical in regards to.
But also history indicates that the high priests commonly not believe “much” in the faith they are leading- it’s simply about political power.
The Pope for instance, does not indicate he has much faith- and is unpopular due to this appearance of lack of faith.
As I said, it seems fairly common.
But to the GHE believers, I could a heretic.
If you are part of religion, then you get to decide who your heretics are. It might be that all religions need heretics, how religions are suppose to deal with heretics is different matter.
Personally, I have not identified any heretics, that I am aware of.
And btw, tend to think only significant problem of any believer, is the lack of understanding of their faith.
I tend to think if going to have some kind of faith, then one should probably take our faith seriously- by living it and understanding it. But of course I have no right to insist on such things, it just seems like best thing to do.
Sorry huff, that IS your argument
whether you want to own it or not.
Correcting a spelling error? Lol!
Snape, please stop trolling.
S,
What is his argument? A direct quote, rather than a Snapish interpretation, might help others to determine the level of your veracity.
What is your interpretation of the GHE?
Cheers.
Flynn to the rescue!
“Did you have the same stupid and ignorant thought because you are are also stupid and ignorant?”
Is it stupid to think the sun does not shine at night……a thought that apparently never occurred to huff n puff?
Ms Snape, are you now implying that you don’t know that the Earth rotates?
You seem so confused, yet funny.
As Mike Flynn would say, “carry on”.
Snape, please stop trolling.
S,
What is the point of your stupid and ignorant gotcha?
Does the Sun shine at night? Are you just as stupid and ignorant at night?
Can you describe the GHE?
Questions, questions. Pity you have no cogent answers, isn’t it?
Cheers.
for Myki…record temperature in Toronto, Canada.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/it%e2%80%99s-going-to-be-really-really-hot-today/ar-AAznNZu?li=AAggNb9&ocid=mailsignout
Please note that it just edged out the last record set in 1964. The 60s are regarded as a cool decade, besides the Beetles. What caused that last record?
Of course we have to take the word of Environment Canada, who likely gets a data feed from NOAA, that the recent record is not fudged.
EC may be claiming there is a probability it is a record, based on a 37% confidence level.
“The city beat Wednesday’s high of 31.3C in Aviemore in the Highlands, and came close to matching the hottest June day ever recorded in Scotland – 32.2C at Ochtertyre in Perth and Kinross in 1893”.
Of course, Had-crut, along with NOAA, will be rushing to delete that record from the historical temperature record.
—
Of course they will, especially Had-CRUT:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/mohippo/pdf/library/factsheets/factsheet-9_weather_extremes.pdf
In page 5 we read:
June | 32.2 C | Ochtertyre (Perth and Kinross) | 18 June 1893
NOAA can’t delete it: the location Ochtertyre has no GHCN station, neither in V3 monthly nor in V4 daily.
The highest Scot temperature measured in 1893 and stored in the GHCN daily database was
STORNOWAY AIRPORT 1893 6 18 24.40 C
But in fact, this hunting on daily hots is nonsense. What is more important is to see how Scotland behaves over the years.
Here is a list of the 25 warmest years in Scotland since GHCN daily record begin there:
1846 10.4
1857 10.3
1868 10.0
1865 9.7
1850 9.7
1859 9.7
1852 9.6
1847 9.6
2014 9.6
1858 9.6
1851 9.5
1871 9.5
1869 9.5
1856 9.5
1872 9.4
1849 9.4
1854 9.4
1921 9.4
1861 9.3
1945 9.3
1870 9.2
1863 9.2
2006 9.2
1844 9.2
2011 9.2
1893 is at position 50 in the list.
binny…”Here is a list of the 25 warmest years in Scotland since GHCN daily record begin there:”
You cannot trust GHCN, it has been heavily edited.
The article posted by Myki was for one day. My question was what caused the record warming for one day in 1893?
Having grown up in Scotland I can testify to the fact that it is a cold place. Scottish comedian Billy Connolley claims we Scots are not white, we are pale blue. The colour comes out when we step into the North Sea at the beach.
Gordon Robertson says:
June 30, 2018 at 8:31 PM
You cannot trust GHCN, it has been heavily edited.
As usual, you pretend things you know NOTHING about.
And as usual, I write: you are an ignorant, pretentious boaster and above all a psychotic liar.
binny…”As usual, you pretend things you know NOTHING about”.
I posted a link to the NOAA site where they admitted slashing over 75% of their surface data then synthesizing the missing data using a climate model.
I posted evidence that NOAA declared 2014 the warmest year ever based on a 48% confidence level. With a 90% confidence level it is nowhere near as warm as 1998 or 2016, or 2010.
I have posted evidence that NOAA has fudged the SST and altered historical data to remove warming earlier in the record. They deleted the 1934 US record global temperature.
You are a complete ass to go on with blinders over your eyes to their scientific misconduct.
What about NASA and the moon landings?
Huff, here’s a picture for you to ponder: Time to put on your thinking cap.
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/BAANW7/earth-viewed-from-space-showing-transition-between-night-and-day-over-BAANW7.jpg
Huff
Time for a quiz: at any given moment, how much of earth’s surface/atmosphere do you think is actually absorbing ~ 960 w/m^2?
A) 1/4
B) 1/2
C) 100 %
D) none of the above
Anonymous Ms Snape, before you slink into other distractions, running from your past, maybe you want to respond to this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-309904
But running is easier, huh?
Why should he respond to your personal attack?
What “personal attack” are you referring to, Bobdesbond?
Or did you just not any research before commenting?
bobdesbond…”What personal attack are you referring to, Bobdesbond?”
JD…bob aka des is another alarmist who supports the pseudo-science of snape. He doesn’t need evidence to ad hom you.
Dr. Spencer you would do a point by point rebuttal of the claims made in this video. It is a great source to expose the ignorance of the climate alarmists.
https://youtu.be/3guEO7UjZ3Q
Sorry, Huff, I’m going to stick to your argument. Please correct where I’ve misrepresented you:
“There’s a commentator on this blog who seems to think the sun is shining straight down on every square meter of the planet at once (960 w/m^2 absorbed by surface/atmosphere). That flux, he reasons, should not be divided:
“the clowns want to use 240. It makes it appear the Sun cannot heat the Earth.””
S,
Are you seeking knowledge, or just trolling?
I see nothing to justify your claims of sorrow, and therefore assume you are being hypocritical.
If you have something to say, why not just say it, and be prepared to offer some facts to support your opinion?
If you have directly quoted someone, why bother asking where you have misrepresented them? If you have purposely misquoted, why do it? I can only suppose that you are trying to divert attention away from the fact that your pseudoscientific nonsense is apparently based on something that nobody can actually describe – the GHE!
Keep it up. Eventually, you might admit that the Earth has cooled since its creation, and increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter.
I trust your GHE explanation includes both facts.
Cheers.
No, anonymous Ms Snape, you are NOT sorry. You have no empathy in you. You are a self-centered blob of irrelevancy, trying to claim some vestige of self-esteem by commenting clandestinely.
You misrepresent me, then ask me where you did it?
As an anonymous commenter, you seek to be something you’re not. You tried to “teach” about flux at TOA, only to have to wipe your own spew off your face. (Do you need the link?)
You’re a documented fraud, phony, and “cheap-shot” troll. You fit in well with the pseudoscience crowd.
Huff
This is a science blog. When I say something stupid, I own it and consider it a learning experience.
On the other hand, let’s look at how you handle a challenge to one of your arguments:
“Are you ashamed of being female?”
******
You’re an idiot poser. Among the dumbest I’ve seen. Rude to Swanson, Norman, Nate and anyone else who tries to correct your nonsense.
S,
Oh so PC, You “own” your stupidity, do you?
Bully for you. You may consider your stupidity in any fashion you wish. Own it, disown it – as if it matters. Facts are facts, fantasy is fantasy. Complaints about the way others “handle” your “challenges” are pointless. Who cares? Complain away – maybe you can complain a GHE description into existence!
Facts care nothing for your opinion or mine. They are what remains even if you stop believing in them.
You may believe in the GHE or unicorns as much as you like. Neither continues to exist after you stop believing.
Carry on dreaming.
Cheers.
snape..”This is a science blog. When I say something stupid, I own it and consider it a learning experience”.
Not in the few years I have been posting here. You obstinately stick to pseudo-science in your confusion between heat and EM, as well as the 2nd law.
What does a poser do when someone calls his bluff? Looks for a way out, of course. A spelling error will do:
“E. Swanson, its Boltzmann.
If you are trying to teach things you know nothing about, at least try to get the spelling right.”
Or pretends to not understand the question:
“Anonymous Nate, youre still not making any sense. It is not my job to try to interpret you. It is you job to communicate coherently.”
*******
We will see plenty more “outs” from huff n puff. Stay tuned.
S,
Inability to communicate clearly, sloppy use of language, spelling errors, incomprehensible jargon, and so on, are often characteristic of pseudoscientific charlatans. These frauds delight in obfuscation and evasion, continuously avoiding having to apply the scientific method.
Maybe you could try whining, or playing the victim? How about demanding that someone respond to one of your stupid demands – try composing a pointless quiz, or issuing a challenge. If all else fails, a really stupid gotcha might make you feel better.
On the other hand, a useful description of the GHE might allow a GHE hypothesis or two to emerge. This is all part of the scientific method, which is thoroughly disliked by the stupid and ignorant such as yourself.
No GHE description? Oh well. So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
Snape, please STOP trolling.
Mike
Huffman is not the only poser who frequents this blog. Another is fearful of “gotchas”.
S,
Why would anybody be fearful of a gotcha?
They are generally a device of the stupid and ignorant. Any sensible person will put their point of view and be prepared to support it with fact, or ask questions to seek knowledge (after making diligent enquirers elsewhere, one might expect.
Stupid and ignorant pseudoscientific types try to cover their lack of knowledge by posing gotchas, using pointless and irrelevant analogies, and any or all of the many devices that the fraudster employs to try to bend others to their will.
Bad luck. If you can’t even clearly express your point of view, you cannot support it, can you?
Try and state clearly what you believe to be the adverse effects of gases such as CO2 and H2O. Having difficulty? None that cannot be explained without resorting to the mythical GHE?
Why am I not surprised? Maybe you can work it out, if you try really, really hard!
Cheers.
So repetitive.
So unoriginal.
So sad.
Nurse, you are right.
Please go and warm up the electrodes.
Just the man we need, welcome back.
The psychobabblers redouble their pointless efforts.
Still no GHE. Just more meaningless psychobabble.
Keep it up.
Cheers.
Flynn
We all will do our very best, like James in Dinner for one!
Since there no theory explaining why Earth has average temperature of about 15 C.
I will give some clues.
A significant factor, is the Earth atmosphere.
And another significant factor is Earth is 70% covered with a mostly very transparent ocean.
The ocean and atmosphere allows the heated tropics to warm the rest of the planet. Though it just to tropical ocean which regarded as heat engine of Earth [and for good reason].
The current average temperature of all land surface on Earth is about 10 C.
The current average temperature of all ocean surface on Earth is about 17 C.
And the average volume temperature of entire ocean is about 3.5 C.
An icebox or icehouse climate of Earth is a cold ocean and polar ice caps. And cold ocean is an average volume temperature of 1 to 5 C.
So since Earth oceans are between 1 to 5 C and had ice caps for millions of years, we currently and have been in a icebox climate.
And a icebox climate on Earth, has glacial and interglacial periods. And we left a glacial period over 10,000 years ago, and in an interglacial period.
And within an interglacial period, there cycles of warming and cooling periods lasting for periods of centuries. And we left a cold period, called the Little Ice Age, which is considered to have ended around 1850 AD. The LIA mostly about advancing glaciers worldwide, and ending is marked by the beginning of the retreat of glaciers worldwide. And it is retreat and advancement of glaciers which was using a measurement related of warming and cooler periods within the interglacial period, and also marking beginning of end of the larger periods of glacial and interglacial period. Though sea level rise- more than 100 meter rise and fall, also marked their beginning and end.
There is the idea, that within last century, that humans have increased global average temperature. There is no agreement by how much or even when humans starting warming the average temperature of Earth.
Starting in 1959, what considered by most to be accurate measurement of global CO2, was started. And governmental bodies tend to think human effect of global warming started after 1950s and expressed confidence that the rise in CO2 since 1950s caused at least .2 C to global average temperature.
How is your armchair gb.?
It sounds as if you have been reading the library’s copy of Climate Science for Dummies.
He has indeed but is obviously struggling with the content.
I recommend he sticks to the comics.
M,
Normal for delusional psychotics to refer to non-existent references, I suppose.
Can you bring yourself to mention something that is not the product of your fantasy?
Cheers.
I have not read the library’s copy of Climate Science for Dummies.
Hopefully it’s better than the Climate Science for Dummies that one find on the internet with such a title.
It seems what available on internet which attempt gives a summary is wiki, Greenhouse effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
It also says dumb things, but I have not heard complains from the truest believers of global warming.
It starts by saying:
“The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet’s atmosphere warms the planet’s surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere.”
Of course if a planet didn’t have atmosphere, it would have the high temperatures that are occuring on the lunar surface.
But one could guess what they attempting to say, is that if planet didn’t have atmosphere, then it would have lower average temperature.
Which is true.
And this also the case that if earth had slower rotation, it would also have a lower average temperature.
So the 24 hour rotation period is something that increasing the average blobal temperature, or is a “warming effect”
So, it terms increasing the average temperature of a planet, an atmosphere and rotation as fast as Earth’s increases the average temperature.
These two factors are ignored in terms of groupthink of a self appointed committee, in terms of failing discover “warming effects” other than greenhouse gases.
They also ignored the ocean, which also acts as “greenhouse effect” or is factor increasing the average temperature of planet Earth.
And it been long considered obvious, that the tropical ocean is the heat engine of Earth.
Or to the term commonly used in the climate cult, the tropical ocean is a warming effect of planet Earth.
Next, it says:
“If a planet’s atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) they will radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it”
There is no evidence that gases or anything else, radiating in all directions causes the surface to warm. What warms the surface is the sunlight.
But as said above, the believers have expressed no distress in regards to this gospel.
And other Climate Science for Dummies found on internet are even more retarded.
To continue:
Anyone could compile a long list of warming and cooling effects.
One bigger item on the list could be broad category of Earth’s clouds, can have both a warming and cooling effect with a dependency on type of clouds and where.
Some have claimed that clouds could have as much as 50% of warming effect of all the greenhouse gases.
Though assuming, one is allowing for an existing cooling effects of clouds already included in the pre-existing model.
Or no one** claims clouds only cause a “warming effect”.
[** Oh, I think the clouds of Venus are only causing a warming effect- though, topic was Earth. If Earth were to be completely covered with clouds, it seems it requires a warmer Earth. Or result of warmer earth could be earth covered by a lot more clouds. Put Earth at Venus distance and by having more sunlight, that Earth could be covered completely with clouds. Or having different source of heat such as massive and continuous global volcanic activity.}
In big picture, I would say that land area is biggest cooling effect [or entire land area, lowers average global temperature]. But in some degree, like clouds, land causes both warming and cooling effects, but overall net effect, land cools.
Based global model on a planet having a ocean, then land would be a cooling effect. We seem to base model on land, and so in that case, the ocean is a warming effect.
Btw, could be interesting to model a planet with 100% clouds [and certain types of clouds] or a planet with 100% blue skies.
I imagine a number of people have attempted it.
So perhaps to get less argument, one can say the tropical ocean warm the lands of all the world. Or is in accordance with idea that tropical ocean are heat engine of the world.
The tropical ocean warms by global atmospheric circulation, and warmer tropical waters are transported to regions outside the tropics.
The tropics radiates less energy directly to space, in part because it transport heat elsewhere in world, and then radiates into space.
The reason we are in an icebox climate is largely blamed on the current configuration of the world’s land masses. That a vast Antarctica continent is at the south pole, is considered one of many elements of this.
Which is saying, land’s arrangement/configuration is part of cooling effect of our icebox climate. Though one could also point to the ocean’s topography- as in, ocean regions which shallower in depth and channeling effect of deeper parts ocean effecting ocean circulation patterns..
Gb is rambling again.
I recommend we take him off the comics as well.
Several have admitted, either directly or indirectly, that they do not know how to solve 960 Watts/m^2, arriving at about 88 C. Here are the details.
As indicated, this applies to a flat black body, negligible thickness and perfectly insulated on the back. The 960 Watts/m^2 arrives perpendicular to the front surface. At equilibrium:
S = aT^4 where S = flux, a = S/B constant, T = temperature in K
960 = (5.67*T^4)/10^8
T^4 = 16.9312169 (10)^9
T = 360.7 K = 87.6 C = 189.6 F
Ivar Giaever is another physics Nobel prize winner who believes he is an expert in climate science. Typically, he presents very little science in his presentations.
I made the mistake of reading from the bottom of the comments first.
Ugh
JDHuffman says:
June 29, 2018 at 9:24 AM
The 340 W/m^2 is the AVERAGE. It is the result of dividing 1360 by 4. After albedo, typical average you see is 240 W/m^2. As jimc explained above, 240 W/m^2 corresponds to a surface S/B temperature of -18 C.
Which AVERAGE do you mean here?
1. Don’t you agree that the energy emitted by our planet must be equal to the solar incident energy it absorbs?
2. Don’t you agree that Sun’s incident energy reaching Earth is computed by
S * pi * R-earth ^ 2 * (1 – A)
S = solar constant
A = albedo
pi * R-earth ^ 2 = the integral of all cosine weighted incoming irradiances on Earth’s half-sphere lit by the Sun
3. Don’t you agree that Earth’s emitted energy is computed by
σ * T-earth ^ 4 * 4 * pi * R-earth ^ 2
σ = St-Bo constant
what leads alltogether to a T-earth of 255 K ?
*
That’s why the clowns want to use 240.
Which clowns do you mean here? All the physics professors on the planet teaching that?
Really? They all are clowns, they all are wrong and you are right?
*
It makes it appear the Sun cannot heat the Earth.
Not at all. The 255K alias -18C are the blackbody temperature of a rotating planet in absence of any absorbing atmosphere. No water vapor, no carbon dioxide, no clouds.
Of course does the Sun heat Earth due to its incoming radiation. But it nevertheless keeps a frozen ball, as nothing prevents Earth IR radiation from directly escaping to space.
How would Earth’s lower atmosphere then manage to move above these -18 C? Any idea?
*
I’m still awaiting your valuable source concerning all what you pretend here (textbook, paper, whatsoever).
*
And hopefully you will manage to produce a reply somewhat less arrogant than what I got to read upthread. How can one behave so demeaning as you do?
La Pangolina, your long disjointed comment was certainly characteristic of your usual offerings. It was filled with bolded text, out-of-context quotes, and rabbit trails of distracting questions.
You try to appear relevant, by asking questions, but you do not want answers. Your very first question is a perfect example.
You asked “Which AVERAGE do you mean here?”
But, you had pasted my explanation right above! You ignored my explanation, to ask your stupid question!
As I indicated earlier, it’s best to just let clowns be clowns.
JDHuffman says:
July 1, 2018 at 4:19 PM
As expected: insults and arrogance, but no valuable answer.
But, you had pasted my explanation right above! You ignored my explanation, to ask your stupid question!
No I didn’t. The point (3) was for completeness only.
Instead of showing unnecessary arrogance, you could have given some links to papers showing you are correct, especially what concerns point (2).
My impression, Huffman, is that you have nothing valuable to show. All you write here is your own subjective view.
No thanks.
*
As I indicated earlier, it’s best to just let clowns be clowns.
Ridiculous.
Yes you did.
**********
The 340 W/m^2 is the AVERAGE. It is the result of dividing 1360 by 4. After albedo, typical average you see is 240 W/m^2. As jimc explained above, 240 W/m^2 corresponds to a surface S/B temperature of -18 C.
Which AVERAGE do you mean here?
**********
It’s best not to deny your own comment, wouldn’t you think?
JDHuffman says:
July 1, 2018 at 4:56 PM
It is the result of dividing 1360 by 4.
The energy balance means
S * pi * R-earth ^ 2 * (1 – A) = σ * T-earth ^ 4 * 4 * pi * R-earth ^ 2
thus
S * (1 – A) = σ * T-earth ^ 4 * 4
thus
T-earth = 4th-root-of(S * (1 – A) / 4 * σ) = 255
Instead of being arrogant and insulting, please explain what is wrong here. That would be more credible.
“Instead of being arrogant and insulting, please explain what is wrong here.”
I’m not being “arrogant and insulting”. That is your interpretation, coupled with your need to attack and falsely accuse.
What is wrong with the calculation is the assumption that Earth’s surface is radiating 240 Watts/m^2 (which you curiously did not indicate). That is an INCORRECT assumption.
