The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2018 was +0.32 deg. C, up from the June value of +0.21 deg. C:
Some regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 19 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2017 01 +0.33 +0.31 +0.34 +0.10 +0.27 +0.95 +1.22
2017 02 +0.38 +0.57 +0.20 +0.08 +2.16 +1.33 +0.21
2017 03 +0.23 +0.36 +0.09 +0.06 +1.21 +1.24 +0.98
2017 04 +0.27 +0.29 +0.26 +0.21 +0.89 +0.23 +0.40
2017 05 +0.44 +0.39 +0.49 +0.41 +0.10 +0.21 +0.06
2017 06 +0.22 +0.33 +0.10 +0.39 +0.51 +0.10 +0.34
2017 07 +0.29 +0.30 +0.27 +0.51 +0.61 -0.27 +1.03
2017 08 +0.41 +0.40 +0.42 +0.46 -0.54 +0.49 +0.77
2017 09 +0.54 +0.51 +0.57 +0.54 +0.29 +1.06 +0.60
2017 10 +0.63 +0.67 +0.59 +0.47 +1.21 +0.83 +0.86
2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.27 +1.35 +0.68 -0.12
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26 +0.44 +1.37 +0.36
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.58 +1.36 +0.42
2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.16 +0.03 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.07 -0.32 -0.33 +0.59
2018 04 +0.21 +0.31 +0.10 -0.13 -0.01 +1.02 +0.68
2018 05 +0.18 +0.41 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.40
2018 06 +0.21 +0.38 +0.04 +0.12 +1.19 +0.83 -0.55
2018 07 +0.32 +0.42 +0.21 +0.29 +0.50 +0.29 +1.37
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through July 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for July, 2018 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated in the coming days, and are located here:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Some men, just want to watch the world burn.
Don’t worry, everything’s normal. Be Happy!!
https://youtu.be/YpRvOD_IvnA
Mendocino Complex Fire in California Is Now Largest in Modern State History
And fire season is just starting…
Europe heatwave: Spain and Portugal struggle in 40C+ temperatures
Roy, please put in the ocean current shifts when being a talking head for the media. 🙂 All the physics lines up for a big plunge in temps, and then they will have to review the concept of a greenhouse gas at high Rayleigh numbers.
Only 0.32. But I thought we just went through a fiery summer of made made global warming hell.
I presume that your “we” refers to the US of A. Take a look at the table above for the data over the Lower 48 this summer.
Yeppers — billions of folks during the month of July, kept feeling – and suffering – from the horrific effects of the average temp being 0.32 warmer. “Honey, have you noticed? We usually average 28.1 during July – but I swear, every day I’ve noticed that it feels more like 28.42. Just don’t know if I can take it any longer.”
How far northerly (in temperate regions) does one have to move in order to experience an average annual temperature change of -0.32C?
I see this [approx] analysis:
The rate is high in temperate regions
The temperature difference between Tropic of cancer and 40 degree N can be 10 C.
Rate = 10 C/16.5 degrees ~ 6 C/1 degree latitude
1 degree latitude is roughly 69 miles (111 Km)
The 6C looks to be way off. Looking at the 410 mi (5.9 degrees of latitude) between San Antonio and Oklahoma City. Average annual temp difference is 7.2 F.
Anyway, that is a 1 F drop for every 57 miles.
Anyone?
The point of this measurement is not what the value is right now, but rather what the trend is.
BTW, the 0.32C is relative to an arbitrary 0, and is measured in the troposphere.
If instead, we measure at the surface, and on land where people live, and relative to 40 y ago, then the rise is ~ 2 F.
If that trend continues, then that is 5 F/century. Is that significant?
Nate, it’s not that significant when compared to estimated temperatures for 1300 CE and 1100 BCE which were as warm or warmer than current temperatures. What is significant is the year chosen as the baseline year. Choosing a baseline year within 400 years of today gives a misleading impression that temperatures only are rising, and it ignores the 300 years of cooling that preceded it.
Yes, there was cooling for thousands of years:
http://tinyurl.com/y9cn6n8q
Jenny, in your clown world, igloos cause global warming.
So if I quote Richard Feynman, that gonna make me Richy?
Weird JD.
Nate, please stop trolling.
‘temperatures for 1300 CE and 1100 BCE which were as warm or warmer than current temperatures. ‘
What data shows this, wizgeek?
‘Choosing a baseline year within 400 years of today gives a misleading impression that temperatures only are rising’
No, gives impression only of behavior since 1880s.
Nate, the information is readily searched with a modicum of effort. Representative links are offered below. Although you may take umbrage at the URLS, focus on the data sources referenced in said links, then verify those data sources if need be.
The “…impressions…since 1880s” is a misleading impression because it ignores what trends existed during the prior 17 centuries let alone the prior 10 millennia. When starting at year 1880, it’s called “cherry picking.”
Links (just a sample):
https://www.iceagenow.info/global-warming-%E2%80%9Cunprecedented/
http://www.economicsjunkie.com/the-golbal-warming-catastrophe-in-charts/
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/paleo-climate/
Not cherry picked, most comprehensive recent data:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott_PAGES2k.png
Shows otherwise.
‘because it ignores what trends existed during the prior 17 centuries let alone the prior 10 millennia.’
No, Wizgeek, the reliable instrumental record begins then. So naturally the previous centuries are ignored because there is no such data.
The previous centuries must be reconstructed from proxies, with much larger uncertainty and more caveats.
WizGeek links to posts about Ice Age conditions vs today, based mostly on ice core data from Greenland and Antarctica. Those proxy data represent high latitude temperature swings and the global averages for the period since LGM (~20k BP) are much lower. And, the graph for the past 10k years from the “Golbal(sic) Warming Catastrophe” link references a Blog post claiming to show data from a report by Richard Alley which does not present data over that time period. In addition, the graph ends at 95 years BP 1950, or 1855, so it does not include the more recent data.
@Nate: You’re still ignoring the central point that starting with a recent year–albeit the beginning of directly measure temperature–obscures the probable temperatures that existed earlier thus portraying a partial picture of a much larger trend.
@Swanson: You’re constructing a straw man argument that seeks to undermine the “larger trend” argument by calling into question the reliability of the proxy data upon which it’s based. Recent analyses and augmentation of the proxy sources has and will continue to reduce the uncertainty. I recommend this 2018 research paper for our further discussions:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leif_Kullman/publication/324991910_Further_Details_on_Holocene_Treeline_GlacierIce_Patch_and_Climate_History_in_Swedish_Lapland/links/5af06cbc0f7e9ba366415d48/Further-Details-on-Holocene-Treeline-Glacier-Ice-Patch-and-Climate-History-in-Swedish-Lapland.pdf
garyh845 says:
Yeppers billions of folks during the month of July, kept feeling and suffering from the horrific effects of the average temp being 0.32 warmer.
Very naive.
Ascribing a few-fold increase in temperature variance to a percent increase in forcing and fraction of percent increase of in actual temperature is, well, an EXTRAORDINARY claim, and tehrefore REQUIRES extraordinary evidence, to quote sagan. Until then, it is just a unlikely speculative assumption, if not plain lie.
Very naive are your senseless comments, you costantly keep this bullshit going on and you don’t have even a solution for it. Let’s speak practical, do you have a magic solution to contain co2 emissions? And please do not insult my and your intelligence. I know you are paid to troll and I expect some quality from your service. Thank you.
Alessandro,
“magic solution to contain CO2 emissions” assumes that containing CO2 emissions is important, a “fact not in evidence”. First prove that more CO2 is going to be harmful (in the aggregate), and then you have a case for finding some “magic”. Until that proof exists, containing CO2 represents enormous costs with uncertain benefits – a bad deal for the planet and the people on it trying to improve their life.
I know you’re being sarcastic, but your point does have some merit — just not in the way you meant it. Yes, this particular month in terms of AIR temperature is “only” .32 C above the 1980-2010 running mean (the number is much higher if you start at pre-industrial era), for which UAH does not have data.
But that is significant when it’s a climactic AVERAGE. The trite, overused analogy is that of the “planetary fever” but it does have some merit. If your body temperature is in the 99’s, you likely have a fever, even if that temperature seems quite close to 98.6. Likewise, an earth in balance tends to pretty much stick at the same average temperature, with some fluctuations on account of ENSO, volcanic eruptions, sunspots, etc. That’s why the last major ice age was what, only four or five degrees colder than pre-industrial revolution temperatures? And ice caps extended down into much of what’s now the lower 48 states.
The most extreme scientific projections for future warming show a temperature INCREASE of that much by next century. I think, regardless of whether you believe in AGW, the prospect of that drastic a temperature change is alarming.
Well, if anything, it definitely has not been any colder, or has it, should we check over a six-month’s length of time or a thirty-year trend?
Yep.
Broke 5 y record again: 0.302
Decade averages:
teens 0.234
00s 0.105
90s .001
80s -.14
For some reason I can not reply to your question below. This is a test here.
@ Nate …I missed on the ENSO as I expected that the La Nina would continue to grow in strength from earlier this year. I do expect that a La Nina will start to develop soon around the end of this month or in early September. Once that starts up it should last into 2020, imo.
I did better on global temps as I did not expect to see the turn to cooling until after mid September. This solar minimum should be an extended minimum similar to the last one. So the main part of the minimum will last through 2019 before the ssn counts rises around early 2020. That initial spike up will not hold up though. It will then bottom out again as it did right after the beginning of 2010, and stay weak for up to 2 years. Imo, that is what caused that cool trend after the warming spike at the end of 2009 into 2010.
goldminor says:
August 1, 2018 at 8:04 PM
I do expect that a La Nina will start to develop soon around the end of this month or in early September.
Do you have any valuable source for this guess?
1. MEI
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
2018 -.623 -.731 -.502 -.432 oops .465 .469
2. JMA
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
3. ESRL 3+4
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/nina34.data
Only BOM’s SOI shows a little bit of La Niña:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/index.shtml#tabs=SOI
I had a link in the comment. That is why it did not post. Lesson learned.
That is why it did not post.
No.
It did not because your link probably contained character sequences (e.g. d followed by c) which are not accepted by the site.
@ Pangolina …yes, I had some characters in front of the link which was the reason why it didn’t post. I typically put 3 periods followed by the link when posting a link. I see that does not work here.
Goldminor,
“I do expect that a La Nina will start to develop soon around the end of this month or in early September. Once that starts up it should last into 2020, imo.”
Your opinion on this disagrees with the ENSO models which predict 70% chance of El Nino in late Fall.
Do La Nina’s usually last for 2 whole years?
At least we have a specific predictions to test.
What ENSO models predict El Nino in late fall, have they been updated since June? The weak +ENSO is already waning and the oscillator could be swinging negative sometime around November when La Nina formation is favorable and typically results in La Nina until spring.
I don’t know about two years, that sounds highly unlikely.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Also IRI at Columbia University:
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
Looks like things are lining up for an El Nino in Fall. Westerly wind bursts happening as we speak
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/u850a_c.gif
Which will further fuel and propel the already warm subsurface anomaly toward the Eastern Pacific.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/weeklyenso_clim_81-10/wkteq_xz.gif
Very good condition of ice in the Arctic.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_curve_thick_LA_EN_20180731.png
The NH sea-ice extent is still way below the long term average and tracking along near the path seen in 2012:
https://tinyurl.com/ydxc4xn
Sure, that is an enlightening comment, giving us the situation last week, omitting what it has been like over the last few months, or years. Variability, on a very short period, does that ring a bell?
Information about the figures
The web page shows the sea surface temperature (SST) and anomalies derived from infrared measurements from the polar orbiting satellites. One interpolated field is constructed daily. Only nighttime SST observations are used for the interpolation because these are more representative of the temperature in the upper meters of the water column.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/plots/satsst.arc.d-00.png
Any one come across that snapshot of Gavin Schmidt in a spacesuit floating next to the RSS satellite furiously typing in the adjustments?
No, the Arctic sea ice extent is still in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years
E. Swanson says:
August 1, 2018 at 8:03 AM
The NH sea-ice extent is still way below the long term average and tracking along near the path seen in 2012:
https://tinyurl.com/ydxc4xn
___________________________________________
This one is clearer: https://tinyurl.com/Northern-sea-ice
Melting-Trend is really dramatically. Especially the trend of minimum area in summer.
Since 1979, or 1981, is not ‘long term.’
+10
garyh845 says:
August 1, 2018 at 5:04 PM
Since 1979, or 1981, is not ‘long term.’
—————————————-
Thats not what Swanson said.
He said, its “below the long term average”. And thats korrekt. No matter if you take last 50 or last 500 year-average.
Here is last 2000 y plot-fig 3.
https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2017/ArtMID/7798/ArticleID/690/Paleoceanographic-Perspectives-on-Arctic-Ocean-Change
If you wanna go back 10,000 y, of course summer arctic solar insolation was stronger than today.
“Holocene records of Arctic sea ice extent indicate considerable spatial and temporal variability over the last 10,000 years, including seasonally ice-free periods in various regions from 6,000 to 10,000 years ago when solar insolation in the Arctic was strongest (Polyak et al., 2010; Müller et al., 2012). For many parts of the Arctic, the modern (prior to anthropogenic forcing) perennial sea-ice cover did not fully develop until the latter half of the Holocene, about 5,000 years ago (Darby et al., 2006).”
E. S.,
Please define “long term”, explain how you know what the value is.
Please explain why there are many statements that Arctic Ocean ice will be gone by a date long past.
Please explain why instead of “ice free” meaning no ice, the term now seems to mean 1 M. km. sq.?
Thanks ever so much.
Long term is since 70s, when satellite measurements available. Before that guesses and proxy data needed.
” many statements that Arctic Ocean ice will be gone by a date long past.”
No serious climate scientists have made this claim. Strawman.
“ice free meaning no ice, the term now seems to mean 1 M. km. sq.?”
Who is saying this? Im guessing 1M km^2 means no problems for ship travel through arctic.
Scientists like Julienne Strove (N.S.I.D.C) use the 1 Mkm2 benchmark, because there will likely be sea ice clinging to bays and inlets long after the open ocean ice is gone. Just as happens each year on lakes that freeze over in the winter.
I am glad there common agreement that Al Gore is “not a serious climate scientist.”
Moreover, I am thrilled that the mainstream media is not quoting or relying on “serious climate scientists” when they proclaim catastrophic results from CO2 emissions.
Nevertheless, the following people may be surprised that they are not in the category of “serious climate scientist.”
Professor Wieslow Maslocki
“NASA Climate Scientist” Jay Zwally
Director Mark Zerrese
Professor Waldhams
Professor James Hansen
Paul Beckwith
Brent Balchen
Dr. Olav Orheim
Professor David Barber
For those who think it’s really about ocean temperatures, here are the ocean temperature anomalies for June of the last three years.
Year Globe NH SH
2016 0.34 0.48 0.24
2017 0.21 0.32 0.13
2018 0.14 0.28 0.03
The SST anomaly is based on a 1971-2000 NOAA climatology.
https://tinypic.pl/hjnad6rcig5p
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
Sorry.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00968/hjnad6rcig5p.png
Ren, that is the story ,the overall sea surface temperature picture. Very encouraging if you want global cooling.
No sign yet of your (latest) expected cooling phase, eh Salvatore?
Early days perhaps…
TFN
Salvatore,
I don’t ‘want’ cooling, I ‘want’ warm.
I expect cooling.
If you want warmer, move south. Don’t expect us to heat up the entire world just to make you cozy.
I didn’t notice this, but the two – year temperature difference is 0.2 C across the board.
In regards to June, ocean has been cooling over period of 3 years.
The entire ocean is still about 3.5 C, the ocean surface average is about 17 C.
And of course we still in icebox climate [and will be for thousands of years- unless humans want it different in future- a future where human would be spacefaring and have SPS providing electrical power to people living on the surface of Earth, but probably will have discover space aliens by then- assuming any are nearby}.
Still few degrees short of climate alarm
You mean, sort of like the difference in July temperatures between Marseille (France) and Lagos (Nigeria):
29°/19°
29°/23°?
François, putting your french keyboard messages into
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
before sending them might be quite helpful:
29 °C / 19 °C
29 °C / 23 °C
I thought it would be lower but it is still more of the same.
Overall surface sea temperatures are down and that will in the end dictate where we go.
One can say for sure no further global warming is taking place this year. Cooling instead is the situation. I think it will continue.
The best proxy for future global temperature has spoken.
Salvatore, just a few days ago you wrote what’s below. Now it’s already warmed since and here you are again changing the goalposts.
Salavatore Del Prete says:
July 23, 2018 at 12:30 PM
That now has changed David.