JDHuffman says:
July 1, 2018 at 5:42 PM
What is wrong with the calculation is the assumption that Earth’s surface is radiating 240 Watts/m^2 (which you curiously did not indicate).
Why should I indicate what is evident?
S * (1 – A) = σ * T-earth^4 * 4
filled with values gives
1370 * (1 – 0.3) = 5.67 * 10^-8 * T-earth^4 * 4
960 = 5.67 * 10^-8 * T-earth^4 * 4
240 / 5.67 * 10^-8 = T-earth^4
thus
T-earth = 4th-root-of((10^8 * 240) /5.67) = 255
The ‘4’ on the right side arises from the fact that while Earth’s sphere is irradiated on its sun-lit half only, it emits permanently from the entire surface.
*
If you don’t accept this, e.g. by writing
That is an INCORRECT assumption.
then please show evidence of that, e.g. by presenting links to one or more scientific papers proving the assumption to be incorrect.
Simply to pretend that was is used an teached everywhere on Earth is wrong, without any proof: that is a bit too easy.
A surface, with area of 1 m^2 and receiving 960 Watts/m^2, would have an equilibrium temperature of about 88 C, as described here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-309963
Now, divide the surface into 4 equal parts. In your pseudoscience, you now have to divide the flux by 4. So you have 240 Watts/m^2, producing an equilibrium temperature of 255K = -18 C.
That is the nonsense you have swallowed, and now you must attack me for educating you.
JDHuffman
I will regret opening a line of communication with you. However I will keep it civil. No reason to insult.
You have made a simple error in your reasoning that is easy to fix.
Here you state: “Now, divide the surface into 4 equal parts. In your pseudoscience, you now have to divide the flux by 4. So you have 240 Watts/m^2, producing an equilibrium temperature of 255K = -18 C.”
You have a flux of 240 W/m^2 but the emitting area is only 0.25 m^2.
So a 1 m^2 emitting surface (since you have perfect insulation on the back) that is a blackbody surface that absorbs 960 Watts of total energy will have to emit this same amount at steady state conditions which gives you a temperature of 360.7 Kelvin.
Now if you divide the 1 m^2 into 4 parts, each part only has an emitting surface of 0.25 m^2. Each part absorbs 240 Watts of energy of the total of 960. Each emits 240 watts of energy at steady state. A blackbody with a surface area of 0.25 m^2 emitting 240 Watts of energy will still reach the same 360.7 Kelvin.
YOU: “S = aT^4 where S = flux, a = S/B constant, T = temperature in K
960 = (5.67*T^4)/10^8
T^4 = 16.9312169 (10)^9
T = 360.7 K = 87.6 C = 189.6 F”
SO: 240 = 0.25((5.67*T^4)/10^8)
T^4 = 360.7
Each segment reaches the same temperature as the 1 m^2 plate.
Hi Norman, and thanks for not insulting me.
Why are you not using your last name? Grinvalds, I think you said? I assume you pronounce the “v” as a “w”, right?
Now, if you will study my comment carefully, you will notice “In your pseudoscience…”
It is the pseudoscience that does the divide-by-4, not me.
Hope that clears it up for you.
For more clarity, the pseudoscience uses 240, not 960 W/m^2. That’s how they derive the 255K.
You’re actually doing it correctly. That’s why you got the same answer as I did.
JDHuffman
What they are doing with the solar input and the Earth’s surface is not pseudoscience, it is basic geometry.
The total energy that reaches the Earth from the Sun is equal to the area of size equal to the circle in space occupied by Earth.
The radius squared times pi.
The area is (6.3781 x 10^6 m)^2 times pi
=1.278 x 10^14 m^2
multiply this by the solar flux of 1360 W/m^2 to get a total amount of watts the Earth can receive from the Sun.
= 1.738 x 10^17 total watts (joules/second)
So you take the total amount of watts the Earth can receive and divide it by the total area of the Earth to get how many watts/m^2 the Earth receives (if you want to make it uniform).
Earth’s area is 4pi(6.3781 x 10^6)^2
= 5.11 x 10^14 m^2
1.738 x 10^17 watts/ 5.11 x 10^14 m^2 = 340 watts/m^2
Then the Earth will reflect 30% of this energy so it won’t be absorbed. The amount the Earth absorbs (when averaged out over the entire globe) is 238 W/m^2 (I rounded so the real answer would probably be closer to the stated 240 W/m^2).
N,
And yet your calculations must give temperatures varying between around +90 C and -90 C. These are the extremes of temperatures actually measured.
Useless calculations, obviously. Only good for sounding sciency and knowledgeable, but completely pointless except in the world of climatological fantasy.
Where would your clever calculations indicate the highest and lowest temperatures on Earth would be found? What would their values be? Have your calculations been found to be useful?
Of course not!
Carry on calculating.
Cheers.
Norman Grinvalds, you are still missing the point. You keep getting things twisted.
Study my example here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-310004
Dividing flux is NOT the same as dividing energy. Yes, there are 240 Watts going to each of the four sub-divided areas, but the flux remains at 960 Watts/m^2. Using 240 Watts/m^2, for the flux, to claim that the Earth’s surface should be -18 C is pseudoscience.
JDHuffman
The math is correct. A flux is energy (watts) divided by an area.
Your example of the plates split into 4 is not at all the same geometry of what is going on with the Earth system.
A real example would be for you to have a 960 watt energy source spread to an area that is 4 m^2 surface rather than 1 m^2. In you case the area is unchanged. With the Earth, the energy available does not change, but the area is 4 times larger.
If you had 960 watts of energy and it hits a 1 m^2 surface the flux for that surface is 960 watts/m^2. If you have the same 960 watts uniformly spread over a 4 meter surface the flux is 240 watts/m^2 and you have a cooler temperature.
In real world application it is why a 60 watt light bulb filament can reach thousands of degrees. It has a very small emitting surface but it has to get rid of the entire 60 watts through that small surface. The temperature of the filament goes up until it can emit the 60 watts. If you added 60 watts of energy to a 10 meter square surface it would barely warm since the 60 watts will be emitted by a fairly large surface area.
Remember though that in any one second, the incoming sunlight is only spread over half the globe surface area (the other side, facing away from the sun, is in darkness). In any one second, the outgoing flux from the Earth leaves from the entire globe surface area, so double the surface area. Putting albedo aside for the moment, that would be an incoming flux of 680 W/m2 balancing an outgoing flux of 340 W/m2. Even though the fluxes are different amounts, total energy is conserved; because the incoming joules in each second are spread over half the surface area that the outgoing joules leave from in each second. Energy balance diagrams currently do not reflect this. Lets look at your maths…
N: So you take the total amount of watts the Earth can receive and divide it by the total area of the Earth to get how many watts/m^2 the Earth receives (if you want to make it uniform).
Earths area is 4pi(6.3781 x 10^6)^2
= 5.11 x 10^14 m^2
1.738 x 10^17 watts/ 5.11 x 10^14 m^2 = 340 watts/m^2
J: That calculation is for the outgoing flux, not the incoming flux. Because the Earth doesnt receive 1.738 x 10^17 joules each second over the whole surface area of the Earth. It receives that over half the surface area of the Earth. So the calculation for the incoming flux should involve the 1.738 x 10^17 joules per second spread over half that surface area…making double the flux = 680 watts/m^2.
Norman Grinvalds, you are not only missing the point. You are TRYING to miss the point. Now you are off talking about light bulbs.
1) The Earth does NOT have an average temperature of -18 C.
2) Trying to twist/spin real science to falsely arrive at the -18 C, is pseudoscience.
FFS.
Some people here are very dumb.
Or maybe I have used too many volts during their therapy.
JDHuffman
Without an atmosphere the Earth would have an average temperature of around -18 C. It would still have warmer and colder regions. This is an average.
Not sure what your complaint is.
The -18 C is not pseudoscience. Not sure why you think it is.
We have a Moon which receives the same amount of flux as the Earth (at TOA). Its average temperature is considerably colder than the Earth’s. Your point is not very good. I think you should rethink your flawed logic and correct it. You may have skill with English and are able to correct spelling errors or misuse of words. But you do not seem to have the same ability to correct flaws in your logic and reason. For some reason you can’t understand a point.
The flux will give you a total energy input for an area.
There will not be more energy available to the Earth. When the scientists are making the energy uniform they are adding 240 W/m^2 to the night side as well as the dayside. It is an average uniform energy dispersal. The area of a sphere is 4 times the area of the circle. I did explain it easy to understand. You just have to open your logic circuits and turn down the English circuits to understand what is being stated. Not hard to do.
N. Grinvalds, you’re still running from reality.
1) The Earth does NOT have an average temperature of -18 C.
2) Trying to twist/spin real science to falsely arrive at the -18 C, is pseudoscience.
You tried light bulbs, and now you’re trying to go to the Moon. Okay, let’s go there.
3) The Moon has extremely high temperatures, in line with the correct application of the S/B Law.
Calculation explained by professor David Archer:
https://tinyurl.com/y9t47fqp
The result seems to agree with La Pangolina, Norman and professorP, quelle surprise.
Professor David Archer agreed that professorP has been using too many volts in his therapy!? That doesnt sound right.
Professor A’s result does not disagree with professorP’s diagnosis.
OK, Svante. As long as you acknowledge that professorP didnt actually make any argument, and nor have you. Im still waiting to hear from Norman.
J Halp-less
Your math of 680 W/m^2 for a hemisphere is the same as 340 W/m^2 for the entire Earth surface.
Yes you could calculate an average flux received by one hemisphere as 680 W/m^2 and you would have the other half receiving zero W/m^2. If you take the average of the two hemispheres to get a uniform flux to every m^2 of surface you still get 340 W/m^2.
Not sure what your point is. The Earth system receives a total of
1.738 x 10^17 total watts (joules/second). Of this total 30% will not be absorbed. You can arrange this amount in different formats but the basic result will be the same. The Earth absorbs 1.21 x 10^17 watts. To remain a steady state the Earth must lose 1.21 x 10^17 watts.
1.21 x 10^17/ 5.11 x 10^14 m^2 = 238 Watts/m^2
Without a GHE the average temperature would be 255 K. Not really a hard concept. You would have regional different temperatures. Warmer on equator colder at poles, warmer during day colder at night. This 255 K is the average temperature. If you took a reading of every square meter of Earth you would get a 255 K reading overall with no GHE.
N: Yes you could calculate an average flux received by one hemisphere as 680 W/m^2 and you would have the other half receiving zero W/m^2. If you take the average of the two hemispheres to get a uniform flux to every m^2 of surface you still get 340 W/m^2.
J: And thats exactly the problem. Then, you are no longer representing reality; because the incoming flux is NOT spread over the entire globe on a second by second basis. Only the outgoing flux leaves the entire globe in that way. You can try to justify it mathematically but your math is no longer representing what it is happening, physically.
N: The Earth system receives a total of 1.738 x 10^17 total watts (joules/second).
J: And it does not receive this over the entire surface of the globe at once. To pretend it does is to eliminate night and day.
J Halp-less
I am not sure you are understanding the physics correctly.
As I told Mike Flynn, temperature is just an average of the kinetic energy of molecules or atoms of an object. There are molecules moving much faster than the average and some moving much slower. You can still combine all these energies to get an average which gives you the object’s temperature.
The same with Earth. It is receiving energy in different proportions. Some regions will be hotter others cooler, day will be hotter than night. That is all true but it won’t help you determine a global average. The global average can be determined by making the outgoing energy uniform to every square meter of Earth. You get an average of 255 K without GHE. You would have colder and hotter regions. Like the Moon you have a scorching day and blistering cold night. The average of all the temperatures is quite cold despite the hot day. Just like you can have molecules in an object with lots more kinetic energy than the average, all the energies combine to give you temperature. I hope this is clear to you.
You do have to realize that even at night the surface still emits even if it is not receiving any energy so you do have to take this loss of energy into consideration to find the steady state temperature of the Earth’s surface.
No, Norman, with or without any GHE the Earth system receives 1.738 x 10^17 total joules but over only half its surface area, each second. With or without any GHE, the Earth system emits/reflects a total 1.738 x 10^17 joules from its entire surface area, each second. Taking into account albedo, with or without any GHE the Earth absorbs 1.21 x 10^17 joules but over half its surface area, each second. With or without any GHE the Earth emits 1.21 x 10^17 joules from its entire surface area, each second.
Your statement to the effect that you get a 255 K temperature without a GHE does not follow logically from anything you are saying. The above numbers apply (approximately) to the real world, now, on a second by second basis. None of it is, *without a GHE*, or, *with a GHE*.
The point remains, if you divide the incoming power by 4, you are pretending that the incoming power is spread over the entire surface area of the Earth at any one time, which it isnt. You are diluting the real power of the sun.
J Halp-less
It is obvious that you will not attempt to understand what a poster is saying. You are focused on your own beliefs about how to calculate energy.
If you believe strongly that spreading the solar input uniformly to each square meter of the surface is diluting the solar input (even though you can’t explain how that is) I will not be able to convince you otherwise.
Have a nice day.
Thanks, in fact Im having a GREAT day.
HuffAndPuffMan says:
“What does “T>>88C” mean? WTF are you talking about?”
Anyone with a basic tertiary education in mathematics would know precisely what that means. Thanks for showing us that you have none. Apparently you believe that everyone should dumb down their communication just for you.
Don’t know what happened there. It should say “T>>88C”
Bobdesbond, I know perfectly well what “>>” means in a mathematical sense. That’s why I was questioning the anonymous “Nate”. (Who never answered, BTW.)
Maybe you should do some more research into the flow of comments, before you jump in to rashly attack someone. Otherwise, people might think you are “stupid and ignorant”, as Mike Flynn would say.
Yes, I’ve noticed your tendency to quote yourself, Mike. I guess you needed a new sock account once your g.e.r.a.n name was blocked.
Does that mean you are not going to apologize for your errant and fatuous comment?
I see you didn’t take long to switch to your other identity. You should really try to separate your comments if you want to convince people you are not the same person.
B,
Your mind reading course was obviously a waste of money. Have you considered taking a course in physics? It might be of more benefit.
Cheers.
I have a BSc majoring in Mathematics and Physics from the University of Sydney. You?
Bobdesbond, if that’s true, then you should be able to get something right, once in a while, huh?
You haven’t gotten anything right on this thread.
Maybe next time?
bob…”I have a BSc majoring in Mathematics and Physics from the University of Sydney”.
Waste of time, you should have studied engineering so you could understand how science actually works.
Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
La P wrote –
“Dont you agree that the energy emitted by our planet must be equal to the solar incident energy it absorbs?”
This is standard climatological misdirection. Classic bait and switch.
The statement looks perfectly valid, but is of course demonstrably untrue.
The Earth is a large mostly molten lump of stuff, floating in space around 150 million kms. away from the Sun. Its crust has cooled and solidified since its creation, notwithstanding the previous enormous amounts of radiogenic heat generated internally. Four and a half billion years has seen the disappearance of the majority of the shorter half life isotopes. Even so, current estimates based on heat flow measurements indicate direct mass conversion to energy of around 20 tonnes per annum.
So any attempts to figure surface temperature of the Earth by measuring incoming sunlight are simply stupid and ignorant. A thermometer will prove far more effective.
There is still no useful GHE explanation, no GHE hypothesis, no science, just a perfect storm of pseudoscientific gibberish. So far, nobody has been able to demonstrate any measurable benefit to humanity at large from the billions wasted at the behest of a ragtag bunch of second raters.
Others may see things differently, of course. To each his (or her) own.
Cheers.
As usual, some useless, arrogant, redundant blah blah.
Geothermal energy is 70 mW/m^2, i.e. about zero compared with Sun’s incoming energy of 1370 W/m^2.
La P,
Are you disagreeing with anything I said? No?
In the usual manner of the stupid and ignorant GHE true believers, you fly off at a tangent by tossing out some sciency sounding irrelevant factoids.
If you could describe the GHE, might be able to devise a disprovable GHE hypothesis, but of course you can do neither. Keep avoiding the issue if you wish.
I’m fairly sure that even politicians are becoming reluctant to give funding to pseudoscientific beggars who cannot even describe the basis for their religious beliefs!
Maybe you could start a crowdfunding effort. How much would you contribute? Put me down for nothing at all – I can think of far better uses for my money..
Cheers.
As usual, some useless, arrogant, redundant blah blah.
If you say so, La P, if you say so.
Cheers.
It seems to me hothouse climates require volcanic activity.
Though some like to point to the CO2 produced by that enormous amount of volcanic activity [by the way, ocean volcanic activity- it like, having burning house and thinking the CO2 is making it hot] and less volcanic activity is making no measurable amount of CO2.
But I also think other factors are involved in hothouse climate or at least not starting from a icebox climate. Or warmer world [than our icebox] plus the large oceanic volcanic activity giving hotter or hothouse climate.
Now, if just count warming of entire ocean which has average temperature of about 3.5. And consider two inputs, warming caused by sunlight and warming effect of ocean geothermal heat, that is what should be compared. Or at noon we get 1000 watts of sunlight but only small portion of that energy adds to the 3.5 C average ocean temperature and compare to all of geothermal energy, plus the geothermal energyu may add mixing element, which allows the warmer surface water to mix better. Or not just heat of geothermal but it’s energy causing any mechanical mixing.
Norman wrote –
“A blackbody with a surface area of 0.25 m^2 emitting 240 Watts of energy will still reach the same 360.7 Kelvin.”
I have a minor quibble. Norman has used climatological logic, which is misleading, at best.
The fact of the matter is that a black body of a certain temperature emits radiation directly proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Trying to establish the temperature by the peculiar method of measuring radiation falling on the object is just stupid.
The pseudoscientific climatological method of believing a calculated temperature based on a variety of assumptions and guesses, in preference to a measured temperature, has resulted in the waste of literally billions of dollars!
Try putting a red hot lump of steel in sunlight, and calculating its temperature by measuring radiation from the Sun! How stupid would that be? How stupid would it be trying to calculate the temperature of the surface a lump of lava, which has cooled to the point that the surface is no longer glowing?
Or a lump of molten rock, like the Earth?
Ah, the infinite joy of climatological pseudoscience – just reinvent and redefine as you go!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
It is not stupid at all. Actually it is fairly logical and sound reasoning.
The issue seems to be with you and the fact you do not understand what steady state means.
You give a pointless example of putting a lump of molten metal in the sun and determining its temperature from the solar input. What you describe is not a steady state condition and is quite meaningless to any form of rational debate.
The condition created by JDHuffman was of a blackbody exposed to a constant source of input energy. Under these conditions a Steady State temperature can be worked out. You may want to study the topic of Steady State conditions.
When the plate reaches a steady state condition with the input energy the temperature will no longer change. You can start with a lump of molten lava or a super cooled lump of lava. It will not matter what the initial condition is for determining the steady state temperature value.
You can find the steady state temperature of an input energy supply. The input energy does not have to be radiant energy but if it is you can find the temperature. You need to know the area of the object, the emissivity. If you have this information you can find its steady state temperature based upon the amount of energy it is absorbing. The temperature of your object will either warm up or cool down until it is emitting the same amount of energy it is receiving. Once it is emitting the same energy as it is receiving you get a steady state stable temperature. Maybe if you learn some physics conversations may be more productive.
N,
The problem is that the Earth is more than 99% molten, and rotating. There is no place on the surface which ever achieves your fantasy of a steady state. Averaging won’t help you either.
Maybe you have noticed that winter is generally colder than summer, and night-time generally colder than daytime. Not even a steady state over a day or a year!
As to your idea that if you know an object’s emissivity, its area, its inclination to a radiation source, the precise nature of the radiation (both frequencies and intensities), and, amongst other things, the initial temperature of the object and its thermodynamic environment, you could attempt to calculate its temperature, knowing that your calculation would immediately be incorrect if any condition changed.
Or you could use a thermometer.
Have you an aversion to temperature measurement? Why make a fairly simple matter more complicated and inaccurate than it needs to be? I suppose if you can’t even describe your mythical GHE, you need to hide the fact than you are indulging ins pseudoscience!
Off you go Norman – try to convince a doctor that calculating your temperature is more accurate and easier than using a thermometer. Don’t be surprised if he thinks you are ignorant and stupid.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
YOU: “As to your idea that if you know an objects emissivity, its area, its inclination to a radiation source, the precise nature of the radiation (both frequencies and intensities), and, amongst other things, the initial temperature of the object and its thermodynamic environment, you could attempt to calculate its temperature, knowing that your calculation would immediately be incorrect if any condition changed.”
Your posts are painful to the logic circuits.
If you are designing something to try and figure out what its steady state condition it will be in so you can use the proper materials, you can’t use a thermometer to gets its temperature.
Lets say an internal combustion engine. You can’t use a thermometer to find out what steady state temperature this engine will run at. Wow do you have to be so mindless? You need to use the established laws of thermodynamics to design the engine and build it with materials so it will not melt or soften from the energy input of burning fuel.
You are completely ignorant of the concept of Steady State conditions. I tell you to go learn about it. You won’t and then you have to post some idiotic point lacking the slightest value and logic. Why do I waste time with a numb-skull like you?
norman…”You can find the steady state temperature of an input energy supply. The input energy does not have to be radiant energy but if it is you can find the temperature”.
Norman…you are absolutely off your head. Why don’t you try talking in terms of science rather than philosophical gobbeldy gook.
Gordon Robertson
I already know you are not smart enough to follow logical thought.
You reject most scientific ideas and call them garbage, not because they are wrong or unsound, it is you do not understand them.
You can’t understand relativity so you reject it without even attempting to reason through it. You reject Big Bang because it does not make “sense” to you and won’t even consider the empirical data collected that supports this idea. You now reject the dust gas hypothesis for planetary formation even though this explanation can answer many questions about the solar system.
The ideas may not be the correct ones but they are ones that are able to explain the observation. No better ideas have come up yet that can explain all empirical observations that exist.
If you could admit to yourself that you are not a very smart person you could open up and start to see reality.
I can see that their are people much above my intelligence. Rather than saying they are stupid because I can’t understand what they are saying I keep an open mind and read their logic. You should attempt to do the same. You are not a genius. Not even close, I think you have below average IQ but you think you are the smartest person to walk the Earth. When you can see the reality of your limits new growth is possible.
Norman Grinvalds says: “I can see that their [sic] are people much above my intelligence.”
Norman, would you get mad and start attacking and insulting if someone pointed out you should have used “there”?
JDHuffman
No I would not get mad over a correction of a misused word.
What provokes a response is when you take the time to explain a conceptual point and the person will not make attempts to understand the concept but rather will focus on the grammar. I am not an English major or a professional writer. I will have bad spelling, poor grammar etc. I will give sound scientific concepts. If I make errors in the presentation corrections are welcome. It makes me try to improve in the future. Sometimes I just strike a wrong key other times I just use the wrong word like in a “to” “too” situation.
norman…out on his daypass from a facility, deludes himself into claiming, “I already know you are not smart enough to follow logical thought”.
norman cannot offer a reply based on science, but offers a multi-paragraph ad hom.
norman…out on his daypass from a facility, deludes himself into claiming, “I already know you are not smart enough to follow logical thought”.
norman cannot offer a reply based on science, but offers a multi-paragraph ad hom.
norman with a year of chemistry under his belt has read a couple of textbooks on thermodynamuics and anoints himself an expert.
norman… a legend in his own mind.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “norman with a year of chemistry under his belt has read a couple of textbooks on thermodynamuics and anoints himself an expert.”
Not to posters like Tim Folkerts or Idiot Tracker (gammacrux). Those posters are actual experts in the field of physics. I am not sure if David Appell took statistical thermodynamics in his studies, he would be more expert in the field of physics than myself.
I would consider myself to be an advanced expert ONLY when compared to posters like you or JDHuffman (aka Ger*an). It is not because I am a “legend”, it is only because you know so little and get even the little bit totally wrong. And you are too arrogant to even attempt to think you got it all wrong and that the physics books are not wrong only you are!
Whoever taught these engineers deserves to be shot.
They are as dumb as (insert favourite analogy).
professorP, please stop trolling.
professorP…aka professor pathetic…has taken time out from his sheep ranch in Melbourne, temporarily saving the sheep the em…baaa.raaa.ssment of having him trying to have his way with them.
–The work was intended to help answer a long-standing question: Exactly how do microbes rising out of the ocean connect to the planet’s climate? Substances released from the ocean may help manage global temperature, according to Kim Prather, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California, San Diego, who has pioneered the study of microbes in the sky. “If you put out different types of spray, you could make clouds that are brighter and whiter to cool things down,” she says. “Depending on what comes out of the ocean, it could really change the temperature of the planet.”–
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/microbes-can-change-the-temperature/564092/
linked from :
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
But it seems an important question, do microbes want it warmer or cooler? I tend think they would prefer warmer conditions, as all life does.
Though if more in colder regions than warmer regions, it might matter of majority rules- they may like the icy conditions.
Norman
I think your explanation of how the 240 w/m^2 is arrived at was excellent. Does Huff understand? Remains to be seen but I’m dubious.
S,
Unfortunately, the 240 W/m2 seems to be a completely pointless calculation.
Maybe you could find a use for it, in between attempts to find a useable GHE description?
Are the results of the calculation the same during winter? What about when the Earth’s surface was molten?
It seems you can do almost anything with 240 W/m2, although I suppose you need the magic of CO2 to make it all come true!
Keep up the calculating.
Cheers.
snape…”I think your explanation of how the 240 w/m^2 is arrived at was excellent”.
That’s the kiss of death for Norman’s theory.
Norman, with an undergraduate year in chemistry thinks he can calculate the energy received by the Earth to 240 W/m^2. Exactly what’s wrong with the AGW theory.
Gordon Robertson
My math was not a theory. It was just a geometry calculation.
It is just a way to average out the energy the Earth receives to a uniform meter squared. It is not supposed to be the real world situation but it is a way to determine Average temperature of the entire globe. The real globe has super cold poles and a much warmer equator but it has an overall average temperature of some value.
N,
Your calculation, as you say, does not relate to the real world.
Pointless.
Cheers,
Mike Flynn
It is not pointless, scientist take averages of things all the time to develop trends.
If you want to know if a teaching method is working, you take the average test scores over time and you see how they are moving. It seems obvious you have little understanding of science or how it works.
Maybe you do not realize that temperature itself is the average kinetic energy of molecules or atoms. There are some moving faster and some slower. Based upon your logic then temperature is pointless because in the real atomic world you have some gas molecules moving very fast and some moving very slow so averaging out the energy to get a uniform temperature is pointless.
I think with you very limited understanding it becomes very difficult to reason with you. I am seeing that most the time you just do not even comprehend the points because you don’t know what is being talked about. You have zero understanding of GHE but pretend you do. No one can explain it to you because you lack even some basic knowledge of science to process the explanation and you get it wrong. Go study and learn, you will be far more productive.
N,
You cannot even describe the GHE, can you?
You claim to be able to understand that which does not even exist! If it did, even you could probably describe it, I suppose.
Reason away, Norman. Practice in a mirror, if you like.
Cheers.
Snape, please stop trolling.
Your name shows who the real troll is.
Yet my actions tell a different story…
Anonymous Ms Snape’s comment is a perfect example of what skeptics have to fight. She is both ignorant and fervently opinionated.
Just recently, she demonstrated she had no clue about things like TOA, solar flux, insolence, etc. But yet she arrogantly chimes into this discussion, with nothing to offer but her biased opinion.
It would appear others follow this same pattern….
“Gerald Marsh, retired Argonne National Laboratories Physicist, challenges the usual assumption that ice age cycles are initiated by Milankovich Cycles and driven by the Arrhenius effect of carbon dioxide. He says that the key variable here is low altitude cloud cover driven by cosmic rays.”
https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/a-theory-of-ice-age-cycles/
linked from:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/06/30/gerald-marsh-a-theory-of-ice-ages/
Well, I guess we will see, and should not need to wait too long.
But I don’t think there will be much change in near future, but I am continuing to be hopeful we get some progress in direction of better understanding of “global climate”.
Dr. Roy – “with an average age of around 70 now, and that governmental bias in climate funding will basically kill off skeptical research if things don’t change.”
Considering Trump’s open attempts to drive science out of policy-making and the decades of stalling by governments this is almost funny. But of course it’s true that paradigms in science never come to dominate entirely by their success in producing published results. Kuhn, himself a physicist, described how a paradigm shift in any case usually arrives as an avalanche, after years of evading a change by the use of ad hoc hypotheses, when the “atmosphere” of doubt around the old paradigm becomes irresistible. The epicycles become a tangle, the tangle becomes a Gordian knot, and eventually some foreign thug with a sword comes along and everything changes overnight.
A few old-timers in their mountain fastnesses always have to die off, as there are always those few who cannot accept change, or what they view as “submission” to what became a hostile tribe some time during the debate. Some even come to view an established scientific position as having religious validity, retreating to publishing in literally religious journals.
Science makes progress IN SPITE OF the human nature of scientists, not because of it. Just as “government” scientists have continued to report their findings IN SPITE OF the vested interests of governments and their employers, not because of them. Waiting for an old guard to die off is a natural part of the process. Occasionally they leave a poisoned dagger on a pillow through of their followers in the mountains, but history passes them by in its due course, and their fortresses become tourist attractions.
Your proclamations do not become true because you want them to be true. I see more commitment to the scientific method and to scientific transparency under Trump than I did under Obama. Often, we have seen individuals and the media associate their own views of virtue as a substitute for science.
Things do not become real just because you want to “see” them.
“Often, we have seen individuals and the media associate their own views of virtue as a substitute for science.”
Just how unsure of your own position must you be to change the subject from the Trump administration to the media in only the third sentence?
By the way, our old friend Mister Excavated Natural Fabric surfaced on Facebook recently. He’s claiming he’s taking supplements that will enable him to keep going until he’s at least 150, or something. So HE should be gone soon, at least. 🙂
Gordon
His explanation was thorough and well written. The fact that you still don’t get it……..?
Snape, please stop trolling, and please stop writing every response as the beginning of a new thread; all you are doing is spreading your trolling over a greater surface area of comment space.
The page mostly does not occupy physical area, you know. It’s only the part visible on the screen to which the term can really be applied.
Huff, Gordon
Imagine a one meter high cube, where one side absorbs 960 w/m^2 and the other five sides get nothing.
What is the total power, in watts/m^2, absorbed by the cube?
Power is measured in watts, not watts/m^2.
Halp
You’re right. I struggled with how to properly pose the question. Maybe this is better:
How much power per unit surface area (in watts/m^2) is absorbed by the cube?
Yes, Ms Snape, you are definitely struggling.
How much Watts/m^2 does it absorb if it absorbs 960 Watts/m^2?
How about 960 Watts/m^2!!!
(Possibly you had the same math and physics classes Bobdesbond had. He can’t get anything right either.)
Huff
Seriously? You think the cube absorbs 960 w/m^2?
Snape, again: what was wrong with the reply button directly underneath JDHuffmans comment? Why start yet another new subthread?
Anonymous Ms Snape, you stated it absorbs 960 Watts/m^2,
Are you in denial about what you stated?
Maybe that is why you hide your identity.
Chic
I use my IPhone. Starting about a month ago, I’ve had to re – enter my name and email for every post. The comment then appears at the bottom of the thread.
Fair enough (although Im not Chic). I will stop mentioning it.
Snape,
At the time you started having to re-enter your name and email, so did I but that resolved itself soonafter. Sometime later I reset my PC and that autofill feature disappeared. I will have to restore autofill in my PC’s settings. I suspect your iPhone settings need to be reset.
Also, many of your comments are vapid. It is especially annoying when you call other commenters stupid when you clearly are not in a position to judge.
Huff
This is what I stated. Please put on your thinking cap (if you have one) and read more carefully.
“Imagine a one meter high cube, where one side absorbs 960 w/m^2 and the other five sides get nothing.”
Again, the question is,
“How much power per unit surface area (in watts/m^2) is absorbed by the cube?”
OK I am imagining the cube…five sides are receiving nothing…one side absorbs 960 w/m^2.
So the cube is absorbing 960 w/m^2. Seems like the clue was in the question.
Oh, dear.
Yes, poor old Snape.
Halp
To say the cube absorbs 960 watts/m^2 is to say, on average, each of its six sides absorbs 960 watts. As stated, only one side absorbs that amount.
The cube is receiving 960 watts/m2 on one side. So the irradiance to the cube is 960 W/m2 to that one side. The other sides are getting nothing, so the irradiance to those sides is zero. You cant average it all out, because to say that the power of 960 watts should be spread around the rest of the surface area of the cube (to get a lower flux) is to say that the irradiance reaches the other sides of the cube…but you have specifically stated that it doesnt.
J Halp-less
From my reading of Snape’s point, it would seem the point is that the ice block will receive an energy input of 960 watts which will move through the ice block via radiation and warm the cube until there is a steady state condition between the input energy of 960 watts and the outgoing energy. Ice is not a great conductor but better than water so the surfaces not exposed to incoming radiant energy will not get as warm, it would be a complex problem to solve correctly but the point is that to find the steady state temperature you would take the incoming energy the object is receiving and from that, find the outgoing emission. When you have the outgoing emission of each side you can calculate the surface temperature of each side. The cube of ice surfaces, not receiving any energy would still warm up via conduction and start to emit IR at some rate. When all the sides together add up to be emitting 960 total watts then the temperature of the cube is now at a steady state condition with the incoming energy. The emission will be much less than 960 watts per side (each being a m^2) so the flux from each surface will be much cooler than the 960 watts would heat just a one meter square surface.
I saw no indication that the point was related to the temperature of the cube. What I saw was a question, which I have answered correctly. Why go to such lengths to try to save face?
P.S: since when did Snape specify it was an ice cube, or block!?
Halp tries his best to twist and confuse something very simple.
To what end?
Nope, Halps right, Nate has a problem with that, as always.
BTW,
Clearly Snape and Norman were talking the whole time about INSOLATION, which is relevant to the Earth and its temperature.
Irradiance, not really relevant, was brought up first by Halp. Confusion ensued.
Dear Nate.
If you have a specific correction to make, please make it. Otherwise, stop being a deliberately irritating nuisance.
All the best,
J
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance
Solar irradiance is the power per unit area received from the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range of the measuring instrument. The solar irradiance integrated over time is called solar irradiation, insolation, or solar exposure. However, insolation is often used interchangeably with irradiance in practice.
J: You will have to try harder than that…
Halp
If a salesman earned $960 on day one, and came up empty the next five days, would you say he earned $960 per day? Of course not. You could, however, use the first day’s earnings to create a daily average….. $160 per day.
See above.
Norman
My question involved a generic cube (not ice), but I agree with what you wrote if it had been ice.
Halp and huffypuff (if they are different) don’t understand what the term “W/m^2” means. That was my suspicion, and I asked the question as a test to see if I was right. Bingo.
They think that if just one of a cubes six sides is receiving a flux, (in this case 960 w/m*2) then that rate can be applied to the object as a whole.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-310339
So; you were wrong, but you are now just going to claim that you are right, anyway.
Halp
What??? The cube does not absorb 960 w/m^2. One of the cubes SIDES absorbs at that rate. Do you still not see a difference?
If you want to calculate the rate the cube absorbs energy…..as averaged over its entire surface area, that would be 160 w/m^2…..a total of 960 watts.
Or you could choose to say just one side absorbs 960 w/m^2…….that’s the reality, but it still amounts to total input of 960 watts.
******
An analogy would be to ask the salesman what he earns per day. He could say his earnings vary and he doesn’t like to calculate averages. What he CANNOT say is this, “I make $960 per day.” That would be a lie.
You cant average the 960 watts over all six sides because only one side is receiving the energy.
Lol.
Halp
That’s fine. But then we don’t know what the cube absorbs per unit surface area, do we? That would require calculating an average since not all of its surface absorbs at the same rate.
Your answer was incorrect,
“So the cube is absorbing 960 w/m^2. Seems like the clue was in the question.”
If that were true, the cube would be absorbing a total of 5,760 watts (960 *6) Obviously not the case.
Snape, the cube is absorbing 960 watts over 1 metre squared of its surface. You dont count the other 5 square metres which are receiving nothing, when you calculate irradiance. 960 watts divided by 1 metre squared equals 960 W/m2. You dont calculate irradiance by adding in additional surface area which is NOT being irradiated!
Halp
You calculated the irradiance to 1/6 of the cubes surface…..960 w/m^2
Do you want to know the irradiance to the cube as a whole? It’s surface is made up of six sides, one square meter each. That would necessarily be an average irradiance, since not all of the cubes surface receives the same input.
Similar to finding the irradiance to your hometown. At noon it might be 800 w/m^2. At midnight…0 w/m^2.
You could calculate a 24 hour average…….or not. It’s your choice.
S: Do you want to know the irradiance to the cube as a whole?
J: The cube as a whole is not being irradiated. Only 1/6 of it is. So thats that.
Youre wrong.
Just accept it. For the first time in your life. Actually accept that you are wrong.
Halp, huffypuff
Maybe you are confused by the preposition “per”, which means “for each”
******
per
1.
for each (used with units to express a rate).
“a gas station that charges $1.29 per gallon”
******
If an object absorbs 960 watts per meter squared, then EACH square meter of its surface area absorbs that amount.
This is often expressed as an average, i.e. “averaged over its surface, the object absorbs 960 w/m^2.” Or, “averaged over a 24 period, the object absorbed 960 w/m^2”
Dipshit, 5/6 of the fucking cube are not being irradiated, the cube is instead irradiated with a flux of 960 w/m2. Because only one side is being irradiated. Now shut your fucking face.
: – )
“Dipshit, 5/6 of the fucking cube are not being irradiated….”
Then don’t claim the cube is absorbing 960 watts from each of its six square meters!! ( i.e. 960 w/m^2)
*******
The cube absorbs 960 watts, not 960 watts/m^2
Yup, over 1 metre squared only.
So yup, 960 W/m^2.
S: Similar to finding the irradiance to your hometown. At noon it might be 800 w/m^2. At midnight0 w/m^2
J: The Earth rotates. Your cube doesnt. The five sides receiving no power NEVER receive any power. So there is no 24 hour average for you. No way out.
YOU
ARE
WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Snape, you will never accept you are wrong because it is me telling you that you are wrong. So where is all your support? Why is nobody here taking the opportunity to give me what for? Why is it just you repeating the same nonsense over and over again?
Because nobody is going to back me up. They know Im right, but they dont have the integrity or decency to admit it.
So they just let you plough on and on and on.
And these are the people you respect.
Halp
Irradiance is not a measure of total power upon a surface, it’s a measure of power per unit surface area. There’s a difference, and that’s what you are not able to comprehend.
To calculate irradiance: find the total power received by an object. Divide that figure by the object’s total surface area…….gives an amount expressed as watts per square meter.
NO. To calculate irradiance: find the total power received by an object. Divide that figure by the surface area actually receiving the power. Gives an amount expressed as watts per square metre.
Halp
” To calculate irradiance: find the total power received by an object. Divide that figure by the surface area actually receiving the power. Gives an amount expressed as watts per square meter.”
Let’s check out your thinking by using some simple math:
-One side of cube gets 960 w/m^2
-Total power received by cube: 960 watts
-Surface area actually receiving power: 1 m^2
960 watts/1 m^2 = 960 w/m^2
*********
-Two sides of cube get 960 w/m^2
-Total power received by cube: 1920 watts
-Surface area actually receiving power: 2 m^2
1920 watts/2 m^2 = 960 w/m^2
******
-Three sides of cube get 960 w/m^2
-Total power received by cube: 2880 watts
-Surface area actually receiving power: 3 m^2
2880 watts/3 m^2 = 960 w/m^2
******
Do you see a problem here, halp? Using your formula, we get three different values for total energy absorbed by the cube…..out of the same irradiance value!
****
Nobody has come to your defense (except Gordon and huffnpuff) because your thinking is completely out to lunch.
S: Do you see a problem here, halp? Using your formula, we get three different values for total energy absorbed by the cube..out of the same irradiance value!
J: There is no problem. If 2 sides are receiving 960 w/m2 then yes, that obviously means twice the total power is absorbed (so 1920 watts as you say). 960 w/m2 x 2 sides (so 2 metres squared) equals 1920 watts. If 3 sides are receiving 960 w/m2 then yes, that means 2880 watts. 960 w/m2 x 3 sides (so 3 metres squared) equals 2880 watts. And in your original example you said one side was receiving 960 w/m2. So that means 960 watts are absorbed.
Yup. All works fine. Thanks for your help in illustrating my point.
Halp
Don’t take my word for it. Put this to the test:
“To calculate irradiance: find the total power received by an object. Divide that figure by the objects total surface area.gives an amount expressed as watts per square meter.”
Example/
-Three sides of cube get 960 w/m^2
-Total power received by cube: 2880 watts
-Surface area of cube: 6 m^2
2880 watts/6 m^2 = 480 w/m^2
480 w/m^2 is the average irradiance spread over the cubes total surface area. This amount would, as an average, be absorbed by all 6 sides.
480 * 6 = 2880 = total power absorbed by cube if 3 sides get 960 w/m^2.
The math works
S: This amount would, as an average, be absorbed by all 6 sides.
J: No it wouldnt. Because in this example the cube is only absorbing over 3 sides, not 6. So this:
-Three sides of cube get 960 w/m^2
-Total power received by cube: 2880 watts
Is as far as you need to go.
You cant average the 960 watts over all six sides because only one side is receiving the energy.