NO FURTHER WARMING WILL BE OCCURING FROM HERE ON OUT.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-313260
global temperature ticks up 0.11 deg. C – David Appell declares himself a winner of the global warming pissing contest
Well here is your winning prize from me
https://s33.postimg.cc/w0mhn2ntr/350.jpg
I’m collecting information for a documentary about Salvatore.
(not really)
David, please stop trolling.
There is no further global warming this year.
So how about making a commitment. Complete these sentences:
(1) No monthly UAH anomaly in the next 12 months will be greater than ______
(2) The average UAH anomaly for the next 12 months will not be greater than ____
Salvatore, you need to get away from looking at short term variation which often has an easy explanation. All you had to do was look at the Tropical Pacific and you would have seen it was going to be warmer.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
While not an “official” El Nino it still is warm enough to have an impact on global temperature. I predicted the UAH anomaly would be higher based on this data.
Hate to break it to you again, but just looking at the sun is going to lead you astray.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 1, 2018 at 7:55 AM
Overall surface sea temperatures are down
_________________________________________________
They are not down, and they even dont move down.
https://workupload.com/file/8V6d29q
Trend upward is unbroken.
Yup, the oceans have been the cause of the recent atmospheric warming. You didn’t think it was the other way around did you?
Richard M says:
August 2, 2018 at 7:53 AM
Yup, the oceans have been the cause of the recent atmospheric warming. You didnt think it was the other way around did you?
—————————————
Indeed, I dont think the oceans are a heat source.
They cant produce energy, and if they just would relaease stored energy, they would cool down.
As shown above, they become warmer, not cooler.
They are a heat-sink; not a heat-source.
What recent atmospheric warming?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
One month isn’t anything to hang your hat on.
Fritz, the oceans can warm and also be a heat source. It happens every summer.
What you are missing is the connection to ocean currents. The currents affect the amount of solar energy available in the ocean mixed layer and which can be used to heat the air. SSTs are the best indicator of the mixed layer energy.
Richard M says:
August 3, 2018 at 1:05 PM
Fritz, the oceans can warm and also be a heat source. It happens every summer.
———————————
In summer oceans have a cooling effect. Because they are colder than the atmosphere.
Its known as ocecanic climate.
Generally continental climate, far away from the coast, has higher summertemperatures than oceanic climate.
Are you a newcomer here?
It seems you don’t really know what Salvatore is interested in.
HadSST3 (wrt mean of 1961-1990)
2016 | 0.486
2017 | 0.385
2018 | 0.338
Salvatore,
For the summer to be at or below the 30-year mean (UAH), August global temperature will need to be:
-0.53C
That would be the lowest anomaly in the UAH record.
You said that you would agree your understanding of the solar influence on global temps is wrong if your prediction about this year’s summertime global temps was incorrect.
Your prediction is going to be incorrect.
I took you at your word, despite David’s endlessly posting previous predictions of yours that didn’t come to pass.
I think you are going to do again what David points out that you do.
You are going to slide away from your commitment.
I have been watching patiently to see what you do.
I wanted to see for myself if you had integrity or not. To see if David’s criticisms were fair.
“I think you are going to do again what David points out that you do. You are going to slide away from your commitment.”
____________________
Clunk. The penny drops.
TFN
Only not so much ‘slide away’ as brazenly walk away and come back the very next day, undaunted, with a whole new set of ludicrous cooling predictions.
Self awareness is not Salvatore’s strongest selling point.
Either this is very obvious to everyone or else I am Hercule Perot!
(I am not Hercule Perot.)
TFN
It’s obvious, and has been for many years, imo.
I was wrong on the quickness but still have not changed my mind. Overall surface sea surface temperatures only +.13c happy with that.
Salvatore Aug 13, 2017:
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Salvatore Jan 2, 2018:
“If solar stays low and year 2018 is not the year I will say this time I am wrong.”
Salvatore Aug 1, 2018:
“Overall surface sea surface temperatures only +.13c happy with that.”
Meanwhile, the UAH anomaly for July is 0.32C
UAH is Salvatore’s preferred measure of global temps.
So much for global temps being “at or below 30 year means.” It’s not even going to be within the error bars.
Sal said he would admit to being wrong.
I called him on the exact prediction many times in the last year.
He always agreed – the 3 months global temps during NH summer would have to be at 30 year means (UAH zero baseline) or his solar model is wrong.
It’s crunch time and he walked away from his agreement. An agreement he verified multiple times.
I guess integrity doesn’t matter to Salvatore.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 22, 2017 at 9:21 AM
“I am sticking with it which is global temperatures by summer of 2018 will be at or below 30 year means.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256283
It’s still very warm. Even with a La Nina the latest 13 month average is as high as the 2010 El Nino peak.
The ENSO regions have been in positive territory for months.
ENSO 3.4 has been positive for less than 2 months. Well within the UAH lag period.
Goldminor,
What were your predictions for ENSO and global temps?
How have they performed?
Nino 3.4 is positive from June.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00968/d4lvdsl6avlw.png
ren says:
July 23, 2018 at 3:12 PM
El Nio is currently not develop.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-313296
The tropical pacific has been warm for many months.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Not on the surface, where the heat can escape to the atmosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssttlon5_c.gif
Nate, the surface has been warming for all of 2018. As it does it is also constantly releasing some of that heat into the atmosphere. We’re just getting to the point where it is now affecting satellite measurements.
You originally said warm, not warming. Different.
Surface anomaly > 0 for 2 months in the plot.
‘As it does it is also constantly releasing some of that heat into the atmosphere.’
I dunno, does it when in ENSO neutral?
That’d be no:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2000/plot/uah6/from:2000/mean:13
Even when WFT gets the latest update, its not going to bring the latest 13 month average anywhere close to the 2010 peak of about 0.5C.
Uhh.. no. Krakatoa is correct.
2010 13 mo peak was 0.34, current level 0.33.
And the 13-mth moving average peaked in Nov 2016, at 0.52 C.
The average in 2010 never got higher than 0.34 C.
He didn’t say 2010 13 mo peak. He just said peak.
2010 peak: 0.517
13 mo avg now: 0.328
And, the current 13 mo average heading down is already in the pipeline. It would take a big push upward in the next few months to prevent that.
Bart,
‘He didnt say 2010 13 mo peak. He just said peak.’
You would assume he would want to compare apples to bananas, a 13 mo average to a 1 month average??
Weird!
That would be your usual statistical approach, Bart. Others would not apply such an obvious bias.
“You would assume he would want to compare apples to bananas, a 13 mo average to a 1 month average??”
Why would I assume that? Since everything regresses to the mean in an average, it would be a really stupid comparison.
Yes. So why do you do it?
Are we on the playground here? Context, Nate. Context.
Bart,
You tried to make a point. YOU wanted people to compare a 13 mo average now to a 1 month average in 2010.
That makes no sense.
Now you seem to be confused.
Not I.
This is you
“He didn’t say 2010 13 mo peak. He just said peak.
2010 peak: 0.517
13 mo avg now: 0.328”
No one else said it or meant it.
Only a moron would interpret his post that way, and then triple down on it.
Keep digging…
Supposedly its GLOBAL warming. The US of A is only 3% of the planets surface area.
Try 2%.
You seem unaware you’re only emphasizing his point.
Australia had a warm spell, looks like, with a month-to-month anomaly swing of -.55 to 1.37.
Pretty much a copy of what happened in the US 2 months earlier … from a very cold April to the warmest ever May, beating out May 1934. Except … UAH didn’t even register the cold April … we had to rely on NOAA to get it right.
What do you mean “we”, paleface?
La Nina is most likely gone.
La Nina was gone 4 months ago.
The pattern I see is consistent with a step function (stair case). At each major El Nino the L Trop global temp steps up. Also, seems the stairs are getting shorter height, which is difficult to reconcile with a CO2 only model (natural climate denialism) because the CO2 trend is consistent. I still think the major solar activity change at about 2000 plays a role because of galactic cosmic rays and the sun’s magnetic field strength. So CO2 plus solar max possibly has more warming than CO2 and solar min.
Meaning what? Pardon my French, but I think you are gibberishing any bovine refuse that is going through your mind, and there seems to be a lot of it. Your penultimate sentence does not make any sense.
” difficult to reconcile with a CO2 only model (natural climate denialism) because the CO2 trend is consistent. ”
Difficult? Only difficult if one ignores all other known causes of variability: ENSO, volcanoes, aerosols, etc
Yes, Dr Roy Spencer explained it pretty well here:
https://tinyurl.com/y7t5os8z
Svante, for you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-314325
Thank you Kristian, you have an interesting argument, and I have a lot to learn.
I think the catch up started 250 years ago, but the goal post keeps moving. The earth has a lot of inertia.
If warming is natural we should not aggravate it, we should cure it because it is unsuitable for us and current eco systems, so the remedy might be the same.
Looking at the others here I’d say you have the only interesting non-AGW argument on this blog.
From the earlier post:
So when exactly did this “decades old equilibrium catch-up” start?
It’s ongoing. Oceanic thermal lag.
Water has a much higher heat capacity than air, so it takes longer to warm up.
Oceans are gaining heat, so they are not yielding it to the atmosphere.
At the long tail there is about 1000 years of lag, which is how long it takes for the global oceans to fully turn over. But the majority of heating “in the pipeline” is 30-40 years lag from the upper oceans.
Just because oceans are gaining heat does not mean they can’t share some of that heat with the atmosphere. That’s equivalent to saying the atmosphere above the oceans won’t warm in the summer even if the oceans do.
As always, barry, you appear not to be cognizant of the details of what the rest of us – the ones that are actually having this discussion – are discussing, in that the points you purport to bring to the table are invariably irrelevant (tangential) to the issue at hand, and when I point this out to you, you normally respond simply by saying I don’t get to set the agenda.
The ‘agenda’ is already set, barry. All I’m telling you is that YOU’RE not addressing it …
You do not understand the gist of my argument, barry. Until you do, stop opining on it …!
Richard,
Just because oceans are gaining heat does not mean they cant share some of that heat with the atmosphere. Thats equivalent to saying the atmosphere above the oceans wont warm in the summer even if the oceans do.
Energy flows between them both constantly. But the bulk transfer is not from the oceans to the atmosphere – unless the depths are gaining heat from some source (underwater volcanoes?) and passing it skyward.
Speaking of the seasons, a well known phenomenon is that the warmest/coldest annual air temps in most parts of the world happen, on average, some time after the solar peaks and troughs – that’s oceanic thermal lag at work (known as “seasonal lag”).
Kristian,
I believe this is the Wikipedia entry Svante was referring to when you quoted him in the post you linked to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_commitment
Sorry to interrupt the flow of your important conversation with some elaboration on a comment you queried.
Well, Barry appears to understand that the oceans have a big impact on the atmosphere as he mentions the seasonal lag. It appears he is denying his own view if he thinks the oceans are not driving the climate on longer scales.
This isn’t hard. The sun warms the the oceans which passes some of that energy on to the atmosphere just like it does every summer. The reason this changes over long cycles has to do with ocean currents which are generally driven by salinity changes.
“The reason this changes over long cycles has to do with ocean currents which are generally driven by salinity changes.”
That is undoubtedly part of the puzzle, and could explain the warming all on its own. However, there was also an increase in solar input over the latter part of the 20th century which could have added to it as well:
http://i68.tinypic.com/2z850s4.jpg
I see blank at that page where the graph should be.
But we do know that solar irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
Well, that’s your problem. But, your graph does not show what you think it shows. The peaks do not matter directly. It is the area under the curve that drives climate. And, the average area under the curve increased markedly in the latter half of the 20th century.
Bart says, August 4, 2018 at 10:10 AM:
TSI is not ‘solar input’, Bart. It is ‘solar OUTput’. The solar input to Earth, our Q_in, is the ASR, TSI minus albedo. ASR is the driver of Earth’s climate, not TSI. TSI curves hardly tell you anything about changes in how the Sun affects Earth’s climate. Variations in albedo will tell you nearly everything:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/erbs-refl-sw-vs-pmod-tsi1.png
Kristian, let’s see an ASR time series for 90S-90N for several decades.
Peer reviewed. (I don’t trust bloggers or spreadsheets made over a weekend.)
Input and output are interchangeable depending on the modifier. But, the point is, the system responds with time lags, some of which are very, very long.
Thus, One cannot just look at the peaks to understand how the system is being affected. One has to filter down and look at the very low frequency components. And, the very low frequency portion of TSI increased markedly in the latter portion of the 20th century.
K:
“a steady divergence over time between two directly comparable parameters, would clearly and unequivocally have manifested itself in the observational data by now, after 33 years of monitoring. IF there were actually GHE enhancement going on
However, its nowhere to be seen. Only in studies (like Allan et al., 2014) where the observational data is deliberately adjusted to match with model simulations rather than the other way around ”
Except that is a gross misrepresentation of, Allan et al., 2014, as K well knows.
And the measurers themselves don’t trust the long term OLR record due to data Gaps, as K should also know.
K to Barry: “the points you purport to bring to the table are invariably irrelevant (tangential) to the issue at hand”
Actually his point seems quite relevant. The ‘catch up’ is ongoing, and we expect a nearly flat OLR as a result. It IS FLAT, within uncertainty.
Nate,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-313789
DREMT,
‘K to Barry: the points you purport to bring to the table are invariably irrelevant (tangential) to the issue at hand
If anyone deserves a ‘PST’ it would be Kristian in this instance.
That is, if trolling actually mattered to you.
No, no, Nate:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-313789
Repeating yourself, DREMT. Thats a Halp tell.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Aaron S says:
The pattern I see is consistent with a step function (stair case). At each major El Nino the L Trop global temp steps up. Also, seems the stairs are getting shorter height
Here I plotted the GMST for each ENSO season (July-June), categorized by its ENSO status — El Nino, La Nina or neutral.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/increasing-temperatures-of-enso-seasons.html
I don’t see the steps getting shorter in height….
I was looking forward to this post. In the North of europa we have the a heatwave of the sort I cannot remember. We are close to 340 hours of sun in a month. Temperatures are….well….high. Upto 38C (even upto 40C in the city). So, it still leaves me worried a bit.
The thing that stood out to me is the sharp peaks in temperaure. 30C one day and the next two days are 35C+ despite the fact is was quite cloudy. Also, the humidity seems to be lower than normal.
That said, apparently the old time high was measured in 1944 (38.4C compared to this maximum of 38.2C). Sea ice volume seems to be high the normal in the artic, and sea surface temperatures seem te be lower than the last couple of years. I’m confused….and hot.
‘Sea ice volume seems to be high the normal in the artic’
No. It is well below the long term average.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
from 1979 is NOT long term,
Sea ice is still in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years.
What we have seen is a recovery from the extreme high sea ice extents of the LIA cold anomaly.
Unfortunately, that recovery seems to have come to an end and as the AMO starts to turn, sea ice extent in the Arctic will most likely start to increase
Sounding more and more like Salvatore each day. AGW marches on at .13C/decade. July ice loss largest on record.
Only the Trumptards at UAH has its trend that low.
Well, if that doesn’t convince anyone that you are a dispassionate observer, I don’t know what will.
So what was Arctic ice like when the Northwest passage was navigated in 1903? Perhaps a little on the low side?
You mean when Amundsen took 3 years to traverse the passage? Perhaps a little more than when it was traversed in less than 3 weeks in 2016?
Yes, those modern icebreakers are amazing.
The ice-breaker accompanying the cruise ship was launched in 1999. In any case, there was little ice to break.
Yes, probably less ice there now than in 1903. But views on that swing freely depending on whether the Little Ice Age needs to be summoned up to make some point or other.
barry, all four sentences of your comment were somewhere between “inaccurate” and “mis-leading”.
In the first example, the ship was actually “launched” in 1995, not 1999. She was renamed in 1999.
For practice, I’ll let you find your other mistakes by yourself.
I think my biggest mistake may have been taking your modern ice-breakers comment seriously.
But you could settle the point you were making by verifying how much sea ice was broken by the ice breaker. Was it over many days? Was it very thick, etc?
No barry, your first mistake was trying for a “gotcha” when you didn’t have a clue what you were talking about.
When you find your other mistakes, then you can answer your own questions.
Learning is good.
Icebreakers, micebreakers. Anecdotes about 1903 are not data.
Got data?
For 20th century Arctic sea ice extent, see Figure 2a here:
“History of sea ice in the Arctic,” Leonid Polyak et al, Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (2010) 17571778.
http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf
A few more studies:
“Early 20th century Arctic warming in retrospect,” Wood and Overland, Intl J Climatology (2009)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1973/abstract
“Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years,” Christophe Kinnard et al,
Nature 479, 509512 (24 November 2011)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/abs/nature10581.html
Walsh and Chapman (2000)
Graph here on top right:
https://tinyurl.com/ydez9gx5
“Sea ice before satellites:
https://tinyurl.com/yap5bms6
So you just babbled something about ice breakers with no actual knowledge of the trip, JD, and are following through the insinuation with more insinuations.
You made the call. The onus was on you. But you went with deflection as if that would fool anyone.
spike55 says:
Sea ice is still in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years
Can you give me a link to those data/papers? I’m interested.
Cooling has been ‘just around the corner’ for nearly 20 years.
It will be the lame prediction from some quarters for another 20 years, I expect.
As has warming. We got neither, so far. Just a pitched battle between El Ninos and La Ninas.
No warming in 20 years??
Au contraire:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1025047924663705600/photo/1
Over-smoothed. Relies entirely on transient El Ninos.
Bart says:
Relies entirely on transient El Ninos
There were no La Ninas during that time??
PS: “Over-smoothing” didn’t produce that rise, and you can’t pick another smoothing that does away with it.
Over-smoothing stretches the influence of anomalous El Nino spikes well beyond their actual impact interval. Without the 2016 El Nino spike, there is no 21st century warming.
Without 2008, 2011-12 La Ninas, 21st century warming returns.
The effect of ENSO can easily be removed from temp records.
Here for HAD*CRUT 4
https://tinyurl.com/y8x5daof
1. check box: nino 3.4
2. starting month: TOGETHER
3.Lag: 3 months
4. Hit: Correlate
5. Hit: MAKE NEW SERIES
You see continuous warming since 1970s. About half of this since 2000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=DB2Yf_2r-S4
We’ve had a century of warming, Bart, and the globe had its warmest year in the instrumental record 2 years ago.
How you see that as a failed predictions of warming a mystery.
But you wrote it, so you must have some idea about putting the sentence together. Reason certainly wasn’t part of it.
Yes, a century, the advent of which predated the mid-century acceleration in CO2 content.
But, the warming has been modest, far less than the mean of the projections, in any case.
Bart says:
August 4, 2018 at 11:10 AM
But, the warming has been modest, far less than the mean of the projections, in any case.
____________________________________________
Sure?
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2018-panela.png
And what means “modest”
You may call a global warming of 0.0xC “modest”, but the effect within decades for many people isnt “modest” at all.
Dont forget, that warming isnt evenly for whole the planet. In some regions you have twice oder triple the global average.
And other regions, with unfortunately high population, will be flooded.
People there will have to die or to emigrate. But where to? Would America welcome them?
Its also wellknown, that hunger produces political unrest and civil war, which in the final end will have very “unmodest” effects; also to all of us.
So dont feel to safe of global warming, just because you live in the Rockies or you own an air conditioner.
Yes, sure. Without the 2016 monster El Nino hump, there is no warming in the 21st century. If your plot went all the way to the present, we are currently at the very bottom of the spread, and continuing down.
‘Without the 2016 monster El Nino hump, there is no warming in the 21st century. ‘
False.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-315087
IOW: Why believe your lyin’ eyes, when I’ve got a model with many adjustable parameters here that, if I set it up just so, says you’re wrong?
Bart says:
August 5, 2018 at 12:02 PM
Yes, sure. Without the 2016 monster El Nino hump, there is no warming in the 21st century.
_____________________________________
But we HAVE El Ninos und will always have. Same to La Ninas.
They belong to the climate.
And, in longer therme, without El Ninos, warming would even be stronger. While warmer periods earth looses much more energy; According to Stefan-Boltzmann. (T^4-Law)
“IOW: Why believe your lyin eyes, when Ive got a model with many adjustable parameters here that, if I set it up just so, says youre wrong?”
Bart you are the one saying remove the El Nino contribution. Lets do that, but in an unbiased way, remove all ENSO contribution.
I did that in the standard way, with the help of Climate Explorer.
You dont like the result? Do it your own way.
I’ll do it another way. Remove the 1998 and 2016 el Ninos.
2017 was pretty warm, too, as was 2015, so let’s use 2014 as the most recent year to be fair. There, I’ve removed as many warm years as possible from the end of the record to keep Bart happy.
10-year comparisons UAH v6 global TLT:
2005 to 2014 ave anomaly = 0.12
1994 to 2004 ave anomaly = 0.06
I excluded 1998 from the latter 10-year anomaly period. If we’re going to exclude one monster el Nino from the comparison, shouldn’t we exclude the other?
So what happens if we include each of them for each of the 10-year periods?
2008-2017 = 0.19
1996-2007 = 0.15
Not only is there warming in the 21st century, there is warming in the last 10 years.
For some reason Bart has to get very selective to make his claims. Specifically, he’ll start a trend with the 1998 el Nino, but reject finishing with the current el Nino.
Or he’ll pick some even shorter length of time in order to find the result he wants.
Decadal averages avoid much of the problem of using linear regression over short time periods. Which is why Bart won’t go there – or he will by keeping the early el Nino and ditching the later one.
Fritz Kraut –
“And, in longer therme, without El Ninos…”
We’re not discussing the longer term here. The impacts of the 2016 El Nino are still fresh, and any linear trend through the 2000’s to now is biased upward by it. You cannot hang your hat on 21st century warming on a momentary blip.
Nate, barry –
You guys are grasping at straws, trying to obscure what is plainly visible to the eyes with mathturbation. You’re whistling past the graveyard. We are already back at the “pause” level, and falling fast.
Bart says:
August 6, 2018 at 10:33 AM
Fritz Kraut –
‘And, in longer therme, without El Ninos…’
We’re not discussing the longer term here. The impacts of the 2016 El Nino are still fresh, and any linear trend through the 2000’s to now is biased upward by it. You cannot hang your hat on 21st century warming on a momentary blip.
______________________________________________
…and exactly that is the reason, WHY I also mentioned the longer term.
I dont understand your contradiction. Do you mind me discussing the short or the long term?
“Nate, barry
You guys are grasping at straws, trying to obscure what is plainly visible to the eyes with mathturbation. Youre whistling past the graveyard. We are already back at the pause level, and falling fast.”
Bart’s reaction to data analysis is becoming predictable.
He is dead-set against using math to analyze data in standard, transparent ways, if it produces results which dont support his agenda.
If mathematical analysis produces a result that does support his agenda, even if it cannot be justified in any objective way, then its perfectly fine to use, and in fact it’s use should be defended at all costs.
Fritz – your claiming that the future holds more warming is merely that: a claim. Meanwhile, there has been no discernible warming in the 21st century.
Nate – I understand you are easily dazzled by mathematics you do not understand. Thank you for reminding me, but I really needed no reminder.
Bart,
“a model with many adjustable parameters “.
False . One free parameter, lag. And even that one is chosen to maximize correlation.
I understand it just fine. Why don’t you?
Why don’t you understand correlating two data sets? Why don’t you understand subtracting the influence of one data set from the other?
I told you a reminder is not necessary.
We are already back at the “pause” level, and falling fast.
Nope.
1) Average temps for the ‘pause’ period were lower than now.
2) Temps have fallen since 2016, but not nearly as fast as they did after 1998, and for all you know may have stopped falling. The last 2 months were successively warmer than the one prior. How do you know what will happen? And how will you test that when you won’t commit to a prediction of any specificity?
I fully expect some anomalies ahead to be of similar value to some anomalies prior to 2016. But why are you interested in the weather?
We’re not desperate, you are. Which is why your silly claims are absent any numerical values, or any commitment to a time frame.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/10hm5g1.jpg
You only see what you want to see.
Av temps 2001-2014 = 0.13
Av temps 2018 = 0.23
Current anomaly 0.32
I think my eyesight is a bit better than yours.
Let’s graph it with little trend lines.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend
And let’s put it in context.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend
The way you see things, because temps in 1987 and 1992 were ‘bobbling around’ the temps in the pause period as well as current temps, even ‘bobbling’ a bit higher back then for a few months…..
There has been a pause since 1987?
These methods serve your purposes, so I’m sure I cannot stop you from using them. But, they are meaningless.
We are currently bobbling around between 0.2-0.3, just like we have been for most of the 2000’s.
http://tinyurl.com/y99ddf3d
A good plot, Svante. It shows why soi-disant “climate scientists” are idiots.
These data are not a linear progression. Why should a trend line drawn on them have any meaning? An El Nino blip also has no meaning for the long term.
The fact is, we are back down to the level of the “pause”. In fact, we never left it, because the El Nino spike was just a transient event that masked the stasis.
Its a good plot because, if interested in knowing what long trends are for testing climate change, than fitting the long term data to a line and finding its slope is useful.
Much more useful than looking at any single 6 mo period, whether in 2018 or 2016.
It matters not a whit that the long term trend may not be not linear. It still has trend over 30 y or 50 y or whatever that can be measured by fitting it to a line and finding the slope.
It says nothing about the cause. It misleads because the data are not well represented by a linear trend, and it is sensitive to end effects of the finite span of data.
Take it back 30 more years, and you will lower the trend significantly. There is no assurance that 30 years later will not have the same impact.
Yes, the point of climate science is to understand the changes in trend over time, to understand the forcings and correctly model them.
Are the models perfect? No. It is well understood that climate feedbacks have uncertainty.
For comparison to models, to determine climate feedbacks, the linear trends of the recent decades have value.
Wrong answer.
And why is that Dad?
Bart says:
August 8, 2018 at 7:17 PM
It says nothing about the cause. It misleads because the data are not well represented by a linear trend, and it is sensitive to end effects of the finite span of data.
____________________________________________________
@Bart
Its not the purpose of a trendline to say anything about the cause.
A trend is a trend. No more, no less.
Its just one of several possible quantifications of a change.
The cause must be found by conclusions.
You also could just calculate the differenz between the first and the last single datum; not helpfull of course, because really extremly sensitiv.
Or you could take the differenz between the average of some of the first, and the average of some of the last datas. Much better, but still not as good as the linear trend of the whole dataserie.
A least squares regression is not magic. It doesn’t tell you anything you can’t already see looking at the data. In fact, it tells you much less.
These data have a period of a rise, then a plateau. It’s just not consistent with the expectation from the AGW hypothesis. One can spin and hand wave and obfuscate all one wants, but that underlying fact does not go away.
Global warming is only one degree C, so this is climate change, explained pretty well here:
https://tinyurl.com/yb76brz3
The same mechanism will produce snow and cold spells as well, so Gordon and senator Inhofe will be happy about that.
Jennifer Francis?
So Ms Svante must be Jennifer?
Tricky.
Welcome out of the shadows, Jenny.
JDHuffman = Ger*an
DA, have you been able to learn any physics this week?
You’ve got to start sometime.
‘So Ms Svante must be Jennifer?’
JD, you’re a nutjob.
Once again anonymous Nate behaves as a 10-year-old.
Nate, please stop trolling.
“The same mechanism will produce snow and cold spells as well…”
Heads you win, tails we lose. Isn’t that convenient…
It is only the long term global average that goes up, not every place at every time like ren seems to think.
But, it hasn’t gone up for about two decades now.
The trend is up: http://tinyurl.com/ybzdthd6.
Twenty years is not long term, there was a thirty year pause 1940-1970.
Bart,
The UAH twenty year trend is 0.13 C per decade, same as in the full record.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/mean:12/trend
Some people wear beer goggles to look at potential mates.
Bart wears ideological goggles to look at data.
Everything you claim hangs on the 2016 blip, and it is fading fast. You may be fooling yourselves. You are not fooling anyone else.
The trouble is, it is NOT fading completely but appears to follow a long time trend. Be that important or not, there’s a trend and it is not going anywhere.
I’ve worked out what would be required for the ‘pause’ to return by 2020, 2025 and 2030. No self-fooling, just statistics.
What have you done?
wert – oh, it does not. The level is already down to the level of the status quo ante, and it shows little sign of stopping.
barry – it’s already returned. And, don’t kid yourself. At best, you’ve drawn some lines and made some unwarranted statistical assumptions. It’s GIGO.
Like Salvatore, do you also have a level and a time where you would say that you were wrong?
” and it shows little sign of stopping.”
Hoping against hope that ENSO doesn’t have its usual effects.
barry its already returned.
Your idea of a ‘pause’ has no definition, Bart. It’s classic, plain old garbage.
That’s why you don’t put numbers on it. That’s why you can’t show us how it extends to today. Are you hoping that repetition will do the trick?
You used to be less full of it. Sad.
Svante:
“Like Salvatore, do you also have a level and a time where you would say that you were wrong?”
I cannot be wrong, because I am already right. What comes after today is anyone’s guess, but global temperature anomaly has already dipped down to levels that preceded the 2016 monster El Nino.
I would say it is likely that temperatures will revert to the long established pattern within the 2020’s
http://oi63.tinypic.com/ke92le.jpg
but it is by no means assured. It is a chaotic system, and we have only been observing it in earnest for a very short time.
Temperatures alone are simply not enough to establish a link to human release of latent CO2. The SNR is too small. So, we have to look elsewhere.
One such elsewhere is the fact that emissions are accelerating, and have been for the past 20 years, while atmospheric concentration is at a steady rate:
http://oi63.tinypic.com/11gniqg.jpg
which correlates magnificently with temperature anomaly:
http://oi66.tinypic.com/jgnl6o.jpg
So, the 4th warmest July globally in UAH TLT.
ENSO neutral but La Nina still nipping at its heels…
TFN
ENSO is positive/neutral.
Yes, but El Nino hasn’t registered on the 3-month average >0.5C ENSO threshold yet. So effectively conditions are ENSO neutral still, most recently influenced by La Nina cooling. some ‘cooling’.
TFN
Look, were only talking .1 C increase over the last 3 months with the tropical pacific giving up heat.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Why would anyone think this is anything but a reflection of that small weather variation?
6 years and counting since the last negative anomaly.
(March, 2012: – 0.03 C)
This has been ‘adjusted’ to -0.04C. Still the last negative month globally though.
(Funny how retrospective adjustments to UAH are never challenged by the ‘scepticos’. Everywhere else they see conspiratorial whisperers.)
TFN
UAH adjusters are rank amateurs compared to the GISS adjusters.
Perhaps that’s why we hear so seldom about them.
TFN
Indeed. They can’t even come up with a valid justification.
pochas94 says:
August 1, 2018 at 1:02 PM
UAH adjusters are rank amateurs compared to the GISS adjusters.
Interesting!
Maybe you manage to carefully read this:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2015/12/big-uah-adjustments.html
Also:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/some-big-adjustments-to-uahs-dataset.html
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/04/remarkable-changes-to-uah-data.html
The trend is less than 0.02K yr-1.
Goldminor
There is a several month lag between ENSO and global temperature anomalies. Nino 3.4 didn’t turn positive until mid June.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
ENSO is neutral since mid-May.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
See the NOAA ENSO index here: http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Apr/May/Jun continuing negative. La Nina conditions only ended in Feb/Mar/Apr.
Yet the 4th warmest July in the UAH record. Wake up sir.
TFN
You can’t determine whether or not you are in La Nina by looking solely at the SOI.
Nino 3.4 is only a part of the bigger picture.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
Notice that one of the biggest reasons for the month-month change was in the tropics. A .17 increase over 40% of the planet.
The oceans are the primary driver of global temperature. They got a little warmer over the past 6 months.
What has caused the oceans to get warmer over the decades?
https://tinyurl.com/kyuef5q
And if oceans are the primary driver of global temperature, why is there a poor match during the 1998-2012 slowdown in air temps?
The oceans are affected by changes in the THC/MOC currents. These currents are driven by multiple factors but one of the biggest is changes in density.
We don’t have any quality OHC that goes back far enough to tell us anything important.
Hahahaha. OHC = not enough data, but we must have great THC/MOCwater density data stretching way back to give you such certainty.
Still doesn’t explain why surface temps and ocean heat content diverges from time to time, notably over the so-called pause period 1998 to 2012.
Are all you comments going to be delivered as if it’s the absolute truth, or does doubt and skepticism ever leaven your view of things?
Barry, please stop trolling.
El Nino has not and will not in the near future.
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2018/anomw.7.30.2018.gif
So what’s Aug going to be?
I will pick .30
Nice round number.
It seems Atlantic hurricane season will be on low side.
Anyone want guess the number of Cat 3 or larger in Aug?
During the solar minimum, the low jetstream stops over the Atlantic. Hence the shortage of water vapor over Europe and high temperature over land. At the same time, the surface temperature of the Atlantic drops .The proof is the lack of hurricanes in the Atlantic.
https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/jetstream
Very low surface temperature of the tropical Atlantic in the area of formation of hurricanes.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/eatlssta.png
Jetstream over the Atlantic forms the upper lows which cool surface and does not allow the formation of a hurricane.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2018/08/04/1800Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-52.59,13.37,519
A positive ENSO tends to reduce the number of Atlantic hurricanes.