You cant average the 1920 watts over all six sides because only two sides are receiving the energy.
You cant average the 2880 watts over all six sides because only three sides are receiving the energy.
Tired now. Wont be any more responses for quite a while.
Halp
I was writing while you had already replied. Anyway, I’m at the point where I’m no longer surprised by your lack of comprehension.
Last try: if you wanted to calculate the cubes temperature using Stefan Boltzmann, then using your logic, 960 w/m^2 would be the irradiance value regardless of how many sides were being heated. Same temperature result.
Ridiculous for most minds, no problem for you.
S: Im no longer surprised by your lack of comprehension
J: Go fuck yourself.
S: 960 w/m^2 would be the irradiance value regardless of how many sides were being heated.
J: No, not regardless of how many sides were being heated. It is surface area irradiated and the amount of power received over that surface area, remember. So if 2 sides of the cube were irradiated with only 960 watts total, then that would be an irradiance of 480 w/m2. As for calculating the temperature of the cube, you would need a lot more than just the irradiance. And that would of course be just a complete distraction and a way for you to divert away from your simple error in understanding irradiance (so you will probably go that way later on).
Halp
SB uses the irradiance an object receives to find its black body temperature. Your instructions on how to calculate irradiance gave the same value (96 w/m^2) whether the cube was heated on one side or six sides. That’s a big problem. The SB temperature would end up the same for both situations!
S: Your instructions on how to calculate irradiance gave the same value (96 w/m^2) whether the cube was heated on one side or six sides.
J: No, it doesnt do that intrinsically. Your examples just happened to keep increasing the amount of power involved accordingly. You could have had the cube irradiated on one side with 480 watts. Then that would be an irradiance of 480 w/m2. You could have then had an example of a cube irradiated on 2 sides with 2000 watts. The irradiance would then have been 1000 w/m2. Or three sides irradiated with 900 watts. Which would have been an irradiance of 300 w/m2. You just picked three examples where the power matched the number of sides and so the irradiance was always 960 w/m2. And no, there is nothing wrong with that, because if you have more power, but spread over a proportionally greater surface area, you will get the same irrradiance, obviously.
Correction: 960 w/m^2, not 96
Halp
I need to backtrack regarding my definition for finding irradiance. I apologize for getting it wrong. I wrote:
“To calculate irradiance: find the total power received by an object. Divide that figure by the objects total surface area.gives an amount expressed as watts per square meter.”
That’s how to find the power per unit surface area an object receives, and relates to my original question:
“How much power per unit surface area (in watts/m^2) is absorbed by the cube?”
But such an AVERAGE probably shouldn’t be called irradiance.
*******
That doesn’t change my original argument, but I regret using the term incorrectly.
How about if one side of cube is absorbing 960 w/m^2, how much are the other 5 sides radiating?
The question Snape should have asked…instead of trying to average incoming radiation over surface area which is not receiving said radiation…
…but his lack of understanding and inaccuracy in phrasing his questions (gotchas) are of course all somehow somebody elses fault.
The five sides in total would radiate 960 watts.
If the five side must the radiate the same amount:
960 / 5 = 192 watts per side [or 192 watts per square meter].
If you insulate one of 5 side [so that does not radiate heat]
960 / 4 = 240 watts per side
If insulate 4 sides, then one remaining side emits 960 watts [assuming the one side is actually absorbing 960 watts].
If insulate all 5 sides, it will reach a certain temperature and thereafter will not absorb energy [or will not increase in temperature].
For sunlight at 1360 watts and one has blackbody surface that is 393.5 K {120 C}.
S: That doesnt change my original argument
J: Of course it does. Basically, you have finally looked up the term irradiance and realised you were wrong. Now you want to call your ridiculous *averaging* something else!
Gbaikie
“How about if one side of cube is absorbing 960 w/m^2, how much are the other 5 sides radiating?”
If we know the power per surface area the cube absorbs, then as described in the green plate experiment (a vacuum where conduction/convection with a surrounding atmosphere is not involved, and does not complicate the result i.e. the moon), when the cube reaches a steady temperature, it will radiate in total from its six sides at the same rate it overall absorbs…..960 w/^m2
I have no idea what the one heated side would emit compared to the five unheated sides.
But you haven’t tried to answer the simple question:
“Imagine a one meter high cube, where one side absorbs 960 w/m^2 and the other five sides get nothing.
How much power per unit surface area (in watts/m^2) is absorbed by the cube?”
How much power per unit surface area (in watts/m^2) is absorbed by the cube?
Obviously 960 watts. It gets a net gain of 960 watts one side of cube, and will get net loss of 960 watts on other sides of cube.
The only thing complicated is the temperature of the sides of cube and depends upon the materials used.
If assume it’s a blackbody surface, you doing a model which has rules and the model could be wrong.
But unless using something with high conductivity, the surface absorbing the 960 will be hot, the upper part near the heated side
will next hottest, and middle of bottom cube will next thing which may be the hottest.
So, cube of stone, is not very conductive, so top facing source of energy will be about 120 C if a blackbody surface, and upper side of the 4 side will have heat gradient which cools as goes further from top face. And bottom side will be warmer in middle but pretty cold.
Have hollow iron sphere 1 meter radius, filled water presurized at 20 psi. Put in earth orbit. How warm is it?
I provide answer to my question:
Have hollow iron sphere 1 meter radius, filled water presurized at 20 psi. Put in earth orbit. How warm is it?
And see if anyone can correct my answer.
Start total area: 1 meter radius: 12.57 square meter.
Does it matter if it spins?
If hollow iron sphere has a vacuum in it rather than water, it should matter.
Let’s try hollow sphere with vacuum, and not spinning.
Half sphere is sunlit and as sunlight it area is radius of sphere
squared times pi, or pi: 3.14159 square meter which we say is 3.14 square meters.
A portion of sunlit sphere receives sunlight at zenith, and that would be 120 C [if blackbody- don’t know if just an iron surface of some sort]. And this portion will radiate it’s heat 2 meter through hollow vacuum to back side of sphere. And this portion of sphere will conduct heat to it’s perimeter if is colder than 120 C [and general idea is it would be.
At outer edge of sunlight sphere the sunlight is hitting at low low angle.
All people trying to understand climate should realize that within 23.5 degree latitude is about 40% of area of entire sphere.
And in terms of a hemisphere, say north, up to 23.5 degree is 40%
of the area of that hemisphere. So with sun at north pole at 23.5 the sun is striking surface at 23.5 degree angle, so it getting less than 1/2 of sunlight in 40% of sphere, and heat would be conducted to this 40% of region from hotter portion of region.
And less than 1/2 could be less than 1/4 or less, but 60% of it would be more than 1/2. This 60% area would doing most of radiating to opposite side of sphere.
And if had 1/2 sphere radiating into space rather than into other half of sphere, what would it look like.
I don’t think you argue that half a sphere is warmer than a sphere.
Put dome on lunar surface [half sphere] and have sunlight directly over head, it going to be hot in the dome. And have that half sphere in space and it is cooler. Or the sunlit half sphere by itself is cooler than the sunlit half sphere connected the other half of sphere.
So how much does darkside of sphere radiate when it’s heated by fairly warm other half of the sphere?
Or maybe should look at what temperature 1/2 sphere would in space, and be aware that has to be cooler than sunlit half of sphere.
So have inside part of sphere which outside part is portion with sunlight near zenith [hottest spot of sphere or half sphere.
This part of inner sphere “sees” more than half of it’s view being some other portion of half sphere. Or it’s the middle in 1 meter deep hole which 1 meter in radius. Or below 45 degrees is the half sphere. And as move away from middle one get more view of space.
So portion of half sphere which near zenith is going to hot and it gets quite cold at 23.5 degrees part of hemisphere.
And put two hemisphere together to make a sphere, that part of 23.5 of hemisphere becomes warmer [none of inner part of sphere “sees” space].
So we played with that, what happens if add water. It not going to make it colder, so question is how much warmer, yes?
Actually, at a steady temperature, the cube would emit the same as it absorbs regardless of its surface area. So why would we want to know how much it absorbs per unit area? Using SB, that tells us what its steady state temperature would be.
Ready to admit you were wrong yet?
Halp
“Of course it does. Basically, you have finally looked up the term irradiance and realised you were wrong. Now you want to call your ridiculous *averaging* something else!”
My original question did not mention the term irradiance, and I originally did not call “power/unit surface area” irradiance either. That term came up part way through our argument and I used it incorrectly. If we find the total irradiance an object receives, and average that value over the entire surface area, the result should probably no longer be called irradiance. That was my error.
As mentioned above, power/unit surface area is needed to find an object’s temperature……knowing the irradiance is just a means to an end.
How so? Imagine again a meter high cube where just one side is heated at 960 w/m^2. It will come to a specific steady temperature, right?
Now imagine a much larger cube, but still only one square meter is getting the 960 w/m^2 flux. The larger cube would reach a lower temperature because of the greater surface area available for cooling.
S: As mentioned above, power/unit surface area is needed to find an objects temperatureknowing the irradiance is just a means to an end.
J: For Gods sake, what you are looking for is the radiant exitance from the cube. Your original question states the irradiance then asks you to calculate it!
S: Now imagine a much larger cube, but still only one square meter is getting the 960 w/m^2 flux. The larger cube would reach a lower temperature because of the greater surface area available for cooling.
J: Obviously. For crying out loud I’ve NEVER been arguing about temperature. Ive JUST been trying to correct you on irradiance. Your original question, as posed, is ridiculous. The irradiance is 960 w/m2. You literally say it is, then ask someone to calculate it. You need to know the surface area that an object is receiving radiation over to calculate irradiance. Your cube receives it over 1 m^2.
The point is there is no other applicable term for power/unit surface area received by an object, than the term irradiance. So whether you realise it or not, every time you repeat your power/unit surface area received by an object, from the very beginning, you have been discussing irradiance. And discussing it WRONGLY.
A better example: imagine a globe with its only energy input coming from a 60 watt light bulb. You could calculate the irradiance received from the light.
Now imagine a giant globe but still heated by the small light. Irradiance would be the same, but the larger surface available for cooling would result in a much lower temperature.
For fucks sake you are inhuman.
STOP arguing against points that I am not making and have never made.
Imagine a one meter high cube, where one side absorbs 960 w/m^2 and the other five sides get nothing.
How much power per unit surface area (in watts/m^2) is absorbed by the cube?
Answer: as an average, 160 w/m^2
Is that the irradiance? Probably not, and that’s why irradiance wasn’t part of the question.
You cant average the incoming 960 watts over the whole cube, because the whole cube isnt receiving that power.
Power per unit surface area received IS irradiance, whether you like it or not. And that irradiance is 960 W/m^2.
.
What you are looking for is the outgoing flux from the cube, radiant exitance. THERE you might find your 160 w/m^2. Who knows? Look into it.
Halp
“You cant average the incoming 960 watts over the whole cube, because the whole cube isnt receiving that power.”
If you want to calculate what an object’s temperature will be, you need to know the total power input, but that value has to be tied to the object’s surface area, because surface area determines rate of cooling.
That’s why you average total input over the object’s total surface area…..to tie the two together.
In my question, I gave the total input: 960 watts. I gave the total area: 6 m^2. Averaging the two (160 w/m^2) gives a value that can be used to find the object’s temperature.
The cube DOES NOT on average, absorb 960 w/m^2 from each of its six sides, it only absorbs 160 w/m^2,
which is the average power absorbed per unit surface area.
S: The cube DOES NOT on average, absorb 960 w/m^2 from each of its six sides
J: No, exactly, it absorbs 960 w/m^2 on one side only. But you dont then average the incoming radiation over areas where it isnt being received. Maybe think about the outgoing flux, since that might be leaving from all six sides…
S: If you want to calculate what an objects temperature will be, you need to know the total power input, but that value has to be tied to the objects surface area, because surface area determines rate of cooling.
J: Irradiance of 960 watts/m^2 x 1 m^2 gives your total power input of 960 watts.. Not difficult, was it?
Now look up radiant exitance, and think about that. Think about how irradiance of 960 w/m^2 could balance with a radiant exitance of 160 W/m^2, because total energy is conserved, and not flux.
“J: Irradiance of 960 watts/m^2 x 1 m^2 gives your total power input of 960 watts.. Not difficult, was it?”
You’re right, not difficult at all. Infact it’s so obvious I considered a given:
“In my question, I gave the total input: 960 watts”
S: if you want to calculate what an objects temperature will be, you need to know the total power input
S: Youre right, not difficult at all. Infact its so obvious I considered a given
J: So your quest for the total power input was a simple one. Good. Now move on. Learning is fun!
S: Thats why you average total input over the objects total surface area
J: Snape, you are just making shit up. I am trying to help you, but you dont want my help, since naturally you assume everything Im telling you must be wrong. You dont average total input over the objects total surface area unless the input is actually spread over that total area.
But what about that output? Are all 6 sides free to radiate? What might that mean…
But again, notice the 960 w/m^2 applies to just one side, but I wanted to know the power absorbed by all six sides as an average, and that is obviously NOT 960 w/m^2, which was your answer.
Yes, you have a curious desire to know the power absorbed by sides that are not absorbing any power. Im trying to help, but you just arent listening. Take a couple of hours, give it another read through, and come back with your apology later. Im off out.
“S: Thats why you average total input over the objects total surface area
J: Snape, you are just making shit up.”
How do you find an object’s temperature (from radiance) without tying energy received to the object’s total surface area???
Have a read back through, and you will see.
Remember: radiant exitance.
Now off.
“J: So your quest for the total power input was a simple one. Good. Now move on. Learning is fun!”
********
The total power input was given, not asked for. The total surface area was given, not asked for. I wanted to see if Huff could figure out the total power averaged over the total area.
That’s when you jumped in with the idiotic 960 w/m^2.
Time to take Mark Twain’s advice:
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
You wanted to see if somebody could divide 960 by 6. This was your amazing gotcha. Thats what you think we cant understand or are somehow incapable of doing. And you call me an idiot.
Snape, the incoming flux is 960 w/m2, as Huff and I said. And as you said yourself. Incoming flux = irradiance = the power received divided by the area over which it is received.
You are DESPERATE for that flux to be 160 W/m2. Ive never seen someone so desperate in all my life. But it ISNT.
The OUTGOING flux could be 160 W/m2. And that outgoing flux of 160 W/m2 would balance the incoming flux of 960 W/m2…because fluxes are not conserved, total energy is.
Incoming flux = 960 W/m2 times 1m2 = 960 watts total
Outgoing flux = 160 W/m2 times 6m2 = 960 watts total
Thats assuming perfect conditions and that all 6 sides of the cube can radiate (which would be quite some setup given that five of the sides arent absorbing/cant absorb).
You dont divide the incoming power over surface area that isnt actually receiving it. Obviously!
S: The total power input was given, not asked for. The total surface area was given, not asked for. I wanted to see if Huff could figure out the total power averaged over the total area.
J: Your comment to Huff, in reality:
S: Huff
This is what I stated. Please put on your thinking cap (if you have one) and read more carefully.
Imagine a one meter high cube, where one side absorbs 960 w/m^2 and the other five sides get nothing.
Again, the question is,
How much power per unit surface area (in watts/m^2) is absorbed by the cube?
J: Snape you are a lying, twisting, lazy, uneducated, arrogant, deliberately irritating, and thoroughly obnoxious piece of shit.
J
Wow. Tell me what you really think. Lol.
“Snape, the incoming flux is 960 w/m2, as Huff and I said. And as you said yourself. Incoming flux = irradiance = the power received divided by the area over which it is received.”
I agree with that, halp. But that was not my question. The question was what is the power received relative to the cube’s total surface area. It wasn’t meant to be a gotcha. I assumed it would be a no brainer.
Then you and huff surprised me (sort of) by claiming all six sides absorb 960 w/m^2.
S: The question was what is the power received relative to the cubes total surface area.
J: Your actual question:
S: How much power per unit surface area (in watts/m^2) is absorbed by the cube?
J: The answer? 960 w/m^2. Power (960 watts) per unit surface area (1 m^2) absorbed by the cube. The incoming flux to the cube is 960 w/m2.
S: Then you and huff surprised me (sort of) by claiming all six sides absorb 960 w/m^2.
J: An event which occurred inside your own head.
Again:
Incoming flux = 960 W/m2 times 1m2 = 960 watts total
Outgoing flux = 160 W/m2 times 6m2 = 960 watts total
Thats assuming perfect conditions and that all 6 sides of the cube can radiate (which would be quite some setup given that five of the sides arent absorbing/cant absorb).
You dont divide the incoming power over surface area that isnt actually receiving it. Obviously!
S: It wasnt meant to be a gotcha
S: Halp and huffypuff (if they are different) dont understand what the term W/m^2 means. That was my suspicion, and I asked the question as a test to see if I was right. Bingo.
J: Liar.
Snape,
By failing to sufficiently pose your thought experiment you create massive confusion and much unnecessary pointless discussion here. But it does illustrate some useful points, intended or not.
“[An AVERAGE of power per unit surface area probably shouldn’t be called irradiance] doesn’t change my original argument, but I regret using the term incorrectly.”
To your credit you admitted incorrect usage of irradiance: the flux of radiant energy per unit area (normal to the direction of flow of radiant energy through a medium). A couple of times you asserted that SB is used to find temperature from irradiance.
“SB uses the irradiance an object receives to find its black body temperature.”
This is usually not the case, because the body may be receiving or losing energy elsewhere. Generally, SB predicts the radiation from the temperature of a body, but not necessarily the converse. This will lead you to erroneous conclusions if you extend your cube analogy to predicting planetary temperatures.
Radiance (the flux of radiation emitted per unit solid angle in a given direction by a unit area of a source) can be used to estimate a body’s temperature.
If all six of the cubes surfaces were radiating 160 W/m2, the temperature of each side would be 230.5K assuming the cube was in space and made out of a superconductor with emissivity of 1. With a cube made of a more realistic material the irradiated surface would be hot, the four perpendicular sides cooler, and the opposite side the coldest. The temperatures would not be uniform even on a given side.
Now start rotating the cube. Eventually you will have low and high temperatures on the sides in the plane of rotation and a constant temperature in the center of the two parallel sides.
Halp
You’ve demonstrated that you can find the total power absorbed by the cube, but again, that wasn’t the question:
“How much power per unit surface area (in watts/m^2) is absorbed by the cube?”
********
As applied to a rate of absorbtion, “w/m^2” could be rewritten as: “watts from each square meter”
Applied, then, to your answer (“the cube is absorbing 960 w/m^2.”), we get: “the cube is absorbing 960 watts from each square meter”.
As I’ve said over and over, that is not correct.
*******
Why am I nitpicking that error? Because huffy used the 960 w/m^2 irradiance received by the equivalent of 1/4 of earth’s surface, and applied it to the other 3/4ths that get nothing.
That’s like claiming all six sides of the cube receive an irradiance of 960 w/m^2, just because one side does.
**************
“You dont divide the incoming power over surface area that isnt actually receiving it.”
As far as I know, that is essential if you want to find an object’s temperature using SB. Either way, total power absorbed ends up the same…..unlike huffy’s wacky attempt.
S: Why am I nitpicking that error? Because huffy used the 960 w/m^2 irradiance received by the equivalent of 1/4 of earths surface, and applied it to the other 3/4ths that get nothing.
Thats like claiming all six sides of the cube receive an irradiance of 960 w/m^2, just because one side does.
J: No he didnt. Not what he was arguing as far as I could tell. Snape, you and others here just decide what peoples positions are without ever really bothering to check properly. You just invent a position for someone and then attack it. Its straw man city on this blog.
S: Applied, then, to your answer (the cube is absorbing 960 w/m^2.), we get: the cube is absorbing 960 watts from each square meter.
As Ive said over and over, that is not correct.
J: False. Applied to my answer *the cube is absorbing 960 w/m2*, we get: the cube is absorbing 960 watts from each square metre over which it receives radiation. Which, as we know, is 1 square metre. The additional words go without saying, since that is simply what is meant by irradiance or incoming flux or whatever you want to call it.
S, quoting J: You dont divide the incoming power over surface area that isnt actually receiving it.
S: As far as I know, that is essential if you want to find an objects temperature using SB.
J: Why not try reading and responding to other people who are commenting here telling you different. Chic Bowdrie has written you an interesting comment suggesting it is more usual to calculate SB temperature from irradiance, or radiant exitance (I have repeatedly tried pointing you in that direction but you simply do not listen to a word I say. Also, gbaikie has responded to you.
Please try to stop your compulsion to share your thoughts with me, almost literally as they occur, with no filter, and attempt to discuss this with someone else.
PLEASE.
J: irradiance, or radiant exitance
Correction: radiance, or radiant exitance.