I am going to predict another reasonably sized dip in UAH for August and/or September, before it picks up again later in the year.
Waiting for global cooling is like waiting for gold and silver prices to shoot the moon “an ice age is coming any day now” “gold and silver prices will hit 500oz sometime soon”.
You’re wrong. All you need is one dry winter in the northern hemisphere and you will see the difference.
Please link to the record of hemispheric precipitation which you will be using to judge the dryness of the northern hemisphere. Or do you plan on merely asserting whether it is dry or wet across the entire hemisphere?
(Please do not link to one of your BS vector field maps unless it comes with a complete description of what it is supposed to be showing.)
It is enough that ENSO will remain neutral.
I don’t see anybody claiming an ice age is coming any day now. By the account of real climate scientists who know how the climate works The cooling will became evident within the next 10 years and irrefutable withing next 30 years, whether little ice age or a big one nobody knows.
It’s interesting how cooling is always just around the corner.
Here’s a prediction from 2008:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2008/05/coming-global-cooling.html
Here’s one from 2012:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/19/cooling-in-the-near-future/
Here are several more:
https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/denier-weirdness-collection-of-alarmist.html
Eben
You seem to believe that a “Little Ice Age” was actually a small ice age. You probably also believe that “puppy love” has something to do with puppies.
Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
Is the criteria for “real climate scientists” based on you liking what they are saying, or on something more objective?
I’m kidding, of course. Obviously you haven’t a clue about objectivity.
The MWP didn’t end in a month and neither will the Modern Warm Period. The oceans are warm and it will take centuries for them to cool to any significant degree unless we figure out a way to create more clouds.
That said, the AMO will go negative within a few years and produce another temporary cool period like the 60s and 70s. This should be enough to end the dangerous AGW myth and reboot climate science.
The average AMO for the 90s was slightly more negative than the average AMO for the 60s. OOPS!
https://tinyurl.com/y85qk33z
AMO has had 2 cool periods in the instrumental record. Global temps were higher in the more recent one.
And if AMO leads, rather than aliases, global temps, then the next cool phase will see higher global temps than the last if the previous pattern is repeated.
So you think clouds have caused the longer term warming?
And you think a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 has little to no influence on surface temperatures, I suppose.
Whatever you think is going on, you seem to have no doubts.
The long term warming, in this case 300-400 years, is part of the Millennial cycle which is easy to see in the Greenland ice cores and many other proxies.
On top of that we have shorter term variations due to the 60-70 year cycle related to the PDO/AMO. We are probably near the top of both of these cycles at the moment.
CO2 emissions have caused a .01% change in the composition of the atmosphere. There is some effect as with anything else. In this case we see warmer nights/winters and cooler days/summer. So far the data doesn’t support anything else.
Richard M says:
In this case we see warmer nights/winters and cooler days/summer.
I don’t think so.
Using NASA GMST data, I find the trends since 1880 to be
DJF: +0.08 C/dec
MMA: +0.08 C/dec
JJA: +0.07 C/dec
SON: +0.07 C/dec
The trends over the last 30 years are:
DJF: +0.18 C/dec
MMA: +0.19 C/dec
JJA: +0.17 C/dec
SON: +0.23 C/dec
Summers are warming too, not cooling.
It’s the cycles!
Perhaps the price of gold and silver will rise in 10 years and shoot the moon by 30 years.
There is global cooling this year especially the overall oceanic sea surface temperatures so I say so far so good.
1.92 C change for Australia, why so large?
So we had a few months below the trend due to a La Nina, and after a lag of a few months we are back to the trend (actually slightly higher), just as expected. No sign of Salvatore’s cooling.
A reminder … Salvatore has only one more month for the UAH anomaly to hit zero, at which point he will admit to being wrong about cooling if this doesn’t happen. (Assuming he is true to his word, which I suspect will not be the case.)
Average UAH for first 7 months (Jan-Jul) of La Nina years:
1. 2018 (+0.23)
2. 2006 (+0.09)
3. 2001 (+0.09)
4. 2009 (+0.04)
5. 2011 (0.00)
The rest … negative
One thing’s fairly certain, the ‘pause’ since 1998 isn’t coming back.
But 2016 was a high anomaly, so all the pause-munchers can base their next song and dance from that year.
It is getting colder this year not warmer.
It’s a meaningless comment. Colder this year than what – The hottest year so far 2 years ago?
Or do you mean it’s getting colder through this year? That’s wrong, too. The most recent anomaly is warmer than the last.
These are weather reports. Nothing to do with climate change.
And you’ve abandoned your commitment to your prediction as soon as it went wrong.
Again.
It is colder this year according to satellite data.
OCENIC SURFACE TEMPERATURES ARE MUCH COLDER THIS YEAR!
WE’VE HAD A LA NINA THIS YEAR!
And … the UAH satellite record does NOT give ocean surface temperatures. It gives atmospheric temperatures above the ocean, at an average height of 7 km.
It is colder this year according to satellite data.
Colder than what?
2016? The largest el Nino in the 21st Century?
That says nothing.
If the world warmed at 5C per century for a thousand years, you could easily have 40% of the years in that series cooler than the one before.
In the year 12018, future Salvatore would still be saying that cooling was around the corner, because the year 12017 was 0.2C warmer.
Your ‘modeling’ has absolutely no rigour at all.
Which is why you abandoned your prediction, and are now making vague comments.
The more vague your ideas, the less likely they will be troubled by reality.
It’s already back. Temperature now is about the mean of the 2000’s excluding El Nino peaks.
You must have a different definition of ‘the pause’ than everyone else.
This was what everyone (well, the skeptics) was referring to.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2016/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/trend
The pause was the linear regression from 1998 to present. Gordon refers to this date constantly. Monckton canonised it with his regular updates with RSS.
Then this happened.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to:2018/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2018/trend
The ‘pause’ is over. Monckton called it. It was called at WUWT.
It’s not coming back.
It certainly isn’t already back.
You are more and more nakedly full of shit.
It’s already back. Use your brain.
Yes, the 1998 pause is history but there will be new pauses to celebrate for Gordon, Salvatore and you, at ever higher levels. History is full of them.
http://tinyurl.com/yck2o849
Which means that there is no evidence confirming AGW.
Aha, you have the Salvatore definition: AGW must cancel all natural variation.
http://tinyurl.com/ycgjoncy
It will not, only the long term average goes up, the year to year increase is small compared to short term factors.
If CO2 is the temperature control knob, then it must dominate. If NV can dominate it, then you have no idea if observations show CO2 impacts, or NV. It’s a signal to noise problem. If NV caused the “pause”, it could also have caused the run up from 1970-2000.
No , not at all, NV does not the signature of a long term trend.
Some factors are untangled here:
http://tinyurl.com/y7usxf4f
Tambora and the unidentified 1808 eruption brought temperatures down by 0.6 C (fig. 9).
ENSO is about +/- 0.3 C (fig. 7).
The AMO is +/- 0.2 C (fig. 10).
I tells ya’, I am in the wrong business. But, I just never could imagine feeling fulfilled by profiting at the expense of gullible saps.
“No , not at all, NV does not the signature of a long term trend.”
If it can influence over 20 years to cause the pause, it can last longer. The truth of the matter is, nobody knows.
Well, almost nobody…
Bart says:
That’s right Bart.
The AMO is sixty years, but these other factors are cyclic or random.
CO2 may take a million years to wash out completely.
When your pauses are over it is like they never happened.
“The truth of the matter is, nobody knows.”
Yeah, science can’t figure out stuff we don’t know!
“If it can influence over 20 years to cause the pause, it can last longer”
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:12/from:1968/plot/best/mean:60/from:1968
At most I see 10 y of ‘pause’ here. Same for other sets. Not dissimilar from others in the record.
In any case such NV does what it does.
And what it doesn’t do is prevent the long term trend from being observed.
Svante:
“The AMO is sixty years, but these other factors are cyclic or random.”
A) then a 30 year timeline is a really bad choice for defining climate
B) Please provide a comprehensive list of all these “other factors” and assure me you have listed all of them, and they are all short-term cyclic or random
Bart,
A) Yes, but it cancels everything else, just about.
B) Click on forcings here:
http://tinyurl.com/ybu6hta8
A) Aside from that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
B) Please look up “comprehensive”
B) Seventeen is not enough?
Who can say? That’s kind of the point.
http://tinyurl.com/yb8lr2rb
Muller’s a false flag – he was never genuinely skeptical, and he’s got a lot of incentive not to be.
None of this changes the fact that you are making an argument from ignorance.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
Good old Bart, always has a logical flaw to whip out and abuse.
Whats happening here is ordinary science in action. Looking for alternatives and ruling them out, one by one, until no others can be found.
That’s what we’ve done for all other established science. Perhaps we’re ignorant of the real laws.
Nate says:
“Good old Bart, always has a logical flaw to whip out and abuse.”
He whipped out the wrong one, because there is plenty of evidence but Bart says it’s something else.
Richard Muller:
Something else that just happens, by accident, to perfectly match the carbon dioxide increase? Are you serious?
Its already back. Use your brain.
I did. Repeatedly. You’re just repeating nonsense.
Which is why you can’t put numbers on. Stop repeating it, start demonstrating it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2007/plot/uah6/from:2009/to:2011/plot/uah6/from:2018
In that plot, the most comparable 6 mo period in terms of ESNO history, to jan-june, 2018, is the period of the dip (down to -0.1) in jan-june, 2006.
Yep, excise most of the data, squint one eye and hey presto! Bullshit!
Instead, you would recommend closing both eyes, and just imagine what you want to be true.
Sorry if I confused you by being succinct in my second to last sentence. At about the year 2000 the sun existed a long term (multidecadal) solar max and entered a long term solar minimum. At that point the hiatus began in global temperature data. There is still warmimg today. I think this is likeley CO2, but the pattern is different than models expected.
Galactic Cosmic Rays influence natural climate by changing cloud albedo. The increase of GCR numbers increase ions to seed dense low clouds and thus Earth albedo. GCR increases during low solar activity when the sun’s magnetic field is reduced. The GCR influence on modern (anthropogenic) atmosphere has been contested bc there is now more pollution to seed clouds in the background and the assumption is GCR are now diluted.
Its all peer reviewed literature. Sorry if you are ignorant to the process. Glad to help if I can.
The models make no attempt to predict a pattern. They predict only the long term trend. If the pattern is different to what you assert the models predict, it is due primarily to changes in the Pacific Decadel Oscillation, not the sun.
And if you are going to try to attack someone, perhaps next time respond directly to the person you are attacking. Sorry if you are ignorant to the reply process.
Actually the models don’t “predict” at all — they project, based on assumptions made about atmospheric GHG concentrations.
The models can only make predictions in hindsight.
Salvatore. In the last 20 years solar activity dropped, but CO2 keeps increasing rapidly. The net change may still be positive forcing. This could create a luke warm scenario onward. At some point the climate establishment will get on board with solar forcing because at the end of this solar minimum the warming may again surge during the next aolar max. This is the irony of this entire situation. Svensmark will be gone and his work finally aligned with the establishment but he will not get to enjoy the credit he deserves for a fundamental theory in physics- like a Nobel Prize. What frustrates me is this pattern seems so obvious but the establishment holds to a natural denialism model because the IPCC retards rejected GALACTIC COSMIC RAYS in their primitive models. What I hate is these same biased scientists will still retain power and funding.
The “climate establishment” has, of course, considered solar forcing, and determined it to be (only) 0.0-0.1 C/(W/m2 of TSI):
http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg
That’s also the value you get from the simplest energy balance model
(1-albedo)S/4 = sigma*T^4
which gives
dT/dS = T/4S = 0.05 C/(W/m2)
TSI doesn’t change by much — only 1.5 W/m2 max between the Maunder Minimum and now.
The climate simply isn’t that sensitive to changes in solar output. 0.1 C is about half a decade’s worth of greenhouse warming, so solar can have some effect on a decade’s warming. But not that much, really. Sorry.
DA, study some physics, before you embarrass yourself.
Oh…..
He has a PhD in physics, what do you have?
Svante, please stop enabling trolling.
That’s right, I shouldn’t respond to Huffman.
If you think that will help, then by all means, please dont respond to him.
I was referring to your enabling of notorious climate troll David Appell through the appeal to authority fallacy.
I think we should stop picking on Salvatore.
One day, just by chance, one of his predictions may turn out to be correct. Sadly, no one will take any notice because of his extensive record of failures.
By then, nobody will grant him the recognition he will undoubtedly demand.
A sad, but none-the-less common tale.
In 10 years you will wake up in a very cool world. Changes in ozone last for many years before their effects are clear in the climate. But I advise you not to stay too long in the sun.
“Changes in ozone last for many years before their effects are clear in the climate.”
Source please.
This year is the transitional year so far it is.
You really should cease using “the” to describe your multitude of ‘transitional years’.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 22, 2017 at 6:47 AM
I said year 2017 is going to be a transitional year in the climate.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256278
Oh yes Salvatore!
Myki says:
“I think we should stop picking on Salvatore.”
He really does seem to be a gentleman, the final test of that will be if he can admit he was wrong.
Gentlemen don’t argue over facts.
Not sure why my comments are at bottom of thread. Maybe a bug with my phone. This is a test.
The site has been doing this to some people for a while now. Most people are affected, but in different ways.
Huh?? Please explain how a neutral ENSO will lead to a dryer than normal winter across the ENTIRE northern hemisphere.
Then explain how you will PROVE that it was in fact dryer. Invoking an “ENSO neutral” call is not proof.
Finally explain why why you have flipped on your assertion from two months ago that we are headed for a prolonged La Nina.
Wrong place – repeated in reply to ren’s comment.
At least, I would have repeated if the system allowed me to.
Ren – this is in response to your assertion “It is enough that ENSO will remain neutral.”
Please see how the jet stream works in the Eastern South Pacific. Therefore, Humbold’s current will remain cool.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=samer2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
A 24 hour map shows how the jet stream works?? Interesting.
In November, La Nina may be created.
Based on which model?
And don’t forget … two months ago you didn’t say ‘might’. You treated it as a certainty.
I never said that La Nina would be extended. I told you that El Nino will not develop, and that’s a big difference.
With your poor English skills, on June 2 you stated “La Nina again renew”.
I showed it exactly:
La Nina again renew.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
In June, index 1.2 fell to -1.5 grade C.
And ever since it has been trending upwards.
Unlike Nina 3, 3.4 and 4, Nina 1.2 is not centred on the equator. It is 5 degrees further south. It has been catching the cold water from the recent El Nino as it has drifted away to the south. That data describes the END of the La Nina, not the beginning of a new one.
Such a circulation in the lower stratosphere is a warning to North America from an early winter attack this year.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00968/88pmtq19rk6r.png
I made a comparison between UAH and: a. step function; and b. linear best fit trend to see which explains the data better.
1. UAH data I used a 13 month running average to reduce noise a bit.
2. UAH 13mo was correlated to linear best fit and had correlation =.73 and r2 = .54
3. UAH 13mo was correlated to step function (stepped up 0.3 C at mid 1996 and stepped up 0.15 C at mid 2014) and had correlation = .77 and r2 = .60.
So a simple step function would be slightly preferred.
I also added a sin curve for El Nino (freq was ~4 yr and amplitude was .13C). Interestingly, the correlation and r2 for the step function both increased to .87 and .76, respectively. So although only quasi periodic, ENSO modelled as a sin cure still increases correlation.
For me such strong correlation shows how much of the data is correlated to these variables. It really isn’t that complex. The difference between steps at mid 96 and mid 14 is to minor a change in correlation to determine if long term warming is slowing or not. But it is not inconsistent with that assertion.
Will gladly email spreadsheet in Excel to anyone interested.
The more degrees of freedom you allow, the more parameters you give yourself leave to adjust, the less powerful your test.
But the major problem here is that the model lacks a physical basis.
Without that, the curve-fitting exercises are interesting but not indicative.
Nice reply. That’s why Roy’s 3rd-order polynomial fit was ultimately inappropriate — no physical basis.
If you experimented with the step/sin curve values until you got the best result, then the experiment is worthless.
You have to establish a null first. And the null has to be the opposite of what you’d prefer to see. Then see if the null is broken.
You can’t do that by hunting for the values that give you better correlation.
The Central England Temperature record gives readings from the year 1659.
To entertain myself, I had a look at the averages for the summer months (June,July, and August).
No year in the entire record has ever reached an average of 18C for these months, and values between equal to or greater than 17C are seen infrequently. Here they are, with the year.
1781 17.0
1826 17.6
1846 17.1
1911 17.0
1933 17.0
1947 17.0
1976 17.8
1983 17.1
1995 17.4
2003 17.3
2006 17.2
Also given that we are told that the CO2 level pre-1750 was 280ppm, and it’s now 410ppm, and given the fractional variations seen in Dr. Spencer’s satellite record (over which the arguments seem endless!), the anguished hand-wringing in the popular press in England suggesting that we are heading into a CO2-induced hell of our own making once again demonstrates the sensationalism of the media in over-hyping ‘climate’.
Yet another person who believes climate is defined by records.
So true, a recurring theme. After all, look how many new maximum temperature records are set globally. Yet the average pre 1970 record by country is 43.7C (110.7F) and post 1970 is 42.6C (108.6F), or 1.2C lower (2.1F lower) post 1970. Not much of a difference statistically. But there are many who focus on the number of new records as some sort of indicator that extremes are higher.
What exactly do you mean here with ‘how many new maximum temperature records are set globally’, and with ‘the average pre [or post] 1970 record by country’ ?
That is all but clear. How did you compute what you present here?
Hey Bindidon,
I think you would appreciate this the most. It supports your analysis you did in the previous blog article. Temperatures below are in Celsius (I remembered) and are average of maximum temp record of each country within the specified continent. The date is when the record occurred. There are 23 countries that still have pre 1970 records, coincidentally they also have records the go back to early 1900’s. There are 108 countries that have post 1970 records, coincidentally most of these only have records going back 50 years. Please excuse any formatting issues below, not sure how this will post.
Continent Pre 1970 Post 1970 Diff
Africa 51.9 45.7 -6.2
Asia 45.4 45.8 0.4
Europe 39.6 40.7 1.1
North America 43.7 38.3 -5.4
South Pacific 43.0 36.7 -6.3
South America 46.4 43.8 -2.6
All 43.7 42.6 -1.2
My point of course is not that there is significance to this. They all fall within the normal curve. But rather, telling me that there are 10 new temperature max records compared to 1 new temperature min record (10 to 1 ratio) has little meaning to me if the new records are only for the past 50 years.
Thanks bilybob, that is indeed real progress compared with the comment posted at 6:34 AM.
“The date is when the record occurred.”
I suppose you mean here that you scan the data of each station over its entire period, enter the maximum in a yearly vector and build for each year the average over the number of stations having had their maximum in that year.
Sounds correct, with – again – the exception that most ‘elder’ stations are found in America and Europe. Please remember that of the 1058 GHCN V4 daily stations active from 1895 till 2018, not less than 930 are in the US.
When I have some time to do, I will redo your experiment, but based on a grid into which a first averaging is performed.
But the central problem remains: that this maxima hunting based on absolute values is somwewhat useless.
Because it is of no interest that stations like Death Valley show maxima all the time.
Conversely, it is well of interest to see that stations with an average temperature of say -20 C from 1981 till 2010 show +10 C departures of that mean during five or ten years in sequence.
Thus it would be better to do the same job as you did, but based on anomalies instead.
A hard job.
Bindindon says “But the central problem remains: that this maxima hunting based on absolute values is somewhat useless.”
Yes, I think this is also one of mine central premises. The other is you can’t compare maximum temperature records if they were not available in the 1930/1940’s.
What I also found interesting is that Europe and Asia had higher max temperature averages which is consistent with what you had shown in your graphs. Australia (South Pacific), Africa, South America and North America show lower. Again at least for CONUS this is consistent.
But I agree with you looking at the absolutes is useless in a vacuum. A more comprehensive analysis is needed, unfortunately the data simply does not exist.
For the record, your analysis is far superior that mine. I was only using mine to show the insignificance.
“A more comprehensive analysis is needed, unfortunately the data simply does not exist.”
Of course it exists! You can construct anomalies for any station out of its abolute data, and for any set of stations sharing a common period large enough to build a mean.
But it’s a somewhat harder work than to simply use absolute data.
For GHCN daily, there is the file ‘ghcnd-inventory.txt’ which contains info about the lifetime of all stations.
Using that file you can select all stations having data between for example 1981-2010 or 1951-1980 or whatsoever, build their daily mean (the ‘climatology’) and construct for each station the anomalies wrt their mean.
The major difficulty, the ‘really hard work’ is to create an anomaly system out of stations sets having different reference periods, by analysing neighbourhood.
People like Berkeley Earth, Nick Stokes or Clive Best know how to solve such problems.
Agreed, I believe there is sufficient data for post 1950 analysis.
‘Records’, in the sense of _history_, are how climate is defined. ‘Records’, in the sense comparison with history, are additions to history.
You know precisely the sense of ‘record’ that I was using.
B,
Along with the WMO, the IPCC, and anybody who agrees that “Climate is the statistics of weather over long periods of time.”
Climate is the average of weather – no more, no less.
Your CO2 induced psychotic state obviously blinds you to the fact that records are needed, before the average can be calculated.
Cheers.
Bobdesbond:
To summarise: I’ve presented data from slightly over three and a half centuries of temperature records (359 years) which show that the average highest temperature in the UK’s hottest months (Jun, July, and August) remains unchanged over all that time, despite atmospheric CO2 having increased from 280ppm to the current 410ppm.
That’s an increase of slightly over 46%.
This is clearly at odds with all the media hysteria over here about ‘climate change’, which of course means a supposed dangerous man-made global temperature increase due to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use.
So what exactly do you mean when you say ‘Yet another person who believes climate is defined by records’?
So now you want to claim that data from the Midlands area which constitutes 11.8% of the area of the UK is representative of the entire UK. Yet more denier misrepresentation.
bob, what percentage of unadjusted data do you plan to throw out?
That might tell you something….
Bobdesbond – from the MetOffice:
‘These daily and monthly temperatures are representative of a roughly triangular area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Lancashire, London and Bristol. The monthly series, which begins in 1659, is the longest available instrumental record of temperature in the world. The daily mean-temperature series begins in 1772. Manley (1953, 1974) compiled most of the monthly series, covering 1659 to 1973. These data were updated to 1991 by Parker et al (1992), who also calculated the daily series. Both series are now kept up to date by the Climate Data Monitoring section of the Hadley Centre, Met Office. Since 1974 the data have been adjusted to allow for urban warming: currently a correction of -0.2 C is applied to mean temperatures.’
Lancashire, London, and Bristol are not in the Midlands.
Now argue with the MetOffice.
The tables are no good. I know someone out there still remembers their statistics (I don’t), but I know enough to recognize that the variances are too great from area to area and month to month. Therefore, we certainly can’t rely on them.
I’d also bet that northern hemisphere has the most warming when averaged over many years suggesting that heat island effect is greater than thought.
Tell me … how does the UHI effect account for the warming of the oceans?
Each month that passes by without any further global warming makes AGW theory weaker and weaker.
The trend is just over 0.001 degrees C per month. How large is the monthly variability in global temperatures?
Another gotcha enthusiast.
Tell me . . . why should anyone even try to understand your nonsensical demands?
Prove to me that you are just not another stupid and ignorant GHE proselytiser.
Cheers.
martinitony says:
Id also bet that northern hemisphere has the most warming when averaged over many years suggesting that heat island effect is greater than thought.
2/3rds of the globe’s land is in the Northern Hemisphere, which means it warms faster than the Southern Hemisphere, which is 81% ocean.
Carbon500 says:
To summarise: Ive presented data from slightly over three and a half centuries of temperature records (359 years) which show that the average highest temperature in the UKs hottest months (Jun, July, and August) remains unchanged over all that time
Not quite. I find JJA is up 0.4 C.
That’s hardly a surprising result. The globe is up 1.0 C, but the HAD.CET thermometer is only measuring about 1 cubic centimeter of the atmosphere.
Here are all the other seasonal changes for HAD.CET:
DJF: +1.4 C
MAM: +1.0 C
JJA: +0.4 C
SON: +1.2 C
total change: +1.0 C
DA:
Seasonal changes from when to when – over what time period? Please clarify.
Re the DJF: the highest values seen are above 6C but below 7C.
In 1686, 1734, 1834,1869, 1935, 1975, 1989, 1990, 1998, 2007, 2014, and 2016.
Even in a supposedly dangerous warming world, it’s remarkable that these seasonal averages have never gone higher than this over hundreds of years – don’t you think?
And what does the UAH data show? Surely the planet going about its normal business, with fraction of a degree fluctuations only.
Over the entire Had.CET dataset.
Carbon500 says:
Re the DJF: the highest values seen are above 6C but below 7C.
In 1686, 1734, 1834,1869, 1935, 1975, 1989, 1990, 1998, 2007, 2014, and 2016.
Even in a supposedly dangerous warming world, its remarkable that these seasonal averages have never gone higher than this over hundreds of years dont you think?
No, I don’t. What’s remarkable is that in a dataset of 360 years, half of those values have occurred in just the last 30 years.
DA; you say:
Here are all the other seasonal changes for HAD.CET:
DJF: +1.4 C
MAM: +1.0 C
JJA: +0.4 C
SON: +1.2 C
total change: +1.0 C
You also state that you got these figures ‘over the entire Had.CET dataset. I still don’t understand how you’ve calculated these figures. If you look at the dataset which shows the three-month seasonal averages (DJF, MAM, JJA, SON), there are of course year to year variations, some more marked than others, from year to year. For example, the 2018 DJF value from the MetOffice is 4.3, not an unusual value, and less than a lot of others from years ago. How can you say that the total DJF change is +1.4C?
You also say in reply to my earlier post that ‘what’s remarkable is that in a dataset of 360 years, half of those values have occurred in just the last 30 years.’
True enough, and I agree.
The question then is why?
Year 2018 is the first year I ever said was a transitional year.
Liar.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256278
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 2, 2018 at 6:13 AM
Year 2018 is the first year I ever said was a transitional year.
—
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 22, 2017 at 6:47 AM
I said year 2017 is going to be a transitional year in the climate.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-256278
Hmmm … not sure about the reason for the duplication …
Excessive trolling.
AGW theory is a lie. Their prediction is no better then mine.
Climate is not doing what they have called for so they are liars also.
The projected warming trend is around 0.15C per decade. Your predicted rate of fall is around 0.3C per year, 20 times as fast. There is no comparison to your prediction for sheer stupidity.
“There is no comparison to your prediction for sheer stupidity.”
That rate of decline occurred 5 times since 1979.
Yet again, you confuse changes in the baseline of climate with short term changes due to weather.
Long-term climate changes are the result of long-term changes in solar activity.
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
No I don’t, you confuse comparing 1 year rates of change with 10 year rates of change. A common mistake on this blog, I have seen idiots compare 7000 year rates of change with decadal rates of change and say, oh look we are in unprecedented times. I guess it is the new math. Still not an apples to apples comparison.
ren
Would you please point out where I should look in that graphic to find a reference to climate.
bb
I was talking about decadel changes, then you pipe in and make a claim about rates of decline that happened over much smaller time scales, so it is you who is suffering from that confusion.
Don’t know how this appeared here. I definitely hit reply.
I was just going on what you said “Your predicted rate of fall is around 0.3C per year”. I do not believe that Salvatore ever said that this would be something that was done year after year. I am only saying that some on this blog do not understand data and often confuse annual, decadal and millennial rates of change. You seemed to be comparing an annual with a decadal and claiming Salvatore is stupid. You say “There is no comparison to your prediction for sheer stupidity.” But please correct me if I am wrong, I would like to learn the difference.
Salvatore DOES claim that this rate will continue. If he were not, then he was making only a weather prediction, not climate.
“Do you see a trend there?”
“No I don’t see a trend there. Do you?”
“No. No trend.”
“Well if you squint you can kinda see how it’s vaguely sinusoidal.”
“Hmmm… Yeah. For entertainment purposes only, I can kinda see it.”
“You know what!? Squint even harder and it starts to look like it’s dropping!”
“Huh! You’re right. Temperatures definitely declining…”
There are some very smart posters here. They are clearly wasting their time with the rest of the crowd…
Wow, what is going on Down Under? June 2018 was -0.55C and July 2018 was +1.37C. Did all of the world’s CO2 just happen to sit on top of Australia last month?!!
I rather would suppose that extreme advection processes moved lots of Tropics heat poleward.
Something similar seems to have happened above CONUS during May.
Bindidon, that is exactly what I think is happening on a global scale. There is nothing at all uniform about the transport of heat from the tropics to the mid-lats and polar regions. There are day to day fluctuations, week to week, month to month, year to year, decade to decade, and century to century fluctuations of tropical heat to the extratropical regions. And I think some of us who work in the field of weather/climate make wayyyyy toooo much of a friggin’ deal about some chosen time frame.
I can’t help but notice that the global warming alarmists are all fixated on the warming trend of the previous 3 decades. And they are desperately trying to convince all of humanity that we are the cause, based on their own arbitrary 3 decades that they chose to fit their narrative. And they are extrapolating the past 3 decades into the future without any regard for the prospect of climate cycles.
Warming has now been going on for 5 decades, not 3.
And the last 3 (5) decades are arbitrary??!!??
We’re most interested in climate change NOW, now the decades from 1070-1120. We’re interested in what’s causing climate change NOW, not from the years 110-160 CE. We’re interested in where the climate is going NOW, not where it was going in the year 1581.
And models don’t “extrapolate,” they calculate by solving the equations that determine climate.
DA, have you learned any physics this week?
Do you now understand your “missing 150 Watts/m^2” is nonsense?
Keep studying.
The previous 3 decades DA; 2000s, 1990s, and 1980s. We are experiencing now what some global warming alarmists call “The Pause.” But many of you want to get rid of “The Pause.” There was a cooling trend in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Today’s global mean temperature anomaly is quite unspectacular.
I am very content to live in this mild climate with surprisingly insignificant temperature fluctuations.
Canberra has more than 30 nature reserves, with most hosting hundreds of Eastern Grey Kangaroos, and it is not unusual to see them in the reserves or in roads or yards nearby, Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Parks and Conservation Service Director Daniel Iglesias told CNN.
But he said this winter the animals were far more visible.
“Canberra is experiencing a perfect storm of hardship for its kangaroos. New records have been set in Canberra for very cold, frosty nights this winter. This, coupled with very dry conditions with very little rain at all in June and July, means there is very little food for kangaroos, ” Iglesias said, via email.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/30/australia/australia-canberra-kangaroo-boom/index.html
Yet the average daytime maximum was the second highest for July in the short 10-year life of Canberra’s only official station.
How far do you have to narrow down before you find your cooling. One particular location, for one particular month, and specifically only overnight minimums.
This variation has ALWAYS taken place. Look at the entire record instead of cherry picking.
I dare you to do the following:
Pick 100 locations spaced out around the world, ones with a good lengthy temperature record. Pick them NOW, announce which ones you have chosen, then report back on their average temperature for September. Keep doing the same for each month over the next five years.
But of course you wouldn’t dare do that. You will insist on being able to chose your stations AFTER the event in order to maintain your illusion.
David Dilley predicts cooling to start at the end of 2019
Yeah right … the person who claimed in 2012 that “phase 1” of cooling had begun in 2008. If only every data set didn’t prove him wrong. It seems that every time we get La Nina, the nutjobs want to claim that this is the beginning of their cooling.
As I said as month passes without any further global warming AGW theory becomes less and less viable.
You also said that you would admit that you are wrong about cooling if the UAH didn’t get down to zero by the end of the northern hemisphere summer 2018.
So … is any stock to be be placed in what you say?
As I said as month passes without any further global warming
2018 05 +0.18
2018 06 +0.21
2018 07 +0.32
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means.”
2018 06 +0.21
2018 07 +0.32
One month to go….
…and the 30-yr mean anomaly for each of JJA is 0.09 C.
So August has to be -0.26 C or cooler for Salvatore’s prediction to come true. Doubtful.
Salvatore meant a zero anomaly – based on the 1981-2010 mean.
Thanks. So it’s even worse.
Salvatore better hope for an asteroid strike. But not too big.
Which means August would have to be the lowest anomaly ever recorded in the UAH temp record.
Here’s Sal’s original post:
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
Salvatore’s interval is actually 31 years.
He gets it right elsewhere. He means the zero line for UAH global.
But wait, there’s more:
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 3, 2018 at 8:30 AM
“Barry you must understand if the global temperatures rise from this point in time on I will say I am wrong.
If they keep trending down as they are I am going to say I am correct.”
That was 1 month ago exactly, just after the June anomaly update.
Well, the global temperature went up “from this point in time,” and Salvatore is still claiming victory.
You can say what you want I expect it because I put myself on the line unlike the phonies associated with their phony AGW theory that have one excuse after another as to why the global temperatures are not increasing any longer.
Where is the increase for year 2018? Answer there is none.
Nobody claims that every year will be warmer than the last under AGW.
Look at the record! Many years were cooler than the previous.
But it warmed over the whole period.