Chic
I mostly agree with every point you made. But why not weigh in on the whole reason for my argument? Or Halp’s opinion that an SB temperature can be calculated without averaging in the object’s total surface area? A mouse sized object in space, receiving 960 watts total, would get much hotter than an elephant sized object absorbing the same. Why? The larger object would cool from a larger surface area. Averaging watts per surface area takes the size of the object into account.
Main point:
“Why am I nitpicking that error? Because huffy used the 960 w/m^2 irradiance received by the equivalent of 1/4 of earths surface, and applied it to the other 3/4ths that get nothing.
That’s like claiming all six sides of the cube receive an irradiance of 960 w/m^2, just because one side does.”
Snape,
“Why not weigh in on the whole reason for my argument?”
I thought I did, but then I assumed I knew what both the reason and the argument were and apparently I was wrong on both counts. Your “main point” makes matters worse, because you bastardized JDHuffman’s statement that 960 W/m2 is only absorbed by the irradiated side and the others get none.
I think you are trying to illustrate the geometric problem that a planet doesn’t receive the same solar W/m2 over all its surface, but the total surface does contribute to the total amount the planet radiates.
Your analogy suffers by failing to describe properties of the cube material that would unambiguously make your point. As I wrote previously, the 160 W/m2 radiated from all six sides can only occur if the absorbed radiation from one side conducts to all sides instantaneously. With any actual material, there will be a thermal gradient through the cube.
Only with an imaginary superconducting cube can you divide the incoming radiation by the total cube surface area to get the average outgoing radiation. This is a great illustration of why you can’t average planetary fluxes. They aren’t superconductors continually receiving radiation on only one side.
C: This is a great illustration of why you cant average planetary fluxes.
J: Yup. Snape has his uses, after all.
S: Or Halps opinion that an SB temperature can be calculated without averaging in the objects total surface area?
J: You consider the objects total surface area when thinking about the radiant exitance from the cube, because in that case all six sides are actually radiating (so long as that IS the case in your example). Again, dont invent positions for other people. My *opinion* (which is actually fact, by the way) is that you only average fluxes over the surface area they are actually received over, or leave over. You know: common sense.
S: A mouse sized object in space, receiving 960 watts total, would get much hotter than an elephant sized object absorbing the same. Why? The larger object would cool from a larger surface area. Averaging watts per surface area takes the size of the object into account.
J: Not *cool from*, *RADIATE from*, like I have been trying to tell you for the last seven or so comments. YOU ARE NOT ARGUING AGAINST A POINT I AM MAKING. You average watts over the total surface area IF THE WATTS ARE LEAVING FROM THE TOTAL SURFACE AREA WHEN YOU CALCULATE RADIANT EXITANCE FROM THE OBJECT.
S: Why am I nitpicking that error? Because huffy used the 960 w/m^2 irradiance received by the equivalent of 1/4 of earths surface, and applied it to the other 3/4ths that get nothing.
J: Your *main point* is nitpicking an error I didnt make because you are attacking an argument JD Huffman never made in the first place. YOU DO NOT LISTEN TO A WORD ANYONE SAYS
The cube receives/absorbs a flux of 960 W/m^2. Yes, this is over 1 side of the cube only. But it is NOT true to say the cube receives/absorbs a flux of 160 W/m^2. The reason this is important is because in the cube example, we can say that the cube is a blackbody in space or its perfectly conducting and decide that the 960 watts will conduct through the whole cube and then radiate uniformly from the six sides at 160 W/m^2, and you can then calculate the temperature of the cubes surface.
But with the Earth, it is not a blackbody and its not perfectly conducting, and it too is not receiving/absorbing a lower, averaged out flux. Imagine the cube is actually a poor conductor of heat, like the Earths surface. That side being irradiated has the potential to warm to up to 88 degrees C if the other sides could never warm through conduction. But if you say the cube is receiving/absorbing 160 W/m^2, you are claiming that the irradiated side does not even have the potential to warm to a temperature that is way below freezing.
Halp
“J: You consider the objects total surface area when thinking about the radiant exitance from the cube…..”
So to to calculate an object’s temperature using SB, all you need to do is THINK ABOUT radiant exitance?? It doesn’t need to be part of the math???
You have no idea what you’re talking about and are clearly lacking upstairs. Go argue with someone else.
Snape, why are you inventing absolutely ludicrous straw men to attack? Of course its part of the math:
Incoming flux = 960 W/m2 times 1m2 = 960 watts total
Outgoing flux = 160 W/m2 times 6m2 = 960 watts total
Remember?
So your 160 W/m2 outgoing flux is then the figure you use to calculate the objects temperature using SB.
Snape, you just invent the most RIDICULOUS shit to pretend people are arguing. Absolutely shameless.
Halp
I forgot to mention:
“J: Not *cool from*, *RADIATE from*, like I have been trying to tell you for the last seven or so comments.”
“cool from” is often used colloquially in place of “radiate from” or “emit from” in discussions like this. That was my intention and was not meant to be taken literally. It’s tedious to have to explain stuff like that. Bye.
Snape, you finally realised you have been wrong all along, now you leave in a huff. No apology, no decency, no humanity. Its tedious to have had to explain all this to you. In fact its torture trying to talk to you. Bye?
If talking about ideal thermally conductive blackbody, what is warmer or has higher uniform temperature, a cube or sphere?
If cube is radiating 240 watts, how much is a side facing the sun absorbing?
Is it 6 times 240 = 1440 watts or
5 times 240 = 1200 watts.
I think a cube is absorbing 1200 watts, and of course has uniform temperature [the ideal thermally conductive blackbody has uniform- not to confused with an average temperature]
So in a blazing sun of 1200 watts, the side facing the sun is -18 C, and is all other sides of the cube are -18 C. Or ideal thermally conductive blackbody is magical.
But if divide 1200 watts by 6, then it has uniform temperature of 243.7 K [-29.5 C} side facing sun is -29.5 as are all other sides.
Or if sun is 1440 watts per square meter, it is -18 C.
Anyhow, as is said, an ideal thermally conductive blackbody which is a sphere and sunlight is 1360 watts, it has uniform temperature of about 5 C.
And if cube getting 1360 watts on one side and is divided by 5 it is 272 watts [263 K or -10 C]. So side facing sun is -10 C as are all other sides, or 15 K cooler than sphere.
But were to divide by 6, it is 226.6 watts per side.
Of course Earth is not an ideal thermally conductive blackbody, but roughly the average temperature of planet at 1 AU distance from the sun should have average temperature of about 5 C, and Earth is about 5 C.
If Earth was a cube, it would cooler, and if Earth was a four sided pyramid, it would be warmer.
If Earth rotated slower, it would be less thermally conductive, and if lacked ocean to absorb as much energy, it would have lower average temperature.
And atmosphere increases average temperature and makes the surface cooler in the sunlit side of planet where sun is at zenith.
And Earth is about 15 C, because one is measuring temperature at surface, where air has highest temperature, and water of ocean is warmest at the surface [mainly because of warm ocean surface temperature which averages about 17 C].
Chic
“As I wrote previously, the 160 W/m2 radiated from all six sides can only occur if the absorbed radiation from one side conducts to all sides instantaneously. With any actual material, there will be a thermal gradient through the cube.”
And again, I don’t disagree with that!
When the cube reaches a steady temperature, it will radiate a total of 960 watts, same as it receives. It would NOT radiate equally from all sides, and that’s never been my claim.
Mathematically, however, you could express that value as an average, 160 w/m^2. Doing so enables you to find the cube’s temperature using SB (assuming an idealized situation i.e., no conduction/convection).
Halp
I’m very human and felt bad jumping ship. It was out of frustration. You and Chic still don’t understand what I’ve been trying to say.
“So your 160 W/m2 outgoing flux is then the figure you use to calculate the objects temperature using SB.”
Yes, but given an idealized situation, you could similarly calculate the object’s temperature using the total radiation it receives, 960 watts. Just like with the outgoing flux, and for the same reason, that value needs to be averaged over the entire surface area.
You can’t just “think” about it.
S: You cant just think about it.
J: Still trying to fight those straw men, eh?
S: Yes, but given an idealized situation, you could similarly calculate the objects temperature using the total radiation it receives, 960 watts. Just like with the outgoing flux, and for the same reason, that value needs to be averaged over the entire surface area.
J: You go and do whatever makes you happy. If you want to average incoming power over surface area which is not receiving any power, be my guest. But dont say that its for the same reason. The outgoing flux in your example (in idealised conditions) is averaged over the entire surface area because it is actually *leaving from the entire surface area*. The incoming flux is not received over the entire surface area, so it shouldnt be averaged over the entire surface area.
Halp
As chic has mentioned, the side of the cube exposed to the radiant flux would reach a higher temperature than the other 5 sides, and would therefore emit at a higher rate. When a steady temperature is reached, the cube would nonetheless emit a total of 960 watts.
Averaging that value over the six sides = 160 watts per side (160 w/m^2).
Is it your opinion that in such a situation, we could no longer use SB to find the cube’s temperature?
Snape, have you read any of my comments? Try this one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-310772
J: Imagine the cube is actually a poor conductor of heat, like the Earths surface. That side being irradiated has the potential to warm to up to 88 degrees C if the other sides could never warm through conduction.
So then you have 1 side at 88 degrees C or 361 K and then 5 sides at say 3 K (background temperature of space). What would be the average temperature of the cube if you worked it out via these temperatures alone? Chic has calculated the temperature of the cube to be 230.5 K if the outgoing flux was a uniform 160 W/m^2. Do you get the same answer 230.5 K, if you average the 361 K side over the other 5 sides at 3 K?
It seems the 960 watts per square meter is some averaged number, but I will point out the clear skies and sun that zenith is 1050 watts of direct sunlight, though 1120 watts per square meter if direct and indirect sunlight is counted.
And further away from zenith, say 45 degree, and with clear skies, the atmosphere diffuses and reflects more sunlight, much less than 1050 watts per square meter of direct sunlight. And at 60 degree away (or sun 30 degree above the horizon) it even more less (about halved) direct sunlight and atmosphere reflecting a lot more sunlight.
Or about 400 watts is reflected, but not when sun is near zenith.
Halp
I didn’t understand your argument until now. Now that I do, it makes sense. You win! Sorry for all my mean comments.
That being said, it’s quite possible there’s a flaw neither one of us has spotted. My understanding of SB and climate science is certainly limited, so who knows?
Something fun to investigate.
Sorry for the rage-filled ranting.
Well done, Snape. You finished strong. Posed a useful analogy, discussed it, and found common ground.
“Is it your opinion that in such a situation, we could no longer use SB to find the cubes temperature?”
This depends on whether you are dealing with a specific T or W/m2, not an average. How is a W/m2 measurement made? It comes from a device calibrated from known temperatures and emissivities. I could be wrong, but I think SB W/m2 values are calculated from temperatures, not vice versa.
One thing is clear. Because of Holder’s inequality, one cannot find accurate average temperatures from an average W/m2. To convince yourself of that just prepare several lists of W/m2 values with the same average W/m2. Convert each individual W/m2 to a temperature using SB and note the differences in the average temperatures.
Chic
Thanks for the nice remarks, but I should have taken a moment to look at the numbers much earlier. Never bothered until Halp’s last comment.
********
“I could be wrong, but I think SB W/m2 values are calculated from temperatures, not vice versa.”
In Eli’s thought experiment, the blue plate started off with an unknown T, presumably 0 K. Using a 400 w/m^2 flux from the sun, he calculated what the blue plate’s temperature would be when it’s total input and output reached equilibrium/
“Using the Stefan Boltzman Law you can calculate the temperature of the plate when it reaches equilibrium (400 W/m2) = 2 σ Teq4 where σ is the Stefan Boltzmann constant 5.67 x 10-8 W/(m2 K4), factor of 2 for a two sided plate per m2. Run the numbers Teq=244 K.”
Snape,
Thought experiments are problematic when not well-defined. I do not remember Eli’s system, but it will make a difference how the source responds to increasing temperature of the blue plate. Is the source in a plane close to the blue plate or is it as far away as the sun? Is the blue plate a superconductor in space? The 244K radiating 200W/m2 on both sides is the limiting case for a superconductor or an infinitely thin film somewhere beyond Mars.
One could get 400 watts per square of sunlight on the Moon.
On a level surface, when the sun is at low angle in the sky.
Or when sun is at zenith and have surface at an angle so acts like sun is low angle- such a very steep roof.
If on moon with sun low at horizon, anything vertical to level surface would cast a shadow. So if 6′ person was standing on ground and casts 12 foot long shadow, then one get 1/2 of the 1360 watt reaching the level surface. And if shadow is 18′ then one get 1/3rd of 1360 or 453 watts per square meter of sunlight upon the level surface. Though the person standing gets 1360 watts per square meter.
Here calculator:
https://rechneronline.de/sehwinkel/shadow-casting.php
when sun at 15 degrees above horizon, an object 10 feet high cast shadow over level ground 37.32 feet long.
And 1360 watts divided by 3.73 is 364 watts
and 16 degrees is 390 watts
Sun about 16 degrees above horizon on moon, a level surface gets about 400 watts.
On Earth the sun need to go thru about 3.5 times more atmosphere when an hour after sunrise or hour before sunset so another factor
which reduces the amount sunlight reaching level surface.
At 30 degree [2 hours after sunrise] a 10 feet pole cast shadow of 17.32 feet and on Earth, sunlight going thru 1.732 times more atmosphere. So without considering the weaken of sunlight going thru more atmosphere, 1050 divided by 1.7 is 617 watts on level ground, but counting weaken it would be about 400 watts.
But probably find reference giving a more accurate number. Here it is:
http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/sun-angle-and-insolation2.htm
and it is 420 watts per square meter when sun at 30 degree above horizon on level ground.
So just before 2 hours after sunrise, you get 400 watts of sunlight on level surface if sun will be at zenith at noon [so, in tropics] if in US it would be somewhere 2 hours or more if at higher latitudes [right now in summertime]. Or in southern part of Europe about 3 hours. Australia [winter, now] something like 3 hours or more after sunrise.
Or make simpler whenever and wherever a 10′ pole [or 10″] casts 17′ [17″] shadow. One gets about 400 watts per square on clear day on Earth on level surface.
So take some level dirt. Put straight and vertical stick in ground, mark point in which shadow would be 1.7 times it’s height.
Measure the temperature of dirt when shadow is 1.7 times, stick height. If dirt is dry and not windy, the dirt should be about 290 K or about 16 C.
I checked some dirt at midnight and is 25 C and it seems unlikely to cool to 16 C or cooler by morning, or therefore the dirt can’t warm to 16 C.
But I could guess that the dirt is not going to warm up before two hours after sunrise.
And checking, the sunrise, it is at 5:47 AM, so before 7:47 am.
Check weather, says air temperature drops to 26 C and rise from lowest at about 6 am [and will reach 39 C {103 F}] and clear now, and suppose to be cloudy.
Now, in terms of direct and indirect sunlight, combined it might be more than 400 watts, but I tend think dirt needs direct sunlight to warm and tend to think one have colder ground as compared to air temperature. So if air warms at 6 am, that doesn’t mean it would need to warm the ground.
So, I should be surprised if the level ground starts to warm before the sunlight is intense enough to warm it [even though if one is directly facing the sunlight it is fairly intense when it’s 30 degrees above horizon].
Dirt in shade was 24 C. Had leveled piece wood was 32 C and vertical wall brick four feet behind it, about 34 C
And shadow was more than twice length as height [more than 1.7]
Or level was warmed more than thought it would be.
But now sun is behind some thin clouds.
Or it is partially cloudy. Not good conditions to measure now, when otherwise might have shadow nearer 1.7 rather more than 2.
my time is now 8:03 and post marked hour later
sun is out. wood 36 and vertical wall 38 C and about 1.7.
Dirt in shade 26 C
So level less vertical, but level is warmed by 400 watts of direct sunlight
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-281648
Halp
“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).”
What do you mean by “lose energy” in this comment? Whether a side is facing space or another plate, it still radiates according to its temperature.
If both sides of the plate are the same temperature, they will radiate at the same rate.
Snape,
Halp mistakenly thinks the NET flux between 2 BB plates at the same temp can be 200 W/m^2, which would obviously violate rad heat transfer equation.
He is confusing one-way and NET radiation.
Nate pops up to lie, as he is paid to.
S: What do you mean by lose energy in this comment?
J: I mean that the green plate is only losing energy over the side facing space. It does not receive any energy from space, on this side, to balance the loss.
S: Whether a side is facing space or another plate, it still radiates according to its temperature.
If both sides of the plate are the same temperature, they will radiate at the same rate.
J: I dont disagree, and Im not arguing otherwise. If you dont understand, keep reading the comment until you do.
I am also NOT arguing what Nate is saying I am arguing. The net flux between the 2 BB plates at the same temperature is 0 W/m^2, not 200 W/m^2.
Snape,
Halp: ‘I am also NOT arguing what Nate is saying I am arguing. The net flux between the 2 BB plates at the same temperature is 0 W/m^2, not 200 W/m^2.’
He did say Green ‘gains its energy from the blue plate.’. Weird.
But if he didnt mean that, and instead he means the net flux from Blue to Green is 0, then I agree, since that would be the case for equal plate temps.
I also mistakenly assumed that he wouldnt want to violate the first law, by having 200 W flux leaving the green plate to space, while having 0 W input from the BLUE.
But he appears to ok with violating 1 LOT.
H: He did say Green gains its energy from the blue plate.. Weird
J: The green does gain its energy from the blue plate. Introduced at 0 K (or 3 K if you prefer), and shielded from the sun by the blue plate, where else does it gain its energy from? Over the side facing the green plate. Where does it lose its energy from? On the side facing space. Even at equilibrium, it is still gaining its energy from the side facing the blue plate, and losing it on the side facing space. I am just talking about directionality of energy flow.
H: I also mistakenly assumed that he wouldnt want to violate the first law, by having 200 W flux leaving the green plate to space, while having 0 W input from the BLUE.
J: It has 200 W input from the blue. Lol.
Over the side facing the green plate.
Should say: on the side facing the blue plate.
Nate, I think the funniest thing about you people is the way you pretend to be completely unaware of the other persons argument. Like the incredibly in-depth discussion about it didnt happen. Like we didnt look through the physics text and rearrange the equations to find that when view factors = 1 between two identically-sized objects (the infinite parallel plates) at equilibrium they will come to the same temperature. Like you havent read through all the discussion at Postmas. Like you didnt debate with Postma over at Postmas under the name Nasty. Like he didnt go through the math with you and prove you wrong. You come here acting all confused, as if there was one single nuance of my argument that you didnt understand and hadnt had explained to you many times.
You people are such
Lying
Pieces
Of
Shit.
Manipulative sociopathic monsters, basically. But, I suppose you are funny to laugh at.
Snape,
Halp first says 200 W/m^2 is flowing blue to green.
Then he says: ‘The net flux between the 2BB plates at the same temp is 0 W/m^2’
Now he is back to ‘It has 200W input from the blue, Lol’
As you can see, Halp wants to have his cake and eat it too.
He is contradicting both physics and himself.
And when this is pointed out, as you can see, he loses his mind.
The only equation we have to determine the energy flow (net flux) between blue and green when they are at the same temperature gives 0 W/m^2.
There is no way to obtain 200 W/m^2 from any known equation. It is just asserted.
Does this make any sense to you, Snape? Gbaike?
If this makes sense to anybody out there, please weigh in.
Just because the net flux is 0 W/m^2 doesnt mean the blue suddenly stops radiating to the green.
Nate, you know the argument. Stop pretending you dont.
Argument by repeated assertion is not a real argument.
True, but you will stop that eventually.
‘They think the plates pushed together will both come to 244 K. But separate them by even a micron, and one will raise in temperature to 260 or so K and the green will lower to 220 or so K. And they never admit the absurdity of this position.’
This is what is frustrating to me, Halp. You never seem to consider other poster’s valid arguments. Your ideas are fixed.
As I have told you, real world experience (and theory) shows that heat transfer is much more effective for objects in contact, due to conduction.
Example, an iron. The iron has to make contact with the clothing to effectively heat it.
A soldering iron must make contact with the piece in order to effectively heat it.
A hot pan. If you touch it, your finger will get burned. If it only gets near it, it will not.
The examples are demonstrating that moving objects apart (if one heated), makes their temperature difference increase. It is common sense and agrees with experience.
Nate does his bit where he has to post his comment on both subthreads…
‘You never seem to consider other posters valid arguments. ‘
How bout addressing the issues I raise, point by point?
Nate quotes himself, as if I am saying it, on the wrong sub thread. Poor old Nate.
‘Like you didnt debate with Postma over at Postmas’
Ugggh, when someone points out Postma’s errors he first tries to bully them, then goes ape-shit on them (just like Halp did here). If not intimidated enough, he bans them.
Debate, Postma style.