THAT is what is predicted under AGW – long term warming, not year-on-year warming, every year warmer than the last. It’s a childish notion.
So stop trying to make it look like that is what the proponents of AGW claim.
No, that it what you SAY they claim so that you can more easily try to discredit them.
When people talk of ‘straw man argument’ this is exactly the sort of thing they mean.
Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year. Every model printout shows this.
If I am going to be held to very high standards so then will AGW theory.
I am more correct then they are this year so far.
No Salvatore, the models indicate only the TREND, not actual predictions of annual temperatures. Try reading the small print for once instead of looking only at the pretty pictures.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 3, 2018 at 5:09 AM
Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year.
————————————————
No, it doesnt.
That would be quite stupid.
Everyone knows, that even with konstant CO2-level global temperatures would variate and did variate from year to year.
“Everyone knows, that even with konstant [sic] CO2-level global temperatures would variate and did variate from year to year.”
Yes, because CO2 has no effect on global temperatures.
Sal,
Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year. Every model printout shows this.
Bullshit.
https://tinyurl.com/yclqtqh8
That’s from the IPCC. that’s a bunch of different models. You are so wrong it’s not even funny.
The model outputs have as much variation as the actual records – with a general warming trend.
NO ONE expects every year to be warmer than the last under AGW (or any other case of warming).
That is one of the most moronic straw man arguments that the skeptic world comes up with.
You are cementing yourself as an idiot with comments like that, JD.
Or a troll. Hard to tell apart sometimes.
Barry, you are completely out of control. Please stop trolling.
barry…”You are cementing yourself as an idiot with comments like that, JD”.
Where’s your proof that JD is wrong and that you’re not the idiot? There’s no proof that CO2 is affecting global temperature. Even Roy, who is an expert on global temperatures cannot say what effect CO2 may have.
Gordon,
Dr Spencer agrees that more CO2 in the atmos should cause some warming at the surface, all else being equal. He has written many posts explaining and experimenting to describe the physics.
Your views are totally at odds with his on this. For which in the past you have said he is misguided. Don’t pretend he views things remotely like you do.
No barry, please STOP trolling.
Why don’t you tell Dr Roy Spencer to stop trolling and learn some physics?
See “Skeptical Arguments that Dont Hold Water”:
http://tinyurl.com/ox3s4x7
No, Ill just tell you to stop trolling.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Dr. Roy Spencer says:
“Please stop the ‘no greenhouse effect’ stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.”
Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water:
1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times…maybe start here.
Svante, PST.
Tell that to Dr. Roy Spencer, it was his words.
Svante, Dr Spencer isnt trolling, you are. Try to stop.
Svante, what you have to learn to be able to do, is to follow a discussion. Barry stated that Gordon was pretending Dr Spencer shared his views. This is an incorrect statement since Gordon only said that Dr Spencer couldnt say what effect CO2 may have. He did not state that Dr Spencer thought there was no greenhouse effect. So this was just barry trolling again. I asked him to stop, and then for some strange reason this triggered your series of responses, which are only furthering the trolling. So I have asked you to stop.
How much do you think each of these factors will contribute for the century ahead, in W/m^2?
Ozone
Strat. H2O
Aerosols (direct)
Aerosols (indirect)
Black Carbon
Snow Albedo
Volcanos
Solar Intensity
Land Use
CO2
CH4
Other GHGs
NAtl. Oscillation
Pac. Decadal Osc.
Southern Osc. Index
Pacific Nino 3.4
Salvatores solar effect
… Salvatore?
It is all solar effects moderated by the geo magnetic field. All the other items you mentioned are tied to those things to one degree or another.
So let me get this straight … you are claiming that the ONLY things that affect earth’s climate are solar radiation and the earth’s magnetic field. Is that right?
B,
What is the point of your witless gotcha?
Without solar radiation, what sort of weather (and its average, climate) would there be?
Are you claiming that with enough CO2, the Sun is irrelevant?
Stupid and ignorant, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.
Off you go then, invent some more gotchas.
Cheers.
I think he saying that solar radiation and solar effects upon Earth’s magnetic is the “control knob”.
Some think CO2 is the “control knob” in terms of the global temperature. Though not heard of Co2 controlling Ozone and etc, instead the belief is CO2 is effecting whether there is water vapor. No Co2 = no water vapor, lots of Co2 = lots of water vapor.
I noticed the list is missing any mention of water vapor.
Many believe water vapor is main greenhouse gas and imagine that only greenhouse gases increases the average temperature of Earth.
[]And such a belief requires that Ozone and clouds to be regarded as greenhouse gases.]]
Right because all the other items are connected to them.
Really Salvatore? So which one was responsible for the Eocene thermal maximum?
gbalkie: water vapor is a feedback on climate change, not a forcing.
–Bobdesbond says:
August 3, 2018 at 6:54 AM
Really Salvatore? So which one was responsible for the Eocene thermal maximum?–
Volcanic activity is thought to be responsible for Eocene thermal maximum- or that the seventh on that list.
At that time period, Earth had ocean temperature of about 10 C, and then volcanic activity increased the ocean temperature. The Eocene thermal maximum was the transition from a typical earth climate to a hothouse climate- for relatively brief time period- and then it returns to a normal climate.
Normal being Ocean with average temperature of 10 C and hothouse climate warmer than this, and our colder icebox climate has ocean temperature of 1 to 5 C.
With us currently being at 3.5 C.
Eocene thermal maximum demonstrates the impossibility of Earth becoming like Venus- as there was a very warm ocean and lots of greenhouse gases, and when the massive volcanic activity ceased, the Earth goes back to it’s normal temperature.
Eocene thermal maximum is notable as being the last hothouse climate- Earth has had a lot of hothouse climates.
It’s not clear that volcanic activity had a significant role with other hothouse climates, as most of these lasted for much longer time periods.
It is the configuration and topography of Earth land masses within a world mostly covered with oceans, which causes us to be living within an Ice Age.
Or even if the ocean were to somehow warm higher temperature than 5 C, that this alone doesn’t allow us to escape from the Ice Age.
One might call it, an icebox + human influence climate.
I think a ocean at 4 C or more, would be nicer Earth. It would be more suitable to support more life.
So not solar activity or geomagnetism then.
“Bobdesbond says:
August 3, 2018 at 4:42 PM
So not solar activity or geomagnetism then.”
Salvatore seems to regard solar activity and geomagnetism as a control knob which includes volcanic activity- and he is quite specific in regards to volcanic eruptions with cubic kilometers of ejecta material that enters global atmosphere and which causes a cooling effect].
I think that lower solar activity and volcanic activity might have cooling effect, due to the Little Ice Age having lower solar activity and significant volcanic activity. Simple correlation.
But I don’t think anyone understands how the cooling occurred in the LIA- and anyone, includes myself.
But if there was a cooling effect, it seems it would require a fair amount of time- and in near term, one will just have effects upon weather. And it’s possible the weather effects may help reach some predictive results in terms of global temperature of the future.
Anyhow so far I seen no evidence which changes my view that we are continuing to recovery from LIA.
And I hope average temperature will increase.
And I think it might be possible CO2 could cause some amount of warming. But it’s not clear to me how CO2 would do this. And not clear that increasing CO2 has caused any global warming [or how much exactly].
But what is very clear is that “GHE theory” is pseudo science.
bob…”Really Salvatore? So which one was responsible for the Eocene thermal maximum?”
Where’s the proof there was one? Where’s the proof that ice was piled miles high on any continent?
People tend to talk about such proxy-based evidence as if it is fact yet it is nothing more than conjecture.
gbaikie…”But I dont think anyone understands how the cooling occurred in the LIA- and anyone, includes myself”.
You can add me to the list. I know one thing, the LIA was not caused by CO2. I am also sure that recovery from the cooling was not due to anthropogenic causes.
S,
Ice can contribute 300W/m2.
It even emits this at night, during summer or winter, in the presence or absence of CO2, and can actually be measured – unlike the mythical GHE.
Talking about W/m2 is completely pointless, in the context of climate. Just more mystical climatological pseudoscientific gibberish.
Maybe you should learn more about science, and concentrate less on stupid and irrelevant gotchas.
Are you really as stupid and ignorant as you appear, or are you just pretending for some bizarre reason?
Carry on dreaming.
Cheers.
MF wrote:
Ice can contribute 300W/m2.
It even emits this at night, during summer or winter, in the presence or absence of CO2, and can actually be measured unlike the mythical GHE.
So, Mike, a big question. If the ice is radiating 300 watts/m^2, why does it stay near constant temperature instead of cooling all the way to zero K? Could it be that everything both emits and absorbs IR EM radiation at the same time? Doesn’t the atmosphere also emit and absorb as the energy flows thru the atmosphere out to deep space?
It is happening Barry but slower then I thought although overall oceanic sea surface temperatures are going as I expected.
I may to fast with some of my cooling but it is in the correct direction which means AGW prediction is in the wrong direction. So I am more correct for year 2018 then AGW theory thus far.
Sal, you said on July 3:
“Barry you must understand if the global temperatures rise from this point in time on I will say I am wrong.
If they keep trending down as they are I am going to say I am correct.”
You said on July 23:
“NO FURTHER WARMING WILL BE OCCURING FROM HERE ON OUT.”
We’ve just got the latest UAH monthly anomaly – it’s warmer than last month.
And last month was warmer than the month before.
You said that global temps should be at baseline by now. You said you would admit you were wrong if they were not.
I asked you a year ago to make a firm commitment. You agreed. You staked your opinion on what you said should happen.
It didn’t happen. Your opinion is so precious to you that you would rather surrender your integrity than your opinion.
I am sorry for you.
b,
Are you really sorry, or just being stupid?
Cheers.
Agree lol
I gave Sal a chance to prove he was not the fickle David has been portraying him as. I really did hope that he would maintain some integrity.
I prefer to think well of people, believe it or not. Complete cynicism avoids disappointment, but I’m not that cynical.
I gave Sal a chance to prove he was not the fickle caricature David has been portraying him as. I really did hope that he would maintain some integrity. I preferred to think well of him.
One trolling remark was sufficient.
Barry if you look at the overall oceanic sea surface temperatures I am pretty close to being correct. This is the most important metric.
Last year they were +.35 c above 1981-2010 means currently they are +.151c above 1981-2010 means a drop of .2c in a year.
Where they go global temperatures will follow.
Have sea surface temperatures ever fallen by this much before? I’ll wait for you to properly research your answer.
We are not done with the fall.
Please answer my question.
I do not know nor do I care.
Of course you don’t care about something that would destroy your claims.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Barry if you look at the overall oceanic sea surface temperatures I am pretty close to being correct. This is the most important metric.
The most important metric is ocean heat content, which is increasing steadily:
http://tinyurl.com/jbf2xco
That will follow sea surface temperatures and does not influence the climate.
It’s the other way around. The surface is 2-dimensional and can’t hold any heat at all.
Salvatore…”I may to fast with some of my cooling but it is in the correct direction….”
Don’t worry about it, the information you supply is informative and entertaining. I hope you’re right but if not it’s no big deal.
As John Christy of UAH has pointed out, there are so many variables in climate science and predicting climate based on that issue is nigh impossible.
If only the alarmists understood that.
gbaikie, it’s a bit generous to sayTLT has dropped for 3 years since the highest anomaly in the data was 30 months ago. The temperature has yet to dip as low as it was during the 20 year “pause” and this la Nina is over.
Only that El Nino will not be created, so the global temperature will not increase.
Rather “a bit generous” I would say it’s a bit silly.
But, in term Aug TLT are expecting much change from the July .32?
And do expect the Atlantic hurricane season to intensify in latter part of 2018 season?
I’ve always wondered whether English is your first language. This and countless other posts from you suggest not.
B,
Did you ever consider asking? No?
I wonder why?
Cheers.
I wonder about a lot things.
The latest thing I wonder about, is there any way we make the Ozone warming effect, stronger.
I am not sure the Ozone causes any warming effect.
But some swear by it.
Someone was wondering something related to this:
“I was just wondering that if ozone is a strong[er] oxidizing agent [that oxygen alone] and its boiling point is higher than liquid oxygen [more practical?], then can it be used for applications where liquid oxygen is usually used?”
And someone else gives a useful reply:
“Hydrogen peroxide is relatively safe, safe enough for use by a (very) careful amateur rocket builder. Liquid ozone isn’t safe, period. The slightest contaminant, the slightest vibration, looking at it cross-eyed, kaboom. Using liquid ozone as a rocket propellant ozidizer is an old idea that goes back to the 1950s or before. It never worked because of the self-detonation problem. Even a liquid O2/O3 mix turned out to be problematic.”
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-liquid-ozone-substitute-for-liquid-oxygen.565920/
This in turn makes me wonder how many millions of tonnes of O3 is Miss Nature making?
bob…”Ive always wondered whether English is your first language. This and countless other posts from you suggest not”.
Being from Australia you are not seriously claiming to speak English as a first language???
craig…”The temperature has yet to dip as low as it was during the 20 year pause and this la Nina is over”.
Following the 1998 EN there was an unexplained increase to the ‘pause’ average. There could very well be an unexplained natural force at work related to warming.
It’s also possible that the current erratic warming since 1970 is part of a long-term natural cycle.
Gordon Robertson says:
“There could very well be an unexplained natural force at work related to warming.”
Or could it be an explained force?
Gordon Robertson says:
There could very well be an unexplained natural force at work related to warming.
Citing unknown, unexplained forces isn’t science, it’s pseudoscience.
You might as well just say some god is responsible.
Current ideas, especially GHGs, explain modern warming quite well. Certainly well enough to tell us why it’s warmed so far and that it’s going to continue to warm.
Very low solar activity and very low activity of Atlantic.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atl&product=wv-mid
Den, here is some perspective on Arctic sea,ice volume.
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd1.png
The graph shows the annual variation of the volume of the sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, excluding the Baltic Sea and the Pacific. The volume of the ice is calculated on the basis of the ice thicknesses from the HYCOM-CICE model. In each grid cell the volume is calculated as thickness multiplied with concentration and with area, with contributions from all grid cells to the total volume. The grey band around the climatologic mean value corresponds to plus/minus one standard deviation based on the 10-year average 2004-2013.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/sea/CICE_curve_thick_LA_EN_20180801.png
So this years integral is below a very recent base line.
In 2015, the magnetic activity of the Sun increased, now it is falling.
https://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif?time=1531106403000
S,
Is it really?
Cheers.
Yes, check it out with Riemann:
http://tinyurl.com/neupxj2
Ren can calculate the Riemann sum on the ice graph he posted, to see if the arctic temperature is near the baseline:
http://tinyurl.com/yaqedxmu
On topic because I am challenging silly science like AGW. What I am seeing in the night sky with Venus and Jupiter is just as silly.
It is claimed the planets revolve counterclockwise around the Sun. I have been watching Jupiter nightly as well as Venus and Mars due to the excellent weather we’ve experienced in this rain-forest (Vancouver, Canada) the past couple of months.
When I started watching Venus and Jupiter a couple of months ago, Jupiter was almost due south around 10 PM. Venus was a bit north of west. Now, Venus is a bit south of west, meaning it has progressed south wrt Earth. Meantime, Jupiter has progressed significantly west of south.
Ok, I am aware we are turning CCW as well, and at a different angular velocity than Jupiter and Venus. The apparent motion of Venus to the south of west could be explained by that. However, how does one explain Jupiter moving in an apparent CW direction?
gbaikie should be into this. He’ll know.
BTW, as the Earth rotates west to east, Venus moves down toward the horizon and Jupiter moves in a westerly direction, dipping down toward the horizon as it goes.
Around midnight, Mars shows up in the southern sky at about the same elevation as Jupiter. I have not yet determined which way it appears to be going. It would be interesting if Venus moved south enough and Jupiter moved in behind it.
One explanation fairly obvious to me is that Jupiter seems to be moving CCW because Earth is moving faster in an inner orbit. There’s a problem for all you relativity fetishists who believe in time dilation.
If Jupiter is in fact moving CCW, but appears to be moving CW, that’s a perfect example of the illusion produced by relative motion. At some point, it should start moving CCW again wrt Earth.
***********
Just discovered the explanation:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~mendez/ASTRO110LAB11/planetmotion.html
Now, how about an explanation for AGW that does not feature illusions?
Right now, Venus is on the opposite side of the Sun from us and it is very bright. I guess when it catches up with us and comes between us and the Sun, it will disappear. Or, if you have a decent telescope, you’ll see it in phases like the Moon’s phases.
When you look at the path of the orbital plane, Jupiter seems to be at the top of it right now with the plane slicing down through the Earth from South to north at about a 30 degree angle to the horizon (again…at the latitude of Vancouver, Canada). Mars is further up the plane right now, on the same inclined side as Jupiter. I’ll have to check to see where Saturn is located.