You are hilarious! Goes ape-shit. Nate, I simply told you what you are. You are a lying piece of shit, thats just a fact. You know full well what the argument is, but you come here and act all perplexed. Just ridiculous!
I’m not perplexed at all.
You don’t like having your glaringly flawed arguments debunked? Stop bringing them up.
I know youre not perplexed. Youre just pretending to be.
Anyone is welcome to click on my linked comment above, and if they dont understand, they can follow the links through to Postmas site to read through the commentary there. People have a right to know that there is another side to the argument.
You havent debunked a thing. You never did at the time, and certainly not now, by popping up at random to misrepresent and pretend you dont understand.
Halp-
The debunking is very simple: 200 does not equal 0.
Energy flow from Green to Blue cannot simultaneously be both 0, to satisfy rad heat transfer equation (SB law), and 200 to satisfy 1LOT.
It just can’t! You cannot or will not explain your way out of this basic contradiction.
A correct solution can be found by satisfying both 1 LOT and SB law. One does this by writing down the proper equations for this geometry and SOLVING them.
The solution finds the temperatures of the plates are not equal. Which is very well-known textbook physics.
from Blue to Green
Nate is so afraid of other ways of looking at things that he is compelled to misrepresent someones argument on a thread that nobody will be paying any attention to any more. Desperate stuff.
J Halp-less,
Are you claiming that two parallel/adjacent plates, in space with one plate’s face perpendicular to the incoming rays of the sun, will be at the same temperature? Maybe we need to revisit Snape’s cube models. A square plate is just a flattened cube.
Unfortunately, I did click on your linked comment above and I don’t think there can be two different valid solutions to the same model. Please explain how the two plates can be at the same temperature when only one is receiving energy directly from the power source.
Nope. Click on the links and look it up yourself. Thanks for nothing, turn-coat.
How about I commit suicide? Would that make you happy?
Ive had enough. Im sick and tired of wasting my life talking to fucking pieces of shit that just delight in the misery of other human beings. There is no humanity here at all. Snape irritates me to the point that I feel physically sick and so Nate pops up to press on the suffering. Relentless evil sadistic fucking cunts. OK, well done, Im broken. You win, as always. Well done Nate. Look at the idiot Halp making a fool of himself. You can make that another victory in your disgusting existence as a filthy piece of fucking shit.
Try reading through this cluster-fuck of sophist scum-bags from this comment on:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277725
Then marvel at how Nate has the gall to show his fucking face here now acting like he is all confused as if he has never discussed this with me before,
J Halp-less,
“Click on the links and look it up yourself. Thanks for nothing, turn-coat.”
I did click on the links, but I did not read Joe’s reply to Eli where he explains how he gets the two plates to come to the same temperature. The problem with this solution is there is no net heat flow between the two plates. So how does 200 W/m2 continue to flow out of the dark side of the green plate if it’s not receiving any net flow from the illuminated plate?
I can understand why one would think the two plates should be at the same temperature. If the two plates were touching back to back, then they would be at the same temperature radiating 200 W/m2 on both exposed sides. If they were separated ever so slightly, they should remain at the same temperature.
The problem might be the unreality of superconductors. Real plate materials will have a gradient through their thickness with a well-defined flux. Introducing a second plate would change everything: the gradient through the plates and the amounts radiated from either side. I’m still left with the question of what the temperature difference is between the two plates, if any?
I see you posted another link while I was writing this comment. Hang in there while I go back to the drawing board.
Wow, I just skimmed through the history of that link and any response from me will take awhile.
‘Then marvel at how Nate has the gall to show his fucking face’
Halp,
You are making this personal, when it should be a discussion about the science.
If you come here and insist on repeatedly posting things that I know from my training are absolutely wrong, then I am compelled to comment.
Its nothing personal, though I might get irritated at times.
What training, Nate?
N: it should be a discussion about the science.
J: So stop attacking straw-men.
N: I am compelled to comment.
J: Yes, with straw-men. Nobody is arguing that 200 equals 0, except you.
C: If they were separated ever so slightly, they should remain at the same temperature.
J: They (the orchestrated, cooperative group of people paid to pop up on blogs and defend the GHE whenever/wherever it is attacked) dont agree, as you will see when you read through the discussion. They think the plates pushed together will both come to 244 K. But separate them by even a micron, and one will raise in temperature to 260 or so K and the green will lower to 220 or so K. And they never admit the absurdity of this position.
C: The problem might be the unreality of superconductors. Real plate materials will have a gradient through their thickness with a well-defined flux.
J: I dont disagree, but this thought experiment DOES involve perfectly conducting, infinitely large and thin plates and my/Postmas solution is discussing that thought experiment only and NOT reality.
C: The problem with this solution is there is no net heat flow between the two plates. So how does 200 W/m2 continue to flow out of the dark side of the green plate if its not receiving any net flow from the illuminated plate?
J: Neither of the plates stop radiating just because they have come to equilibrium. All objects radiate based on their temperature. If the green plate is 244 K like the blue plate, then a better question would be how can 200 W/m^2 NOT continue to flow (be radiated) from the dark side of the green plate? The blue plate, at 244 K, also continues to radiate 200 W/m^2, at equilibrium. It doesnt just stop radiating. The green receives that radiation. The blue continues to receive energy from the green, too, but that cant raise the temperature of the blue further, because all the energy that the green plate possesses came FROM the blue plate in the first place.
The only thing that you or Nate should or could be arguing about is why does the energy to the green plate not get split by two like it does with the blue plate (blue receives 400 W/m^2, emits 200 W/m^2). You could argue: the green receives 200 W/m^2, shouldnt that then be split by two also? As that is how E-Lie begins his thought experiment then goes through the math to get to his final temperatures for the plates of approx. 260 K for the blue and approx. 220 K for the green. That is where the argument is over. And that is resolved, in my/Postmas opinion, through consideration of the different view factors there are between the sun and the blue, and the blue and the green. That is what I briefly try to explain conceptually in the linked comment further above.
Chic,
‘What training?’ physics degrees, and related work.
But again, my POV is to try to focus on the science.
Take a look at Halp’s idea and see if it makes sense to you.
I and others have made it clear what is wrong with it.
It is very simple, though he misses the point. He wants the Blue plate to be feeding energy to the Green at the rate of 200 W/m^2.
Then the Green, in turn will radiate 200 W/m^2 to space. 1LOT is happy with that.
The problem is that the radiative heat transfer equation does not allow that. With equal plate temps the net flux is required to be 0. This is basic physics.
He tries to say that, inexplicably, there is still a flow of 200W/m^2 anyway. But there isn’t.
That’s is why I say 200 is not equal to 0.
Nate keeps bashing the same straw-man, hoping for a different result each time..l
They think the plates pushed together will both come to 244 K. But separate them by even a micron, and one will raise in temperature to 260 or so K and the green will lower to 220 or so K. And they never admit the absurdity of this position.
This is what is frustrating to me, Halp. You never seem to consider other posters valid arguments. Your ideas are fixed.
As I have told you, real world experience (and theory) shows that heat transfer is much more effective for objects in contact, due to conduction.
Example, an iron. The iron has to make contact with the clothing to effectively heat it.
A soldering iron must make contact with the piece in order to effectively heat it.
A hot pan. If you touch it, your finger will get burned. If it only gets near it, it will not.
When objects are in contact-they can come to the same temperature.
The examples are demonstrating that moving objects apart (if one is heated), makes their temperature difference increase. It is common sense and agrees with experience.
N: This is what is frustrating to me, Halp. You never seem to consider other posters valid arguments. Your ideas are fixed.
J: IF this were true, then I would be no different to you or any of the pack of GHE defenders that swarm all over this blog, would I? As if your minds are remotely open!
N: The examples are demonstrating that moving objects apart (if one is heated), makes their temperature difference increase. It is common sense and agrees with experience.
J: That the plates would be 244 K when pushed together but change to 260 and 220 when separated is such an obviously absurd conclusion that you have to disregard all common sense and experience to think it could be true. Yet you do so without a seconds thought, just because that is what your back-radiation belief system requires. All of your calculations and theory gets you to a physically ridiculous conclusion. So…you just ignore how stupid it all is, and even claim it is only natural, by referring to analogies that are completely divorced from the GPE setup.
N: Example, an iron. The iron has to make contact with the clothing to effectively heat it.
A soldering iron must make contact with the piece in order to effectively heat it.
A hot pan. If you touch it, your finger will get burned. If it only gets near it, it will not.
J: The iron, soldering iron and hot pan are all examples of objects NOT in vacuum (so convection cooling is present when not touching) and are all examples where, when separated, the view factors between the objects are nowhere near 1. With view factors = 1, in a vacuum, there is no reason for radiation to be any less effective in heat transfer than conduction.
Forgive me for bringing up old wounds. I can see from links to old discussions, you two have been at this a long time and I’m new to the party. Since we’re dealing with only one true set of physical principles, there must be a way to find common ground.
Sticking with the unreal superconducting plate material (which I think is at the root of the problem here), assume a blue plate is kept at the same 240K temperature by a source input from the exposed side of the blue plate. Place the green plate next to the blue and let the combined plates reach a steady state. The green plate is now 240K and its exposed side is radiating 200 W/m2 to space.
Now separate the two plates without changing the source keeping the blue plate at 240K. How could there be any change to the green plate’s temperature or how much it radiates to space?
Pardon me if this has already been covered. I haven’t finished reading the 12/2017 discussions.
The closer and closer that two (real) objects, such as two finite-sized plates, are brought together, the closer the view factors get to 1, right? So having infinite-sized plates, with view factors = 1, in a vacuum, is basically the same thing as having the plates actually touching. If, when touching, you can accept that the temperatures of the two plates are the same, then, when separated in vacuum with view factors = 1, you should accept that the temperatures of the two plates are the same.
Unless you are saying that somehow the process of conduction is not bound by the same thermodynamic rules as the process of radiation!
C: Forgive me for bringing up old wounds.
J: Forgive me for my outbursts. Was having a very bad day.
‘Now separate the two plates without changing the source keeping the blue plate at 240K. How could there be any change to the green plates temperature or how much it radiates to space?’
Why should we expect things to stay the same? There is now vacuum between the plates. Vacuum does not transfer heat nearly as well as a metal does. It is a good insulator.
As in the examples I gave, contact transfers heat well, and allows objects, such as my finger and a hot pan, or soldering iron and wire, to come to the same temperature.
Move the wire away from iron, it will cool down to the temp of its surroundings (with or without air).
In the case of the plates, the Green plate will cool to the temp of its surroundings, i.e. to a temp between temp of BLUE and space.
Solving the 1LOT equations shows that the Green plate will cool down, and receive and radiate less than 200 W/m2, once it reaches equilibrium.
H at 4:47 am: “The blue continues to receive energy from the green, too, but that can’t raise the temperature of the blue further, because all the energy that the green plate possesses came FROM the blue plate in the first place.”
The green plate could raise the temperature if it is insulating the blue plate, but there is no insulation because the superconducting plates create no resistance to heat flow.
N at 8:06 am: “He wants the Blue plate to be feeding energy to the Green at the rate of 200 W/m^2.
Then the Green, in turn will radiate 200 W/m^2 to space. 1LOT is happy with that.
The problem is that the radiative heat transfer equation does not allow that. With equal plate temps the net flux is required to be 0.”
The problem is definitely the superconductor assumption. Before the plates are separated, there is no net flow between the plates. There is no temperature gradient through the plates. They are at the same temperature. It is unreal, because no real material can be radiated on one side and have the same temperature on the unradiated side. When these “virtual” plates are separated, there need be no net flux between them. Why should the heat transfer equation require any gradient? The corresponding virtual conduction equation didn’t need it either.
The superconductor condition makes this problem identical to a problem where the heat source originates between the plates. Then whether separated or not the same virtual equations can be used to come up with the same virtually unreal solutions.
Chic,
‘The problem is definitely the superconductor assumption.’
As with many textbook problems, assuming perfect conditions makes it simpler to solve, but shouldnt fundamentally change the result.
Here the plates are assumed to be very thin or perfect conductors. Using real world materials and thicknesses, say 1 mm thick copper, is going to only change the final answer by .001 degree at most, ie a negligible amount.
‘When these “virtual” plates are separated, there need be no net flux between them. Why should the heat transfer equation require any gradient?’
The insulating properties of vacuum are not changed in this problem. So the rad heat transfer equation applies. If no temp gradient, then no energy flows between.
Yes?
Chic,
Consider this:
A plate in vacuum has no choice but to come to the temperature of its surroundings after a long time.
If the green plate is surrounded by space @ 3K, then it has no choice but to come to 3K.
If the green plate is surrounded by plates held at 244 K, then it has no choice but to be at 244K.
If the green plate is surrounded by a plate of 244K on one side and space at 3K on the other side, then what temperature does it attain?
244K? 3K? Or something in between?
‘J: The iron, soldering iron and hot pan are all examples of objects NOT in vacuum (so convection cooling is present when not touching) and are all examples where, when separated, the view factors between the objects are nowhere near 1. With view factors = 1, in a vacuum, there is no reason for radiation to be any less effective in heat transfer than conduction.’
Ok, so not in vacuum means that the cooling of objects to ambient temp will be faster. Still, in vacuum the objects separated will cool to the surrounding temp via radiation.
View factors: well the iron case is close to 1, if separated from the cloth by < 1 cm.
'there is no reason for radiation to be any less effective in heat transfer than conduction.'
That is an assertion, but not at all true. Radiation is governed by rad heat transfer eqn., conduction by conduction eqn. They give very different results.
Vacuum is not equivalent to metal in its ability to transfer heat.
Example if a 1 m thick sheet of copper, and 200 W/m^2 flowing through it, the temp difference across the sheet would be ~ 0.6 K.
If I have 1 m of vacuum and 200 W/m^2 flowing across it between 2 plates, the temp of one plate could be 244K and the other 3 K. A temp difference of 241 K.
If the two plates are copper and each 1 mm thick and brought into contact with 200 W/m^2 flowing thru. Then the temp difference is ~ 0.001 K.
Nate, do you ever stop waffling on about irrelevant nonsense?
J:’The blue plate, at 244 K, also continues to radiate 200 W/m^2, at equilibrium. It doesnt just stop radiating. The green receives that radiation. The blue continues to receive energy from the green, too, but that cant raise the temperature of the blue further, because all the energy that the green plate possesses came FROM the blue plate in the first place.’
This is describing exactly how we understand the radiative heat transfer equation. Both B and G are radiating, the equation gives the net flow. If both are radiating 200 W/m^2 toward each other, then the Net is 200-200 = 0. Good.
But what does that mean? It means NO net energy flow from Blue to Green.
‘ irrelevant nonsense?’
How can it be irrelevant when I was answering your points in your post? This is how discussion works.
You don’t want to discuss, fine. I’ll discuss with Chic.
Ill take that as a *no*.
Nate: talking about vacuum as if it is a substance = nonsense.
Talking about rates of cooling = irrelevant
Talking about temperatures of *surroundings* = irrelevant.
Explaining what is already understood about the net flux between blue and green being 0 = missing the point.
You just go on…and on…and on…and on…and on…and on…
Halp,
Obviously you have no interest in discussing, can’t cope with someone disagreeing with you, and just want to throw insults.
Then please go away.
Nate, you dont want a discussion, because the discussion has already been had. Its been had over literally hundreds if not thousands of comments, over at least three blogs, over the course of several months. Its been done.
What you want to do is bring up enough talking points (that have already been done to death) that the other person gets bored, you get to have the last word, and make it look as though you have *won*. That is literally all you people EVER want to do. That, and attack straw men, bring up irrelevant analogies, and waffle on enough that you make yourself feel important.
I CANT BE BOTHERED TO KEEP REPEATING MYSELF. Do you understand? It doesnt mean I am trying to avoid a discussion, like Im scared or something. It means THE DISCUSSION HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. You people seem to have the time to repeat yourselves over article after article after article. I dont. I am not that boring. Sorry.
Nate,
Conduction through a solid is Flux = K/h * (delta T). If h is infinitely thin you have a singularity. Likewise if K is infinite. So forget the hypothetical textbook problem assuming perfect conditions.
So a composite plate problem (where the plate can be separated later) becomes a case of T’ on the illuminated side and T” on the cold side. The temperature differential depends on the conductivity and thickness of the plates. So the problem becomes 400 = sigma (T’^4 + T”^4) for the radiation balance and K/h * (T’ – T”) = sigma(T”^4) for the heat flux through the plates equaling the heat radiated from the cold side.
I couldn’t solve it outright, but I found values of K/h for several realistic temperatures of the cold side. Starting at 220K, a K/h of 3.162 makes the warm side 262K. A cold side of 240 with a K/h value of 26 will make the warm side 247.2K. With a K/h of 1000000, the cold side will be 243.7K and the warm side 243.7002K.
Does splitting the plates change the results?
How about opening a new thread?
Chic,
Yes new thread.
Halp, Chic
Gbaikie wrote: “If Or make simpler whenever and wherever a 10′ pole [or 10″] casts 17′ [17″] shadow. One gets about 400 watts per square on clear day on Earth on level surface.”
This illustrates something you may not have considered. 1361 w/m^2 is only actually received by a very small area of the planet. The vast majority gets a lesser amount.
Only by AVERAGING FLUXES can we say that the equivalent of 1/4 of the earth gets 1361 w/m^2 from the sun.
Yeah, but atmosphere nor ocean, does not act as level surface ground.
No, thats definitely something I have considered.
(and, as far as I was aware, nobody was arguing that 1/4 of the Earth gets 1361 w/m^2 from the sun)
Gbaikie
That’s true. So not only is the 1/4 surface area (considered to absorb 1361 w/m^2) an average of various fluxes, it is also a hypothetical average that assumes a smooth surface.
Halp.
“The net flux between the 2 BB plates at the same temperature is 0 W/m^2, not 200 W/m^2.”
?? That means neither plate is gaining or losing any energy from the other.
It means the plates are at thermal equilibrium. Nevertheless energy is moving from the sun, to the blue plate, through the blue plate, to the green plate, through the green plate, then out to space.
P.S: None of the green plate experiment talk has ANYTHING to do with all that we have been discussing so far. So its kind of pointless getting into it really. You just brought up the green plate thought experiment for some reason so I thought I would link to an old comment about it.
Halp
“(and, as far as I was aware, nobody was arguing that 1/4 of the Earth gets 1361 w/m^2 from the sun)”
How much of the the earth’s surface/atmosphere do you think gets 1361 w/m^2? (Obviously a portion of that gets reflected rather than absorbed).
On the daylit hemisphere of the Earth, at any one moment, only the point directly under the sun receives the full intensity insolation. Only areas near the equator at midday are perpendicular to the path of incoming sunlight. Everywhere else is receiving the light at an angle, and its spread over progressively greater surface area as you go towards the poles.
Halp
“P.S: None of the green plate experiment talk has ANYTHING to do with all that we have been discussing so far. So its kind of pointless getting into it really.”
Ok. So I won’t ask why you think a plate with an energy gain from one side, and a zero net loss from the other, is able to maintain a steady temperature.
Or conversely, why you think a plate with no energy gain from one side, and a net loss from the other, is able to maintain a steady temperature.
Good, because that would be a silly question, indicating that you have completely misunderstood either my comment, or E-Lies thought experiment (which is assuming perfectly conducting, perfectly absorbing/emitting materials).
Halp
“On the daylit hemisphere of the Earth, at any one moment, only the point directly under the sun receives the full intensity insolation.”
Of course, I guess I was a little vague. I wanted to know how many square meters you think absorb the full intensity of solar insolation?
Im not sure of the exact number. I have tried researching it for you (no need to thank me) but to no avail so far. Obviously when estimating what insolation the Earth receives as a sphere they start by treating the Earth as a flat disk in space with the same diameter as the Earth and imagine that every metre squared of that disk receives the full 1360 or so w/m^2. So that may be where you are getting your 1/4 of the Earths surface area from, since the surface area of a disk with the same diameter as a sphere is 1/4 that of the sphere. But I dont think anyone arguing here is unaware that the next step is to divide that flux by 2 in order to account for the curvature of the Earth on the hemisphere that receives the energy. Then they decide that since the Earth rotates, they can divide by 2 again to average the insolation over the entire Earths surface area, as if the sun illuminated all of the Earths surface area at once, which it of course doesnt, in reality.
But what exact amount of the Earths surface *in reality* absorbs the full insolation from the sun at any one moment in time, Im not sure.
Halp
Also, just to be clear. If I told you a cube absorbed 960 w/m^2, and that the cube measured one square meter per side, you don’t think it’s possible to calculate the total watts the cube absorbs? Not enough information?
Why ask a question that has already been answered? Your cube absorbs 960 watts as already discussed. Your cube doesnt rotate, and you are clear that only one side receives all the energy. No complications. What are you just being clear about? Snape, why do you always argue by just endlessly asking questions, and assuming that everyone understands where you are going with these questions? Why not, if you have a point, just make the point?
“If I told you a cube absorbed 960 w/m^2, and that the cube measured one square meter per side, you dont think its possible to calculate the total watts the cube absorbs? Not enough information?”
If cube is cold, and absorbing 960 watts it warm up [absorb energy] until it warm enough to emits more energy from the other 5 sides.
If cube is water, it would have mass of 1 ton. Rock could be 2 to 6 tons, copper is 8.96 tonnes, gold is 19.32 tonnes, depleted uranium
is 19.1 tons, lead is 11.34 tonnes.
Of course is not just mass each have specific heat per say 1 kg of mass, water is 4.18 joules per gram per degree, gold is 0.129 joules per gram, granite is .790 joules per gram and density is 2750 kg per cubic meter.
Meter cube water is 1 million grams: 4.18 million joules to heat up 1 K. Meter Cube of granite 2.5 million grams and 1.975 million joules to heat up by 1 K.
And absorbing 960 watts is 960 joules of heat added per second.
Copper specific heat is 0.385 J/g/k
8.96 times 0.385 is 3.4496 million joules to warm copper at 0 C to 1 C. Copper also good conductor of heat.
So 3.4496 million / 960 is 3593.3 seconds [an hour is 3600 seconds] require about 1 hour from 960 watts to warm up by 1 K.
Now if had 1 meter square of copper which was 1 mm thick, it takes 1/1000th of hour to warm up by 1 C, or about 3-4 seconds.
And if had on top of cube separated by 1 mm of vacuum, and cube was 0 C, the copper sheet would warm up pretty quick, in about minute it would pretty warm and the cube would still be about 0 C.
And one make sheet contact the cube, the sheet cool with the 960 watts shining on it, because it would conduct more heat to cube than energy it receives.
If don’t make contact to cube, the sheet within in few minutes would reach near it’s equilbrium temperature, and not absorb 960 watts, but if emitting towards cube 960 Watts and cube is absorbing 960 watts, it would absorb 960 watts [and would do that in theory if one were using ideal blackbody surfaces].
But as I was saying if one cube side absorbs 960 watts and cube isn’t getting warmer, then the 5 other sides in total would emit 960 watts [not 6 sides].
Or say cube was copper or something more conductive [or transparent so radiant energy passes thru rather than heat conducting thru it]
And insulate the 4 sides and have blackbody surface opposite side of heated cube, eventually back side of cube would warm so it emitted 960 watts.
And remove the insulation on 4 sides, they then radiate energy and back side radiates less
Snape,
“Only by AVERAGING FLUXES can we say that the equivalent of 1/4 of the earth gets 1361 w/m^2 from the sun.”
You can average incoming fluxes from a common source over well-defined areas and geometry, but to what end? You cannot use the average fluxes to calculate any temperatures from the SB equation without knowing initial temperatures, heat capacities, rotation of the planet, etc.
Halp
“Why ask a question that has already been answered? Your cube absorbs 960 watts as already discussed.”
It was meant to be a new question. Restated: What if I told you a cube absorbed 960 w/m^2, measured one square meter per side, and that was the ONLY INFORMATION PROVIDED (i.e., you wouldn’t know how many sides are receiving a flux).
Given the limited info, do you think it would be possible to calculate the total watts the cube absorbs?
No. You need to know the total surface area over which the flux is received. Because if it was received over only 1 side that would be 960 watts total, if it was received over 2 sides that would be 1920 watts total, over 3 sides 2880 watts total etc etc.
Chic,
“Only by AVERAGING FLUXES can we say that the equivalent of 1/4 of the earth gets 1361 w/m^2 from the sun.”
This is just an observation, but something to think about given the discussion we’ve been having.
Snape,
“This is just an observation, but something to think about given the discussion we’ve been having.”
The problem of thinking about it that way is those average numbers show up on energy budgets and people start thinking the numbers mean things they don’t.
I observe it as half of an earth-sized black body getting an average of 680 W/m2 all the time. The true observation is that only one spot at a time gets the full 1361 or so W/m2. The rest of the illuminated surface would get something between that and zero.
C: I observe it as half of an earth-sized black body getting an average of 680 W/m2 all the time
J: Me too. I tried to explain that to Norman, further up, but he didnt like it.
Good morning, Halp
“No. You need to know the total surface area over which the flux is received.”
Thanks. That was the answer I expected. I disagree, but am tired of arguing about it.
(“A cube absorbs 960/m^2” means it absorbs 960 watts from each square meter of its surface area.
Additional information is therefore not needed.)
Likewise, “one side of a cube absorbs 960 w/m^2” means:
One side of the cube absorbs 960 watts from each square meter of its surface area.
Halp
“But what exact amount of the Earths surface *in reality* absorbs the full insolation from the sun at any one moment in time, Im not sure.”
The 1361 watts is meaningless if we don’t the surface area it falls upon.
OK. Opinions noted. Was there anything else?
J Halp-less,
Just so we all are on the same page, if the 960 W/m2 source radiation is far away like the sun, 960 W total will be absorbed no matter how the 1 cubic meter cube is situated. Agree?
If you mean the 960 W/m^2 is like the *solar constant* for the cube as approx. 1361 W/m^2 is for the Earth…then yes.
Yes, that’s what I meant.
Halp
I’m left wondering if you agree with this:
“Likewise, “one side of a cube absorbs 960 w/m^2″ means:
One side of the cube absorbs 960 watts from each square meter of its surface area.”
J: And I am left wondering if you realise that this:
S: (A cube absorbs 960 w/m^2 means it absorbs 960 watts from each square meter of its surface area. Additional information is therefore not needed.)
J: Would be a strange way to talk about irradiance. Do you suppose there are many celestial objects that are irradiated over their entire surface area at once?
I think it might make more sense for *a cube absorbs 960 w/m^2* to mean that a cube absorbs 960 w/m^2 over whatever surface area is irradiated.
Halp
Does it make more sense for *one side of a cube absorbs 960 w/m^2* to mean that one side absorbs 960 w/m^2 over whatever surface area is irradiated upon that side?
Does it make more sense than what?
Snape,
With respect, something doesn’t seem right. Either you are totally confused or playing some silly troll game. All this discussion of YOUR thought experiments and you don’t seem to grasp the most basic understanding of the principles involved.
Chic
I’m not playing a troll game, so you need to be more specific. What is it you think I’m confused about?
Halp, “Does it make more sense than what?”
You wrote,
“I think it might make more sense for *a cube absorbs 960 w/m^2* to mean that a cube absorbs 960 w/m^2 over whatever surface area is irradiated.”
I just changed the subject of your sentence from a cube, to “one side of a cube”. Didn’t you notice?
*******
To say “one side of a cube” absorbs 960 w/m^2 means that the object in question absorbs 960 watts from each square meter of its surface area.
Similarly, to say, “a cube” absorbs 960 w/m^2 means that the object in question absorbs 960 watts from each square meter of its surface area.
S: I just changed the subject of your sentence from a cube, to one side of a cube. Didnt you notice?
J: Yes.
Halp, Chic
If gas costs $3.49/gallon, how much would ten gallons cost?
Using Halp’s logic, he would want more information and ask, “how many of those gallons actually costs $3.49?
I would tell him, “$3.49/gallon, by definition, means every gallon costs $3.49. You have all the information you need!
*rolls eyes*
I’m done playing.
Chic: meet the real Snape. Hasnt got a clue about even the basics, but just likes to wind people up, endlessly.
If a one meter high cube absorbs 960 w/m^2, what is the total power absorbed by the cube?
Halp’s logic: “I need more information. How much of the cube’s surface area actually absorbs 960 w/m^2?.
I would tell him, If the cube absorbs 960 w/m^2, then by definition, each square meter of the cube’s surface area absorbs 960 watts. You have all the information you need!
Definitely just trolling now.
If one gallon of gas cost $3.49, and the other nine were free, then it would be incorrect to say the price of gas is $3.49/gallon. Basic stuff, Halp.
Yes, basic stuff. And nothing to do with irradiance, which is the power over the surface area receiving said power.
Halp
The price of gas is expressed as a rate. Irradiance is expressed as a rate.
What is a rate and how is a rate properly expressed? That’s a basic concept that applies to both examples.
Irradiance isnt a rate. Power is a rate (joules per second). Just another thing you are wrong about.
If you say a surface, with an area of 6 square meters, receives an irradiance of 960 w/m^2, it means the entire 6 m^2 gets that rate.
Again, basic stuff.
S: Again, basic stuff.
J: And not a point I would be arguing against. Youve told me the irradiance, and the total surface area its falling across. Then, you can calculate the total power received. No problems.
Halp
If irradiance is not a rate, it is certainly expressed as one, which is what I claimed.
“In radiometry, irradiance is the radiant flux received by a surface per unit area. The SI unit of irradiance is the watt per square metre.”
Its not a rate and its not expressed as a rate.
Snape, is there any point talking to you about anything?
Halp
You don’t think irradiance is expressed as a rate, given the above definition? Wow.
I really should have taken Mark Twain’s advice.
OK, let me put it this way: its not expressed as a rate to those who are aware that a watt is a joule per second. I guess there are always idiots,..
Chic,
Yes, if I use k for copper or silver it is 400 in metric units, and if h = 1 mm = 10^-3 m than k/h = 4×10^5.
What does that give for your calculated temp diff?
With K/h = 400,000 I get 243.7040K for the cold side and 243.7045K for the illuminated side. Assuming your units are correct, a thin pair of copper or silver plates will be close to uniform temperature. Now what will happen when they are separated?
When the plates are pressed together, *back-conduction* does not cause the blue plate to raise in temperature to approx. 260 K, whilst lowering the green to approx. 220 K. So when the plates are separated, there is no reason to believe that *back-radiation* will achieve that feat, either. Its that simple.
With *real* view factors between green and blue, the further away you move the green plate, the colder it will get, as more energy from the blue is lost to space past the top or bottom of the green plate. But, there is no reason to believe the blue plate will warm.
And, in E-Lies thought experiment (with infinite plates) the view factors between the plates do NOT drop below 1, no matter how far away you move the green plate from the blue.
J Halp-less,
Forget view factors. You have to consider the possibility of the plates being so close without touching so view factors do no affect the result significantly.
I created a spread sheet to calculate the temperatures of both sides of plates illuminated on one side by 400 W/m2 and radiating to 0K on the other. I calculated results for both combined and separated plate conditions. With highly conductive materials (such as Nate’s value of K/h value of 400,000) which I have been calling superconductors, the combined plates will have a temperature of about 243.7K with only slightly different temperatures on their exposed sides.
When the plates are separated, the temperatures go to 262 and 220 roughly with little difference between their right and left sides. There must be a temperature difference between the inside surfaces otherwise there can be no net flux from hot to cold.
I checked my calculations to make sure the flux through every interface was the same in all scenarios. Try calculating it for yourself. I can’t see any other way around it.
Oh sorry. You had convinced me you were a genuine commenter. Never mind.
Are you going to throw a tantrum now?
No, not at all. But nice to see your true colours.
“When the plates are pressed together, *back-conduction* does not cause the blue plate to raise in temperature to approx. 260 K, whilst lowering the green to approx. 220 K. So when the plates are separated, there is no reason to believe that *back-radiation* will achieve that feat, either. Its that simple.”
Actually it is not that simple. When a superconducting plate is being warmed by 400 W/m2, its temperature is 243.7K. As a cold object comes between it and 0K, the plate warms to about 262K. If the cold superconductor is pressed against it, the warm plate cools back to about 244K. I agree it seems odd. But that is what the calculations reveal. The only other challenge would be to do a Swanson like GPE and show otherwise.
C: I agree it seems odd.
J: Or, completely ludicrous.
C: But that is what the calculations reveal.
J: Why do 1LoT calculations for each plate? Why not for the 2-plate system as a whole? In which case with the blue and green plate at the same temperature, you still have 400 W entering, and 400 W leaving (200 W from the blue facing the sun, and 200 W from the green facing space). There is no overall violation of 1LoT. Plus that way you are properly taking into account heat flow.
I did the calculations for both cases. When combined, the plates are at 244K radiating 200 W/m2. If you separate them, the only solution I can see is one plate at 262K and the other at 220K. I’ll have another look at Postma’s calculations now that I have done my own and look for any discrepancies.
Chic, youre not listening. Im not talking about calculations for the plates together, vs. separate. Im aware you did those. Im saying, if you consider *both* the plates, together, as a system (with the plates separated), if they are both at the same temperature (244 K), then the total output from the two-plate system is 400 W, and the total input to the two plate system is 400 W. 400 W comes in, from the sun. 200 W leaves the system to the left, from the blue plate at 244 K. 200 W leaves the system to the right, from the green plate at 244 K.
With E-Lies/Nates/your calculations, you also have 400 W coming into the 2-plate system, and 400 W leaving. With your calculations, you have 400 W coming in from the sun, 267 W leaving to the left from the blue plate at 262 K, and 133 W leaving from the green plate to the right at 220 K.
My point was to ask why you think it is necessary that each plate must individually satisfy some 1LoT calculation, when overall, in both Postmas and your own solutions, energy is conserved overall. 400 W in/400 W out in both cases.
‘Why not for the 2-plate system as a whole? In which case with the blue and green plate at the same temperature, you still have 400 W entering, and 400 W leaving (200 W from the blue facing the sun, and 200 W from the green facing space). There is no overall violation of 1LoT. Plus that way you are properly taking into account heat flow.’
If I may interject, there are many ways for the 400 W to be divided up to leave the system, all giving different temperatures. Clearly there can only be one correct solution for the temperatures.
What distinguishes that correct one from the others is the requirement that 1 LOT be satisfied for every separate body.
It is just a statement of energy conservation for a body. If a body’s temperature (+ mass, volume) is constant, it can be neither gaining or losing energy.
N: It is just a statement of energy conservation for a body. If a bodys temperature (+ mass, volume) is constant, it can be neither gaining or losing energy.
J: What exactly is it that you believe prevents your blue plate at 262 K from warming your green plate at 220 K, so that the temperatures become an even 244 K each? Surely *that* is the most constant state for the bodies, when net flux between them is 0 W/m^2, and 400 W in still balances 400 W out, as you agree?
(I decided I would just keep repeating myself again. Why not!? I wont be bothering ever again after this)
‘Surely *that* is the most constant state for the bodies, when net flux between them is 0 W/m^2’
It may seem correct, but there is no law that requires the net flux to be 0.
There is, as I explained, a requirement of 1LOT for each body.
Yes, it does seem correct, doesnt it? It also seems like having two plates be the same temperature when pressed together, yet magically one increases whilst the other decreases in temperature when separating them by some minuscule amount, is absolutely RIDICULOUS.
If only there was some set of arguments somewhere out there, which could make sense of this incredibly difficult conundrum…
…oh God…where could they be!?
Nobody has EVER linked to them before…or explained them in painstaking detail many, many times…its the biggest mystery that humanity has EVER had to try to unravel…
J Halp-less,
“Chic, you’re not listening.”
I’m trying hard to.
“…if you consider *both* the plates, together, as a system (with the plates separated), if they are both at the same temperature (244 K)…”
They can’t be at the same temperature. There will be a gradient from hot to cold through the plates. Until you accept that, you are working with an imaginary situation.
“My point was to ask why you think it is necessary that each plate must individually satisfy some 1LoT calculation, when overall, in both Postma’s and your own solutions, energy is conserved overall.”
Are you suggesting that both solutions would be correct? They might both be wrong, but there can only be one real solution to the problem. I say let it go. Move on or do an experiment that proves one way or another.
Chic, now:
They cant be at the same temperature. There will be a gradient from hot to cold through the plates. Until you accept that, you are working with an imaginary situation.
Chic, earlier:
When these virtual plates are separated, there need be no net flux between them. Why should the heat transfer equation require any gradient? The corresponding virtual conduction equation didnt need it either.
C: Are you suggesting that both solutions would be correct?
J: No, you really arent listening are you? And yes, we ARE working with an imaginary situation, its a thought experiment. But if you want your gradient from hot to cold through the plates, then:
C: With K/h = 400,000 I get 243.7040K for the cold side and 243.7045K for the illuminated side. Assuming your units are correct, a thin pair of copper or silver plates will be close to uniform temperature.
J: There it is.
Going back to these comments:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-312026
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-312030
Replace *both at the same temperature* with *both at virtually the same temperature* if you need to.
‘If only there was some set of arguments somewhere out there, which could make sense of this incredibly difficult conundrum’
Indeed, there are plenty.
Aside from the quantitative solution, which is the standard way of solving such problems. You wouldn’t want engineers to solve heat transfer problems by guessing, would you?
Many qualitative arguments have also been made about this.
A plate in the shade should not come to the same temp as a plate in the sun, for example.
The green, being between cold and hot, settles somewhere in between.
J at 4:53 am: “Chic, earlier”
You took my comment out of context. Here is what I actually wrote:
The problem is definitely the superconductor assumption. Before the plates are separated, there is no net flow between the plates. There is no temperature gradient through the plates. They are at the same temperature. It is unreal, because no real material can be radiated on one side and have the same temperature on the unradiated side. When these virtual plates are separated, there need be no net flux between them. Why should the heat transfer equation require any gradient? The corresponding virtual conduction equation didnt need it either.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-311820
So pardon me while I toot my own horn, but I correctly analysed the “conundrum” and then proceeded to illustrate by real examples that if the plate materials have any finite conductivities, there will be net flux from hot to cold. Assuming infinite conductivities is the problem here.
J Halpless at 5:48 am:
“Going back to these comments”
In the link I just showed, This is my last paragraph:
“The superconductor condition makes this problem identical to a problem where the heat source originates between the plates. Then whether separated or not the same virtual equations can be used to come up with the same virtually unreal solutions.”
Replacing “both at the same temperature” with “both at virtually the same temperature” won’t change the fact that being at the same temperature means there is no temperature difference between their sides. Therefore the power source coming from one side is the same as if it originated inside the virtually perfect conductors. This is a purely unreal virtual construction where you can now separate the plates and come up with them remaining at the same temperatures radiating the same from both exposed sides and no net flux between them. [Twilight zone theme fades in….]
The phrase virtually at the same temperature does not mean the two plates are at the same temperature. Think, slightly different temperature. I think you have misunderstood Halp.
Possibly. Virtually can mean almost, but another connotation is unreal, as in a mental construct. See my response to your other comment on whether I misunderstood Halp or not.
I would say it is very likely you are mistaking his use of the word virtual in this context. If you look at his question to gbaikie, for instance, he asks if the plates when separated would remain at roughly the same temperature. He also brought up to you your calculated temperatures of 243.7040K for the cold side and 243.7045K for the illuminated side, and said, there is your gradient from hot to cold. I think he means given that there is only a very slight temperature difference between sides, you can treat the two plates as being at very slightly different temperatures when separated, if that helps. Rather than being the exact same temperature.
“I think he means given that there is only a very slight temperature difference between sides, you can treat the two plates as being at very slightly different temperatures when separated, if that helps.”
I will not psychoanalyse what’s in Halp’s mind. I explained the model I was calculating the results for using standard physics. If you don’t understand the problem I described, then explain what you aren’t getting.
The 243.7045 and 243.7045 were calculated for any plate or two plates together which have a conductivity of 400,000 radiated by 400 W/m2 from a far away source on one side and the other side radiating to 0K. Can you confirm those calculations yourself or do you want me to spell it out for you?
When the plates are separated, their temperatures are roughly 262K and 220K.
Oops, the illuminated side is 243.7045K and the cold side 243.7040K.
I am just explaining to you that you misunderstood what Halp was saying. By virtually the same temperature he meant, treat the plates as being slightly different temperatures, when separated. Then, you keep your temperature gradient through the plates. There is also no violation of the first law of thermodynamics overall, when looking at the two plates as a system, since you have 400 W coming in, and 400 W leaving.
Are you the ghost of Halp, his virtual shrink, or his imaginary friend?
So have thin plate of highly conductive material such as copper and I assume they are coated so the surfaces behave as blackbody surface.
And energy absorbed from surface facing the sun is absorb and conducted to back side of plate and is emitted as blackbody.
And there is little difference in temperature of side facing the sun and side not facing sun.
We having surfaces coated with a blackbody surface to make it “simpler”. Layers of reflective material are used in space as insulation. And layers blackbody surfaces in space would be poor insulation. And blackbody surface emit the most amount of energy.
So if had plate with one side being reflective surface and other a blackbody surface one gets different results depending on which side is facing the sun.
And plates reflective on both side, separated by vacuum and say have 4 of such plate will result in a small amount energy emitted by the back plate. Whereas if they were 4 plates which had blackbody surface, one would not get much reduction of energy emitted by the back plate. Though with space insulation it tends to be 7 layers of sandwiched reflective material. And if one cooling, Ie having radiator, it of material which emits most energy- blackbody surface.