**********
Apparently from August 20th to 23, the Moon will be in the southern sky (from Vancouver, BC, at least), probably between 10 pm to midnight. On the 20th, Saturn will be visible just below the Moon and a bit to its left. Mars will be further to the left and lower still.
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/visible-planets-tonight-mars-jupiter-venus-saturn-mercury#saturn
On the 21st and 22nd, the Moon will be between Mars and Saturn and higher than both. Apparently, Saturn has a golden tinge to it especially when viewed through binoculars.
I know Mars has a definite reddish tinge, even by eye, and I have never seen it so bright, or that high in the sky.
I am trying to setup an 80mm x 800mm reflector telescope but it’s not as easy as it seems. I did catch Jupiter one night but it was nothing more than a ball the size of a dime and fuzzy. Apparently, you can take an mp4 video and use averaging software from the Net that will clarify it so you can see a band. Not a rock band, a band of a different shade of grey.
I’ll bet that between August 20th and 23rd, our cloud cover will be back big-time.
Why did you post if you had already discovered the answer to your problem before posting? My suggestion … to give the illusion that you are a thinker. If you had been observing this phenomenon for 2 months, why would you have waited until just now to google it?
bob…”Why did you post if you had already discovered the answer to your problem before posting? My suggestion to give the illusion that you are a thinker. If you had been observing this phenomenon for 2 months, why would you have waited until just now to google it?”
It’s a bit over your limited intelligence. The answer is easy, I was commenting as I went along and looked things up after posing the question. Maybe you could try it and get some science into your posts rather than focusing on sarcasm and as homs.
When you’re an astronomer, it takes time to develop theories through observation. I have other matters to deal with like brain surgery. Could I offer you a quick lobotomy?
Gordon Robertson says:
When youre an astronomer, it takes time to develop theories through observation.
But where are the experiments??
DA…”But where are the experiments??”
I’m currently on the ‘materials’ part of the scientific method, setting up my 80mm x 800mm reflector scope.
Ren I say the climate is going in the right direction this year which is cooler on all fronts.
It has to continue.
The models are AGW theory prediction and they are way off and getting worse with each passing month.
Salvatore…”The models are AGW theory prediction and they are way off and getting worse with each passing month.”
The models are unvalidated toys programmed with several inferences not backed in physics.
The IPCC has its roots in climate modeling and that’s why they are such a useless organization. As I have pointed out previously, the IPCC came from politicking at the UN by ex-PM Margaret Thatcher. She had a beef with the coal miner’s union and starting bs about global warming related to emissions from coal was her way of drawing negative attention to coal.
The first co-chair of the IPCC, John Houghton, was a climate modeler. He was a protege of Thatcher and that’s how he got in the door. Houghton brought climate modeling pseudo-science to the IPCC.
If climate science went back to real physics they’d have no basis for claiming unprecedented warming or projected catastrophic warming.
Gordon: I think you should check your Margaret Thatcher story and verify its source. This is surely another folk myth that’s done the rounds many times. I live in England, and I can’t recall ‘global warming’ ever being mentioned at the time. As I’ve said before, it wasn’t even a blip on the media horizon at that time.
The miner’s strike took place in 1984-5, and it was nasty. Ian MacGregor, an American, was the chairman of the National Coal Board at this time. Read his autobiography ‘The Enemies Within'(Collins Press, 1986) and you won’t see a single word about global warming.
You understate matters when you say that ‘Margaret Thatcher had a beef with the coal miner’s union’ – this was a conflict in every sense of the word. It was, ultimately, an attempt to topple a democratically government, and was, as described in MacGregor’s book, ‘the longest-lasting, most bitter and most crucial dispute that Britain has ever suffered.’
carbo…”You understate matters when you say that Margaret Thatcher had a beef with the coal miners union this was a conflict in every sense of the word. It was, ultimately, an attempt to topple a democratically government….”
They may have been democratically elected but they were far from being democratic. The Thatcher regime destroyed the UK putting millions out of work due to privatization and the sale of the UK to international interests.
How about the time Churchill sent out the army to break the strike of miners during WWII? Although Churchill is largely regarded as a hero in the UK he was as bad as Thatcher when it came to right-wing Tory excesses. That’s why he was dumped as PM right after WWII.
The Thatcher connection to global warming puts the notion to rest that global warming/climate change is a Left wing plot. Global warming theory has its roots in an uber-right wing government using it to control Left wing factions.
From there, the IPCC has used it to try establishing a world government so it has taxation rights. That may appear to be a Left wing ploy but it’s driven by despots from Third World countries looking for handouts to stuff their coffers. Any money they receive will never get through to the poor for whom it is intended.
Thank you for your interesting comments, Gordon. I’ll look into the matters you mention and read up some political history relating to these issues.
Gordon Robertson says:
The models are unvalidated toys programmed with several inferences not backed in physics.
The longest chapter in the 5AR WG1 is Chapter 9, “Evaluation of Climate Models.”
What did you find unsatisfactory when you read it?
DA…”The longest chapter in the 5AR WG1 is Chapter 9, Evaluation of Climate Models.
What did you find unsatisfactory when you read it?”
That about sums up the IPCC. The longest chapter is devoted to evaluating unvalidated toys, after they stated clearly in TAR that future climate states cannot be predicted.
The IPCC are scam artists and their reports are akin to glossy travel brochures.
carbo…”I live in England, and I cant recall global warming ever being mentioned at the time. As Ive said before, it wasnt even a blip on the media horizon at that time”.
That’s right, there was no mention of it prior to Margaret Thatcher presenting the notion to the UN. She had a degree in chemistry and an advisor put her up to using her knowledge of chemistry to baffle the UN delegates.
https://www.masterresource.org/climate-exaggeration/thatcher-alarmist-to-skeptic/
Thanks Gordon – an interesting link, and referenced with an extract from one of her biographies. I intend to read these.
Don’t forget to read alternative opinions.
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2015/05/19/who-was-responsible-thatcher-s-climate-change-u-turn
The notion that Thatcher used climate change as a stick to beat the unions smacks of utter conjecture to me. Her memoir indicates that she was sincerely behind it then. So unless she’s lying in her book….
https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/
If I was that far off I would give up.
Enough fiction, now for the real picture:
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2018-panela.png
Your smoothing masks the fact that the latest measurements are in line with the early 2000’s, well below the RCPs.
Natural variations, in particular back-to-back La Ninas.
DA believes if it’s cold, its “natural variations”.
If it’s hot, it’s CO2.
DA, learn some physics.
G*: Record highs are also natural variations, usually El Ninos.
But the El Ninos keep getting warmer. So do the other ENSO seasons:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/increasing-temperatures-of-enso-seasons.html
That’s because of global warming, which shows up clearly in the long-term trends.
g.e.r.a.n aka JDHuffman believes if it’s hot it’s “natural variation”, if it’s cold it’s the sun.
Nothing in “trends” except NV, DA.
Maybe your and bob could share the cost of an online course in physics. Maybe, together, you could even pass it?
Trends are up and up and up, even considering NV.
Your original comment:
Your smoothing masks the fact that the latest measurements are in line with the early 2000s, well below the RCPs.
is just wrong. Average 2018 temps are 0.1C lower than the 2017 value, currently. That’s well within the envelope of the RCPs. The most recent month is also within the model envelope.
FYI, the 4 RCPs do not begin to diverge until about 2025.
Nope.
Using global averages is “smoothing”???
And … “your” smoothing??
When they are smoothed over time? Yes, that is smoothing.
What time interval would you like to use, and why?
What time in.ter.val would you like to use, and why?
Holy cow, now I wasn’t allowed to use the i-word I have to break up above.
It was because of the repetition.
In his plot, the transient hump from 2016 has not yet reached the level prior. In the actual data, we are already there, and trending further down.
Geez, Bart, the models outputs are annual averages and the obs are annual averages.
Apples to apples.
You are being really dense these days. There is no smoothing out differences when using the same metrics!
It’s not yearly averages. If it were, it would go to the present year, and it would be back down to the “pause” level.
Think!
Lest we forget, not all data must behave like UAH.
It looks like Had*crut. And Had*crut 12 mo average has not returned to pause level.
Think!
12 mo averaging is, in fact, what we call “smoothing”.
And anyone should care why?
Because without the 2016 El Nino blip, it is clear that the models are running way hot.
A 12 mo smooth is not going to give you a 2016 influence in 2018..
Meanwhile, getting your hopes up by looking at the La Nina influenced last few mo. and assuming that will continue after La Ninas demise, will lead to disappointment.
The 2016 El Nino was centered in 2016, but its overall impact was longer lasting. I would say, in fact, it has not yet fully dissipated.
Could be so.
What if it never goes away? A step-up like after 98. What then?
Bart,
Its not yearly averages. If it were, it would go to the present year, and it would be back down to the “pause” level.
Think!
No, you dumbass. It IS annual averages, Jan-Dec, same as the model output. 2018 isn’t over yet, so can’t be included.
The graph extends one that appeared in AR5 comparing modeled annual surface temps with observations. Current monthly anomalies are still well inside the model envelope on the cooler side.
For GISS, the current year (to July) is on average 0.1C cooler than 2017. That puts 2018 well inside the model envelope.
Yeah, yeah. FU2. If you can’t control your emotions, maybe you should find something else to occupy your time.
Yeah, they’re yearly averages, and that is smoothing. The output lacks monthly resolution, and it is delayed by six months, and 6 months ago, the temperatures were still elevated significantly above where they are now.
In the world of finance, when the current time series dips down below the running average, they consider it a sell signal. I would advise you to sell your AGW holdings. The fundamentals do not look promising.
The model outputs are annual averages, Jan-Dec.
Basing the obs on the same metric is not only obvious its rigorous.
‘Smoothing’ changes the value of a data point by subjecting it to an algorithm. This is not the process applied – nor the result – in annual averaging. You are overworking the terminology here.
Your original comment:
Your smoothing masks the fact that the latest measurements are in line with the early 2000s, well below the RCPs.
is just wrong. Average 2018 temps are 0.1C lower than the 2017 value, currently. Thats well within the envelope of the RCPs. The most recent month is also within the model envelope.
FYI, the 4 RCPs do not begin to diverge until about 2025.
‘Yeah, theyre yearly averages, and that is smoothing.’
If that is smoothing than so is using monthly data. So is using weekly data.
Barry makes a good point. It is not smoothing, not a running average, it is just yearly data.
What possibly could be wrong with that for judging long term trends?
“Basing the obs on the same metric is not only obvious its rigorous.”
That’d be no. There is inherent phase lag. If you want to know what is happening now, you can’t base it on overly smoothed data.
“If that is smoothing than so is using monthly data. So is using weekly data.”
True, but the degree of smoothing is progressively much lower for each.
The only way in which using monthly anomalies is appropriate is if the model data is also monthly anomalies.
The noise frequency is much higher for monthly than annual.
If you want to see if monthly obs fall inside or outside the model ensemble envelope, then you need to get model output as monthly values. Apples with apples – same frequency.
You’ve had a career in dealing with data you say?
It’s impossible to believe you would promote such an execrable notion – comparing at 2 different frequencies – if you have any skill in statistical analysis. You’re either incompetent or a shill.
This one is basic. There’s no wiggle room for you.
“The noise frequency is much higher for monthly than annual.”
But, you are cutting into the signal, not just the noise. It is the classic trade-off between bias and variance. You have a lot to learn.
SDP, you should be giving up towards the end of the year judging by the current temperature trends and another failed prediction.
AGW theory should be giving up given their predictions which are way off.
False.
But you’ve been given evidence on this before. If you were given it again you’d flat-out deny it, writing that, literally, black is white.
You’re writing yourself out of significance, Salvatore.
Barry and Dave. I do agree but you didnt have all the information.
The mean El Nino quasi-periodicity is 4 years. It is quasi periodic and varies between 2 and 7 years (Cane paper I can find). I also tested the more simple version by having a step at the peak of ocean el nino before the lag in Low Trop Temp. It was not random. I did match by halfing the increase at the 2016 mega elnino compared to 0.3 at 97 mega el nino. The other was a simple linear relationship best fit from excel.
Sorry if this goes to bottom like all my other posts
La Nina may appear in November, when the jet stream in the Eastern South Pacific will be the most favorable.
“The official CPC/IRI outlook calls for neutral conditions through northern summer season, with a 65% chance of El Niño development during fall, rising to 70% for winter 2018-19. An El Niño watch is in effect.”
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
Who cares David.
ren should care, since it contradicts what he wrote.
And you should care, because and El Nino will lead to higher temperatures. Best to start getting your excuses ready now.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Do you think you know better about ENSO predictions than does the Tokio Climate Center?
binny…”Do you think you know better about ENSO predictions than does the Tokio Climate Center?”
Once again, binny chimes in with an appeal to authority without explaining his reasoning.
Who the heck is the Tokio Climate Centre?
Who the heck is “binny”?
☺
g.e.r.a.n is trying to pretend he has no memory.
JD…”Who the heck is binny?”
binny = bindidon.
A while back he got in a snit, partly because I called him an idiot. He signed off claiming he’d had enough. A few days later, La Pagolina showed up with the same MO as binny, complete with memory of insults.
After confrontation, La P claims to be binny’s girlfriend. I figure La P was a priori a female posing as the male Bindidon. Could be wrong but I am still suspicious.
Not such strange behavior for alarmists. Over at skepticalscience they were dressing up as Nazis and impersonating physicist Lubos Motl.
Maybe binny and La P are legit but they still post the same schlock as if one person.
Alarmists are desperate. binny/La P claim not to be alarmists yet they flagrantly post junk homebrew Excel graphs claiming to counter legit graphs produced by UAH. Both have serious authority complexes and cannot conceive that NOAA could be political animals who fudge data, even though the US government is investigating them for exactly that.
Ah, Bindidon, I’ve encountered him before.
He believes he can run computer models to reverse physics.
Just another clown.
JD Huffman manifestly shares highly valuable things with Robertson: ignorance, boastfulness, and the love to lie.
Bobdesbond (who has posted as three different commenters himself) please stop trolling.
Who is Bindidon?
Something in the past, now forgotten, suggested
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=CSIRO+NATHAN+BINDOFF&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU734AU734&oq=CSIRO+NATHAN+BINDOFF&aqs=chrome..69i57.8860j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Apologies all round if I wrong. Geoff
Again that is not my focus. I do not care.
” I do not care.”
That sounds to me as if you have finally realized how wrong you have been all these years.
Go on. Admit it. It will be good for your soul.
Myki I care about overall sea surface temperatures.
Didn’t you say that you care most about the UAH anomaly?
aaron…”The mean El Nino quasi-periodicity is 4 years”.
There appears to be many variables. A paper by Tsonis et al demonstrated an interaction between the ocean oscillations like AMO, PDO, AO, ENSO, etc. They claimed a phase relationship between the oscillations that tends to produce warming when in phase and cooling when out of phase.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2007GL030288
http://www.sciencefocus.com/feature/climate-change/el-nino-shielding-us-climate-change
Furthermore, the PDO is known to affect La Nina and who knows what effect is has on El Nino. If you have various oscillations affecting each other that could explain warming/cooling right there.
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/soi-temp.htm
Roy has pointed out a relationship between the north Atlantic and Arctic warming. That should involved the AMO, the AO, and possibly the PDO. The warming hot spots in the Arctic move around month to month and that indicates to me a relationship to weather and not anthropogenic forces.
Aaron,
Roy has pointed out a relationship between the north Atlantic and Arctic warming. That should involved the AMO, the AO, and possibly the PDO. The warming hot spots in the Arctic move around month to month and that indicates to me a relationship to weather…
I agree. Interannual fluctuations and monthly fluctuations are weather. To determine the trajectory of global climate – as in shifts or trends – one needs decades worth of information.
As to whether there are ‘steps’ – ever upward, it appears – a physical basis would be nice – one that can shift the global temperature by a sudden jerk over a year or two. I would have thought there was a lot more thermal inertia in the system – ie, the oceans.
Hey Aaron,
I also tested the more simple version by having a step at the peak of ocean el nino before the lag in Low Trop Temp. It was not random.
You made more than one test? Adjusting certain parameters? And did you then choose to retain and report the test that gave you the best correlation?
I did match by halfing the increase at the 2016 mega elnino compared to 0.3 at 97 mega el nino.
That’s a pretty arbitrary choice. And qualitatively not physically justified. The 2016 el Nino was comparably strong to 1997/8.
We want to avoid making any choices, if possible, to avoid fooling ourselves. I like that you tested the fit of the models. It’s a beginning.