So have blackbody plate. And say sunlight of 1360 Watts per square meter. Facing the sun it will absorb 1360 watts, and it will be emitting 1360 watts.
Now if didn’t want the plate to absorb energy, if you insulate back of plate, the plate will warm to 120 C and not warm to higher temperature- it will absorb more energy and temperature will remain a constant temperature.
And if removed the insulation from the back, the back of plate will emit 1360 watts, and the front plate will absorb 1360 watts.
If had two plates with insulation on back, you can also not have the plate absorb energy from the sun, and both will be 120 C.
And the issue is the vacuum between plates does not transfer as much energy as copper would, yes?
I would say as general rule, the hotter something is the better it can transfer energy via radiation [as compared to copper].
And copper or any material conducts more energy with the difference of temperature between material. And any material has heat gradient and when the material is thicker, this heat gradient inhibits the conductive transfer of heat.
So have two very, very thin copper plates of identical size in space (say 10 m/2) pressed together with the sun illuminating one side of one of the copper plates. Both sides of the plates are coated with a blackbody surface. Pressed together, they come to near enough the same temperature. When separated so now there is say a 1 cm vacuum gap between the two plates, does the temperature of the plate nearest the sun increase significantly whilst the temperature of the plate furthest from the sun decreases significantly? Or do the plates remain at roughly the same temperature?
Assuming a blackbody surface is very close to ideal blackbody surface AND conducts heat as well as copper, I would guess is roughly the same temperature.
But I would be more certain of it’s closeness, with higher amounts of energy [1360 watts square meter of direct sunlight seems to me that is high enough energy {or intense enough} to be more confident].
Or we know [or assume] sunlight is 1360 watts as this energy can be absorbed and amount of absorbed energy has been measured [the absorbed energy can do work- or for example we say PV panel is 20% efficient- and that is compared a 100% which considered theoretically possible in terms of amount work one could possibly do with the sunlight [by any possible/conceivable way].
Ok, sounds good.
When plates separated, 1LOT must be satisfied for each plate.
So
Flux in – Flux out = 0. Flux from blue Fb, from green, Fg.
Green plate 1LOT:
Fb – 2Fg = 0
Fg = .5*Fb
Blue plate 1LOT
400-2Fb + Fg = 0 replace Fg with 0.5Fb
400 – 1.5Fb =0
Fb = 400/1.5 = 267
Fg = 133
all are W/m^2
Use SB law to find temps.
Tb = 262 K
Tg = 220 K
Make sense?
Yes, that seems to be the case for the problem we have been discussing. The average temperature of the plates drops only slightly until the K/h goes less than 100.
Chic, you agree that the blue plate raises in temperature from 244 K to 262 K, and the green drops from 244 K to 220 K, just by virtue of being separated by, say, 1 cm of vacuum?
Chic?
That’s what I’m getting when I work out the problem with the correct equations. Do you agree with the equations being applied in this current iteration of the problem?
There is more I plan to do with alternative models and re-reading your arguments. Be patient. I’ve only be working on this a few days compared to your how many?
Nate, your error begins here (then is carried throughout):
Fb 2Fg = 0
Fg = .5*Fb
As explained here:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2017/10/06/slayers-vindicated-by-additional-independent-researchers/#comment-31395
WordPress rejected the minus sign between Fb and 2Fg.
Plus you have the back-radiation from the green plate as an input to the blue. Which is wrong as also explained in the linked comment.
I don’t see anything leaping out at me, and am not going to go hunting for it.
What, in your words, is wrong with my basic statement of 1LOT?
Nate I already told you that Im not interested in repeating myself. I only chuck a quick couple of comments in to make sure Chic hears both sides of the argument (since you have decided to repeat yours mathematically from the complete beginning, using your classic *goldfish memory* tactics).
You can conclude what you wish from that.
Obviously, as usual, you cannot explain what is wrong. Just as I thought.
Then pls go away.
Ive already explained what is wrong, dozens of times. You are SO dishonest. For crying out loud, all anyone needs to do is click on the comment.
Postma makes several mistakes. Since he’s not here I can’t debate him.
But a big one is violation of 1LOT for the green plate. He has F(blue to green) = 0, but F(green to space) = 200.
Green plate net Flux:
= input -output = -200 W/m^2 not zero as required.
1LOT fail.
N: Postma makes several mistakes. Since hes not here I cant debate him
J: But you will take the opportunity to continuously and creatively *misunderstand* his arguments.
Halp
This question doesn’t make sense. (Did Postma come up with it?)
“Chic, you agree that the blue plate raises in temperature from 244 K to 262 K, and the green drops from 244 K to 220 K, just by virtue of being separated by, say, 1 cm of vacuum?”
We know the temperature of the plates when they are separated , but we don’t know what temperature they would be if pressed together. Eli didn’t want to mess with calculating for convection.
In other words, when pressed together, the blue plate might still be 262 K and the green plate might still be 220 K. We don’t know.
Well argue that out with Chic and Nate. They calculate that pressed together, the plates will be close enough to the same temperature.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-311893
Chic: With K/h = 400,000 I get 243.7040K for the cold side and 243.7045K for the illuminated side. Assuming your units are correct, a thin pair of copper or silver plates will be close to uniform temperature. Now what will happen when they are separated?
Nate (July 13, 2018: 9:29 am): OK, sounds good.
J: Snape, get it into your head. As a I told you, they genuinely believe that pressed together the plates (real plates) would be close to uniform temperature. Then, separated by even 1cm of vacuum, they think that the blue plate will raise in temperature to 262 K, and the green plate will lower to 220 K. So my question *does* make sense. Gbaikies answer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-312008
Conduction, not convection.
Well, thats it from Halp-less the Troll. You will never hear from me again, so I expect that will be a relief. I do go on.
Halp
Nate and Chic had to come up with a special situation to give that result……..extremely thin plates made of highly conducive material.
Chic: ” I calculated results for both combined and separated plate conditions. With highly conductive materials (such as Nates value of K/h value of 400,000) which I have been calling superconductors, the combined plates will have a temperature of about 243.7K with only slightly different temperatures on their exposed sides.”
What about thick plates made of a poorly conducting material? They might end up a similar temperature together as when separated. (Although a gradient would be running through each plate so T would have to be an average from one side to the other)
Your question is interesting and does in fact make sense, so I take back what I said. It just complicates a situation that Eli wanted to keep simple.
Snape,
Halp’s question makes a lot of sense. I intuitively thought splitting the plates would make no difference in the temperatures. The problem with that is there would be a discontinuity in the net flux through the plates. The energy cannot accumulate or deplete at the interface as would be the case if there was net flux through the plates but no net flux between them.
I calculated results for poorly conducting materials combined and separated receiving 400 W/m2 on one side and radiating to 0K on the other side.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-311875
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-311978
The approximate temperatures of the sides of plates with conductivity of only 3.162 are hot left, 274K; hot right, 248K; cold left, 220K; cold right, 195K.
Chic
I’m not sure I understand what you are arguing about.
You could find a material/thickness where, when the two plates are brought together, the right side of the green plate would be almost the same temperature as the left side of the blue. An example would be if they were made of very thin copper. Separated, however, those sides would have very different temperatures.
If the plates were made of thick cuts of wood, then when brought together, the right side of the green would be much colder than the left side of the blue. The situation would be similar they were separated.
Halp’s question was too generic. It didn’t take into account the different outcomes depending on material and thickness.
Am I misunderstanding something?
Snape,
First of all, I have been back and forth with Nate and J Halp-less for several days now and you should review those comments if the model isn’t clear to you. Make sure you are familiar with the gist of the conversation from this link to the end of the thread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-311881
Second, I can’t tell from your description whether you are positioning the green to the left or to the right of the blue plate. Please advise.
Chic
I’ve followed the argument for a long time, get the gist.
I was going by Eli’s diagram, where the left side of the blue plate faces the sun, and the right side of the green plate faces space.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?m=1
As already mentioned, if the plates were thick slabs of wood, I think the left side of the blue (faces the sun) would be much warmer than the right side of the green (faces space). This would be true whether the two plates are pressed together or separated.
My calculations confirm your descriptions of the situations for both good and bad conductors. Have a virtual cold one on me.
Thanks!
With respect, I think you are missing the point of Halps question. With bad conductors, you seem to think that separated they will not change in temperature. With good conductors, you think they will change in temperature when separated. Why does the temperature difference between the bad conductors not further increase when separated, given that you believe with good conductors the temperatures will change when separated.
Bringing up bad conductors is a bit of a distraction from the point, when Elis thought experiment was always based around good or perfect conductors in the first place.
Corrigendum,
I made great pains to explain the difference between perfect and real conductors. I don’t think that was the misunderstanding between Halp and I. Perhaps I don’t understand what you think the point of Halp’s question is. Please enlighten me.
The only way that a plate or a pair of joined plates radiated on only one side can be at uniform temperature throughout is for the plate materials to be perfect conductors. This doesn’t exist in the universe. Anything can happen in an imaginary world and Halp imagines no difference in plate temperatures when separated. By applying heat transfer equations, I imagine their would be a gradient between the plates. You make the imaginary call.
“Why does the temperature difference between the bad conductors not further increase when separated, given that you believe with good conductors the temperatures will change when separated.”
The temperature difference between the inside surfaces of bad conductors DOES increase when separated. However, approaching infinite insulation, the inside temperatures will tend toward being the same.
By actually applying heat transfer equations and actual conductivites to the problem, one can see the difference between highly conductive and poorly conductive plates. Snape summarized the differences correctly. With difficulty, I could explain how to set up a spreadsheet so you can see for yourself how the temperatures change as conductivity decreases.
Eli has no patent on the problem, so no need to limit the discussion to impossible-to-replicate imaginary scenarios.
The calculations Nate used to get 262 K for the blue plate and 220 K for the green are not heat transfer equations. Only Postmas solution actually utilises the radiative heat transfer equation.
Corrig,
I said this ‘Use SB law to find temps.’
Hence the solution satisfies the radiative heat transfer equation, which is of course built upon the SB law.
Postma’s solution does not satisfy the first-law of thermodynamics (1LOT).
He has the green plate emitting energy at a NET rate of 200 W/m^2. Yet its temperature is constant.
An epic 1LOT fail.
The calculations you used to get 262 K for the blue plate and 220 K for the green are not heat transfer equations. Only Postmas solution actually utilises the radiative heat transfer equation.
I did use heat transfer equations to get the same result as Nate. It looks like I will have to spoon feed them to you since you prefer another’s results rather than working it out yourself. But not tonight.
If you had made any heat transfer calculations, you would have shared them already.
And, if you are going to now calculate heat transfer, you will not be wanting to do it as you indicate earlier:
So the problem becomes 400 = sigma (T^4 + T^4) for the radiation balance.
Firstly, it should be a minus sign inbetween the two T terms. Secondly, you have replaced Q with 400. Q is not the incoming energy source, Q is the heat flow between the terms.
I am not sure why the apostrophes for the T terms did not show. Anyway, you get the picture.
‘Only Postma’s solution yada yada’
Postma makes ‘An epic 1LOT fail’
‘Only Postma’s solution yada yada’
A Halp giveaway, Halp.
Looking at plates with poor conductivity is a red herring. In my opinion, the point of his question is to show the absurdity of Elis position. It just doesnt make any sense to think that pressed together, the plates would be at roughly the same temperature, yet separated by only 1cm of vacuum, one would raise in temperature whilst the other lowered. He is just saying: clearly this cannot be the correct solution.
It doesnt matter if you use imaginary perfectly conducting materials or use real but highly conductive materials like copper, the temperature difference between the plates is not going to be significant when pressed together. Why should it be, when separated by 1cm of vacuum?
As I explained previously, assuming infinite conductivity makes a heat transfer equation impossible to apply. Heat flux through a plate is K/h * (T’ – T”). If K is infinite or h is zero, there is no solution. The flux can be anything you want it to be.
So it does matter what the conductivities and thicknesses of the materials are.
You can do all the imaginary experiments you want. Knock yourself out. It won’t mean anything to me.
There is no requirement to use real conductivities, for a simple thought experiment.
Corrigendum
“Why should it be, when separated by 1cm of vacuum”
Because energy cannot be conducted through a vacuum, even a very narrow one. Your question/logic is analogous to:
“how come if I touch an electric fence I get shocked, but if I move my finger 1cm away I don’t? It’s absurd to think such a small distance should make any difference.”
Snape, nobody is arguing that energy can be conducted through a vacuum. It is radiated.
Perhaps a better way to phrase the question would be:
Why would a switch from energy transfer via conduction to energy transfer via radiation result in the increase in temperature of the blue plate from approx. 244K, to 262 K, and a decrease in temperature of the green plate from approx. 244 K, to 220 K?
Conduction in metal is orders of magnitude more effective at transferring heat than radiation in this setup.
See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/06/antarctic-ice-sheet-collapses-nobel-prizes-and-the-psychology-of-catastrophism/#comment-311807
Why would a switch from energy transfer via conduction to energy transfer via radiation result in the increase in temperature of the blue plate from approx. 244K, to 262 K, and a decrease in temperature of the green plate from approx. 244 K, to 220 K?
Asked and answered, Halp.
Just here to troll?
Then go away for real.
Why would a switch from energy transfer via conduction to energy transfer via radiation result in the increase in temperature of the blue plate from approx. 244K, to 262 K, and a decrease in temperature of the green plate from approx. 244 K, to 220 K?
Using intuition, I had the same question. It didn’t seem logical. But if you use the standard equations, you will find those numbers correct.
With one plate both sides are radiating to 0K and there isn’t much difference in the temperature because the conductivity is so high. With poor conductors the temperature gradient will be greater.
With two plates, there must be heat flux through each plate and the space between and it has to be the same flux for all three.
Why would double pane windows be used if the insulation provided by the space between the panes wasn’t better than for a single pane?
And with barely any flux through each plate, as you have calculated, there need be barely any flux between the plates.
Corrigendum
You could narrow the question down even more, “given the same input and materials, why would heat transfer via radiation produce different temperatures than heat transfer via conduction?”
I don’t have an answer, but it shouldn’t be hard to look up.
You misunderstand. Again, the point of the question is to show the absurdity of Elis position.
Corrigendum
Lots of things seem absurd if you don’t understand what’s going on.
It seems there are a few of you getting quite defensive about this. Not sure of the reason for the hostility.
Any yet Corrig is immediately defensive and hostile with me.
Another Halp tell.
Where have I been defensive or hostile?
Not fooling anyone, Halp. Very mature…
“Why would a switch from energy transfer via conduction to energy transfer via radiation result in the increase in temperature of the blue plate from approx. 244K, to 262 K, and a decrease in temperature of the green plate from approx. 244 K, to 220 K?”
*********
Because, If each plate when pressed together is ~ 244 K, and we move them apart:
The blue plate would absorb 400 w/m^2 from the sun and 200 w/m^2 from the left side of the green. It would only emit a total of 400 w/m^2.
That imbalance would force the plate to warm.
Likewise, the green plate would emit a total of 400 w/m^2, but would only absorb 200 w/m^2 (from the blue).
That imbalance would force the plate to cool.
Each plate being at 244 K, means they each emit 200 w/m^2 total.
Considering the two plates as a system, 400 W/m^2 is received from the sun, 200 W/m^2 leaves to the left of the blue plate, and 200 W/m^2 to the right of the green. Energy in is equal to energy out. No need for either plate to warm, or cool.
My recent post was sloppy. The energy fluxes need to be applied to the surfaces they fall upon, not to the whole plate:
“Because, If each plate when pressed together is ~ 244 K, and we move them apart:
The left side of the blue plate would absorb 400 w/m^2 from the sun and the right side of the blue plate would absorb 200 w/m^2 from the green plate. The blue plate would only emit a total of 400 watts (200 w/m^2 from each side).
That imbalance would force the plate to warm.
Likewise, the green plate would emit a total of 400 watts, but its left side would only absorb 200 w/m^2 (from the blue), and its right side would absorb nothing.
That imbalance would force the plate to cool.”
And I refer you to my previous response.
Snape,
This could explain why Halp/Corrig simply disregards all good, logical, fact-based arguments.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance
Perhaps the most straightforward way to explain it to you, Snape, is that heat is flowing from left to right in Elis diagram. You see the sun there, on the far left. Well, where you are going wrong is in trying to treat the energy from the green plate as if it is an input to the blue. This is like saying that heat is flowing backwards. Its as irrational as expecting water to flow uphill.
Its as irrational as thinking that when pressed together, energy from the green plate would back-conduct to the blue, and make the blue warmer at the expense of the green.
Corrigendum
“Considering the two plates as a system, 400 W/m^2 is received from the sun, 200 W/m^2 leaves to the left of the blue plate, and 200 W/m^2 to the right of the green. Energy in is equal to energy out. No need for either plate to warm, or cool.”
I could likewise “consider the two plates as a system”:
12 w/m^2 leaves to the left of the blue plate and 388 w/m^2 leaves to the right of the green. Energy in equals energy out…….must be right! No need for either plate to warm or cool.
How about 399 leaves to the left and 1 from the right……..the “system” is in balance!
There’s more to heat flow than making sure the system is in balance. The laws of physics need to be satisfied WITHIN the system.
******
An object’s surface radiates according to it’s temperature.
If the green plate (recently separated from the blue), radiates 200 w/m^2 from its right side, it also radiates 200 w/m^2 from its left side. As mentioned, it would only be absorbing 200 w/m^2 from the left. That imbalance would cause it to cool.
That’s just one of many flaws with your model.
Corrigendum
I shouldn’t have poked fun at your “system is in balance” argument. I’ve just seen it too many times.
Again, what happens within the system has to be considered as well.
Nate
I couldn’t get your link to work.
The only way you can have your green plate cool, and still have 400 W/m^2 entering the system and 400 W/m^2 leaving overall, is if the blue plate increases in temperature. For the blue plate to increase in temperature, you would have to be treating the flux from the green as an input to the blue. As mentioned, that would be like water flowing uphill, or like expecting that when the plates are pressed together, energy from the green plate would back-conduct to the blue, and make the blue plate warmer at the expense of the green.
Corrigendum
If you need to break established laws of physics (the green plate only radiates from one side????) to support your opinion, your opinion needs a second look.
Backradiation is not like water flowing uphill, it is like two people exchanging money in proportion to what’s in their wallet (radiating according to their temperature).
Even though the richer person accepts money from the poorer, he suffers a net loss as a result of the exchange.
The net flow (like in Eli’s diagram), is always from rich to poor.
Im not saying the green plate only radiates from one side.
Im just trying to explain heat flow to you. Its OK if you dont understand, most people dont seem to get it.
“Most people don’t seem to get..”
Slowly but surely the classy Halp snark creeps back in.
Most people don’t seem to get pyramid power either.
No snark. Quite genuinely, when it comes to heat flow via radiation, most people dont seem to get it. That seems to include people at all levels of education, from university professors, to lay-people. It seems to be an almost impossible concept to explain. Elis thought experiment is actually very helpful when it comes to explaining it.
You are defining ‘get it’ or ‘understand it’ as agreeing with your views on it.
For people, such as Chic, Snape, etc and myself, who understand heat transfer basics already, nope. We don’t ‘get it’. Because that would mean giving up on science we already understand.
If each plate when pressed together is ~ 244 K:
The left side of the blue plate would absorb 400 w/m^2 from the sun and the right side of the blue plate can absorb energy via back-conduction from the green plate. The blue plate would only emit 200 w/m^2 from the side facing space.
But you accept that this imbalance doesnt force the plate to warm.
Likewise, the green plate would emit 200 w/m^2 from its right side, but its left side would only absorb energy from the blue by conduction, and its right side would absorb nothing.
But you accept that this imbalance would not force the plate to cool.
‘Likewise, the green plate would emit 200 w/m^2 from its right side, but its left side would only absorb energy from the blue by conduction, and its right side would absorb nothing.
But you accept that this imbalance would not force the plate to cool.’
Interesting, Halp/Corrig. But you conveniently leave out a number.
Correct statement would be:
”Likewise, the green plate would emit 200 w/m^2 from its right side, but its left side would absorb 200 W/m^2 of energy from the blue by conduction, and its right side would absorb nothing.
Hence there is a perfect balance’
To paraphrase Snape:
If you need to break established laws of physics (the left side of the green plate is at 0 K????) to support your opinion, your opinion needs a second look.
So, lets summarise:
When the plates are pushed together, people understand heat flow correctly. They understand that even though the left side of the green plate is at ~ 244 K, back-conduction from this plate cannot warm the blue plate further.
When the plates are separated, people all of a sudden no longer understand heat flow. They do not understand that even though the left side of the green plate is at ~ 244 K, back-radiation from this plate cannot warm the blue plate further.