Tamino at Open Mind did a series of posts on step function testing. You might find them interesting.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/steps/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/step-2/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/step-3/
barry…”Tamino at Open Mind….”
Tamino and open mind have the qualities of an oxymoron.
When you’ve published as many peer reviewed journal papers as has Tamino, let us know.
The Bohnsacks family has measured the temperature at Skurholmen in Lule Sweden for 96 years. Despite the hot summer, there was no record for July. In 1937 the average temperature in July was 21.5 degrees, it was two tenths warmer than the same month this year, 21.3 degrees. On five occasions in these 96 years, the average temperature has been over 20 degrees:
1925: 20.7
1927: 20.7
1937: 21.5
2003: 20.3
2018: 21.3
https://infogram.com/d46f7a90-9623-423b-9acd-d2825e5453a9
Yeah … nice quality controlled data.
Much like all unadjusted data, huh bob?
Hi g.e.r.a.n !
You must be synced with several other clowns. You all think alike.
It’s called mind control.
How quickly Ger*an has reverted to form. He just can’t help himself.
DA, if you would learn some physics, you would not have to be so afraid of your ger*an.
The only thing you have to fear is your own fear of reality.
Whatever you say g.e.r.a.n !!
Previous commenter Bob and previous commenter Des and previous commenter Bond and current commenter Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
JD…”The only thing you have to fear is your own fear of reality”.
WRT to bob, it comes down to the Peter Principle. People in a hierarchy rise to the level of their incompetence. Of course, with alarmists, they are all incompetent.
At least the alarmists know more than how to soder.
(and avoid inhaling the fumes)
barry….”Nobody claims that every year will be warmer than the last under AGW”.
That’s the problem with the AGW theory, it is not based on observed science. All of the proof related to AGW comes from consensus based on unvalidated climate models.
There is no testable theory, as Mike keeps pointing out, but that does not stop alarmists like Barry from making ludicrous statements pertaining to what AGW does and does not predict.
It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.
THAT IS THE AGW THEORY in a nutshell. It has not happened and the IPCC reported 15 years without significant warming even though they claimed CO2 increased significantly during that period.
A fifteen year hiatus, as the IPCC called it, is easily enough time to prove the atmosphere is not sensitive to CO2 warming. But there’s more. UAH shows an 18 year flat trend. Following a major EN in 2016, the planet has cooled back to the range of the 18 year hiatus.
Over 18 years there should be a significant trend showing and there is not.
The best 18 year flat period I could find you was 1998 to 2016. The average global temperature anomaly for this range was 0.16C. The lowest monthly anomaly since then was 0.18C and the average was 0.32C. Even though 1998 – 2016 includes the two hottest months in the satellite record the planet has not cooled back to that range.
https://i.imgur.com/R6mfIRi.jpg
It dipped to that range last month, and the current trend is continuing downward.
craig…”The best 18 year flat period I could find you was 1998 to 2016. The average global temperature anomaly for this range was 0.16C”.
The IPCC stated in 2013 that no warming occurred 1998 – 2012, calling it a warming hiatus. Where did you possibly get a trend out of that?
You need to stop number crunching and look at the reality.
New and better data came in since the 4AR.
Gordon likes to pretend this didn’t happen, and thinks he’s actually convincing someone.
Gordon you claimed “UAH shows an 18 year flat trend” so I found the flattest 18 years I could. The average TLT anomaly for 1998 – 2012 was 0.13C. The lowest anomaly this year was 0.18C and now we’re back up to 3.2C. The real proof will come in the next few years but I don’t see the average dropping that low again.
“Successful predictions of climate science,” Ray Pierrehumbert, 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI
DA, try to avoid your addiction to pseudoscience.
Learn some physics.
No rebuttal, no data, no evidence — just dumb, lame insults. (I doubt you even watched the video.) That’s been Ger*an’s insecure MO for as long as I’ve been reading here.
DA…”Successful predictions of climate science, Ray Pierrehumbert, 2012….”
Will you stop referencing junk science? Pierrehumbert’s interpretation of physics is what one might expect from theoretical physics based on bad math and the misinterpretation of the basics.
Gordon:
What of Pierrehumbert’s math is “bad?”
What of the basics does he “misinterpret?”
I bet you can’t say.
I bet you have no idea.
No clue, even.
I bet you didn’t even watch the video.
As usual. For you.
All mouth, no action.
barry: “Nobody claims that every year will be warmer than the last under AGW.”
Gordon: “That’s the problem with the AGW theory, it is not based on observed science….
It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”
That is some A-grade, nuclear level stupidity, right there.
There is no replying to such unmitigated idiocy. There is only recognizing it.
I mean. WOW.
Barry, thats some grade-A, nuclear level trolling. Please stop.
You can’t even be original. Lame.
If this is you paying me no mind, your full attention must be pretty scary.
PST.
You’re so desperate here that you revel in ANYONE paying you just the slightest bit of attention.
I’m glad I was able to make your day.
Its far more effective when I ask someone to stop trolling, and there is no response. So, as usual, you are completely at 180 degrees from reality on that point. Now, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
Please stop enabling trolls.
?
barry…”There is no replying to such unmitigated idiocy. There is only recognizing it”.
That’s because you are rendered speechless. The nonsense you spew about AGW predicting this and that has nothing to do with the theory. It’s all about posturing and blaming everything on anthropogenic forces.
The theory has two basic forms. One is plain silly, that GHGs trap heat. Utter rubbish. Heat as a property of atoms cannot be trapped unless you trap the atoms involved as does glass in a real greenhouse.
The other theory is just about as silly, that ACO2, at 0.04% in the atmosphere, can back-radiate EM to raise the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is warmed by solar energy.
All the rest is nothing more than consensus by alarmists and modelers using an inane theory to create pseudo-science.
Feelings: http://tinyurl.com/y8g4blrk
Trolling: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-315300
DREMT,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-315331
Nate,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-314973
Gordon Robertson says:
A fifteen year hiatus, as the IPCC called it, is easily enough time to prove the atmosphere is not sensitive to CO2 warming.
False.
It depends on what else is going on. This should be obvious, to anyone who takes the time to learn about climate change.
AGW is now running at about +0.2 C/decade. Over 15 years that’s +0.3 . But a large La Nina can cause swings like that for a year, that then persist for a few years. Volcanic explosions can also suppress GW. So can more aerosols.
You have to consider the details of what’s happening, which, to say the least, is not your strong suit.
“It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”
Only if all other factors were the same. The energy from the steadily increasing downward radiation stays near the surface during El Ninos but is transferred into deeper ocean waters during la Ninas.
CraigT says: “The energy from the steadily increasing downward radiation stays near the surface during El Ninos but is transferred into deeper ocean waters during la Ninas.”
Craig, you need to enroll in a physics class.
After several years of study, you may understand that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
JD what happens to the energy in the downward radiation? Energy in the system can’t be lost. The ground and sea cool slower because of the radiation absorbed and emitted by CO2 (among other gasses).
Craig, a complete answer would take years. That’s why you need to study physics.
What happens to the “energy” released by an ice cube? Where does it go? Can you heat your room in winter with ice cubes?
(Ice emits 300 Watts/m^2.)
Something to think about, huh?
C,
Energy can be, and is, lost when an object cools.
As the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years – it has lost energy.
Or winter being colder than summer – energy has been lost, otherwise winter would be hotter than summer.
No GHE. CO2 heats nothing. All pseudoscientific nonsense. One might as well believe that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist rather than a mathematician, or that Michael Mann is the Nobel Laureate he claimed himself to be, as in a GHE which nobody can even define!
Cheers.
“JD what happens to the energy in the downward radiation?”
Radiation is not the only method of heat exchange in the lower atmosphere. Surface temperature is a result of radiative and convective exchange. Heat lofted by convection to high altitude is not impeded from egress by increasing CO2 concentration.
Nobody says radiation is the only way for the surface to gain or lose energy. I don’t know why you think that would be the case, but you need to read more papers to learn what scientists actually say. For example, convection has a prominent role in Manabe & Wetherald’s 1964 paper, and after:
“Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1967)0242.0.CO;2
Received: 2 November 1966
And see Trenberth’s energy balance diagram:
https://scied.ucar.edu/radiation-budget-diagram-earth-atmosphere
The point is not what current models are using. The point is that there are paths by which increasing concentration of CO2 can fail to produce significant warming.
It’s not a sure thing, and the climatistas had no business making such confident claims, and calling them “science”. It wasn’t science, it was advocacy.
Ger*an says:
After several years of study, you may understand that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”.
Only true in an adiabatic system — one that does not exchange heat with its surroundings. (2nd law.) And parts of the climate system (or the whole) are (is) certainly not an adiabatic system.
Basic thermodynamics.
DA, learn some physics.
You still won’t be able to distort reality, but your efforts will be at a higher level.
Ger*an: This is what you always write when you have no scientific reply or can’t rebut a comment. Just insults. It’s lame and very easy to see through.
…David insulted.
Again, DREMT, flagrant fouls by the other team that you seem to be missing.
What kind of referee are you? Are you paid by the mob?
Nate, why do you seem so upset by some guy going around asking people to stop trolling?
Upset? No, not at all.
Just pointing out hypocrisy.
You remind me of evangelicals who are all about moral shaming. Yet when it comes the very immoral behavior of the President, they offer up only silence.
Oh, tu quoque. More trolling. Got it.
DA,
You still cannot warm even a microscopic amount of water with all the ice in the universe emitting 300W/m2, can you?
You can’t even define this nonsensical and mythical GHE, either!
There is no climate system. Climate is the average of numbers derived from observations. You are a deluded follower of the pseudoscientific climatology cult.
Luckily, administrations which previously shared your foolishly gullible outlook wasted vast sums trying to stop the average from changing, realised how they had been led astray by fast talking GHE adherents.
Carry on promoting your ethnic cleansing, David. The majority of humanity are happy with more plant food in the atmosphere – so are the plants, without which we all die!
Cheers.
Mike,
FYI.
Your repetitive posts are becoming indistinguishable from background noise, easily tuned out.
craig…”Only if all other factors were the same. The energy from the steadily increasing downward radiation stays near the surface during El Ninos but is transferred into deeper ocean waters during la Ninas”.
Unfortunately one of the climate legends, in his own mind, Kevin Trenberth, thinks otherwise. He admitted in the Climategate emails that the perennial warming could not be found. Later he pointed out that it cannot be found because the signal is drowned out by warming/cooling from ENSO.
Or maybe it’s not there, Kev.
The claim that AGW does not predict perennial warming in step with increasing CO2 levels is moving of the goalposts by alarmists. When warming fails to occur for 15 years, alarmists claim it was predicted. After a while the rhetoric and propaganda gets a bit thick.
Gordon Robertson says:
Unfortunately one of the climate legends, in his own mind, Kevin Trenberth, thinks otherwise. He admitted in the Climategate emails that the perennial warming could not be found.
Gordon you are a worthless POS liar.
Why don’t you go read what Trenbeth wrote?
What are you so afraid of, that you have to lie each and every time this topic comes up??
—
Kevin Trenberth:
“In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.”
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/emails/
Calm down, troll.
The Tokyo Climate Center link explains how they came to their conclusion so it’s not just an appeal to authority.
“Talking about W/m2 is completely pointless, in the context of climate.”
Then what unit do you want to use to measure the warming effect of sunlight?
C,
Posing a really witless gotcha just makes you appear stupid and ignorant.
The SI unit of temperature is the Kelvin.
What bizarre pseudoscientific unit do you prefer? Something completely meaningless, such as W/m2, perhaps?
Off you go now – try some mhos/lumen^3, if you prefer.
Cheers.
Radiant energy from the sun is measured in Watts/m^2 not Kelvin. Earth’s temperature is influenced by the radiant energy reaching the surface, the percent reflected and the percent radiated back into space. I’m trying to be nice, but if you consider that meaningless I don’t know what to say.
I’m telling you from experience … don’t even try to engage this troll in a conversation.
bob…”Im telling you from experience dont even try to engage this troll in a conversation”.
Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
C,
The radiant energy from the Sun does not dictate temperature.
Say 300 W/m2 from the Sun is absorbed by the surface (the same as can be emitted by ice), what is the resultant temperature of the surface?
You have’t a clue, have you? Just like other stupid and ignorant GHE cultists!
Learn some physics. Real physics, not climatological pseudoscientific fake physics.
Try to define the GHE in scientific terms. Have fun.
Cheers.
“C,
The radiant energy from the Sun does not dictate temperature.”
Huh?
G,
Huh yourself!
Tell us what temperature is dictated by the Sun’s radiation. Be specific.
Not so easy, is it?
Much easier to proclaim your stupidity and ignorance by writing “Huh?”. You could always follow it up with “Wow, just wowl”, or something similarly pointless.
You cannot even describe the GHE in any useful way, but I have no doubt that you believe it exists. Ah, the power of pseudoscience! It can induce mindless fanatical fervour in its climatological adherents!
Feel free to say “Huh??”. I don’t expect you to understand.
Cheers.
greg…”The radiant energy from the Sun does not dictate temperature.
Huh?”
*********
Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of atoms. There are no atoms in the electromagnetic energy that represents solar radiance.
EM has no temperature and it has no heat. The heat, and the temperature that measures the heat, comes after EM is converted to heat by electrons in matter. At that stage, the EM does not exist.
The units of W/m^2 attached to EM date back to the mid-18th century when scientists thought heat was radiated from matter. EM may be claimed to have potential thermal energy but it contains no kinetic thermal energy. Therefore, solar radiance in W/m^2 is a moot point till it is intercepted by matter.
After that the EM is converted to heat and the heat is a property of the absorbing atoms.
Gordon Robertson says:
Temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of atoms. There are no atoms in the electromagnetic energy that represents solar radiance.
The Sun’s outer layer — the photosphere — is composed of plasma. It’s an electrified gas. Hence it obeys the laws of any dense gas.
Gordon Robertson says:
EM has no temperature and it has no heat.
EM has the ability to do work. (See, for example, a solar cell.) Hence it is heat in the classical sense.
PS: No single particle has a temperature. Temperature is a property of a collection of particles. You should know this.
Gordon Robertson says:
The units of W/m^2 attached to EM date back to the mid-18th century when scientists thought heat was radiated from matter.
Heat *IS* radiated from matter.
What the bleep do you think the Planck Law is about, anyway?
Gordon Robertson says:
Therefore, solar radiance in W/m^2 is a moot point till it is intercepted by matter.
Your distinction serves no purpose whatsoever.
You’re just arguing about rhetoric.
And rhetoric isn’t scientific.
Here is a Global Warming Contour Map, which shows the warming rate for the Stratosphere, since 1960. Notice the “slowdown”, which started about 1995.
https://i2.wp.com/agree-to-disagree.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/RATPAC-Stratosphere.png
You can see contour maps for the Upper and Lower Troposphere at my website:
https://agree-to-disagree.com
The Stratosphere, Upper Troposphere, and Lower Troposphere, each have very different warming rates.
Check out the Robot-Train Contour Maps, to see how contour maps work. Also, see the Legend for Global Warming Contour Maps.
Sorry, the quotes got turned into some strange characters.
My post should read:
Here is a Global Warming Contour Map, which shows the warming rate for the Stratosphere, since 1960. Notice the “slowdown”, which started about 1995.
You DO realise that increased greenhouse warming in the troposphere leads to cooling in the stratosphere … right?
And your graphs do indeed show COOLING of the stratosphere, not warming. Eff knows how you see warming when the anomaly falls from +0.5 to -1.5.
Congratulations … you’ve discovered the pattern that is specific to tropospheric GREENHOUSE warming.
Bobdesbond,
see my reply below.
bob…”You DO realise that increased greenhouse warming in the troposphere leads to cooling in the stratosphere right?”
More alarmist propaganda. No proof, just idiotic consensus.
Stratospheric cooling due to increased GHGs — required by energy conservation — is, besides a warming troposphere and surface, THE main prediction of enhanced GH theory.
And it’s happening.
If climate change were due to the Sun, the stratosphere would be warming.
But it’s not.
Also it was decades ago predicted as a result of greenhouse warming.
If the lower stratosphere at high latitudes will be warmer, the water vapor will escape into the stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2018.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2018.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f00.png
Weak jet stream over the Atlantic can persist during solar minimum. Europe is threatened by a dry and frosty winter this year.
The surface temperature of the North Atlantic is still very low.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/natlssta.png
Bobdesbond,
you seem to have misinterpreted what I said. I didn’t say that the stratosphere was warming. I said “the warming rate of the stratosphere”.
The warming rate of the stratosphere happens to be negative, it is cooling, as my Global Warming Contour Map shows. And it has been cooling quite dramatically (-4.38 degrees Celsius per century).
But there was a “slowdown” starting in about 1995. People normally associate the term “slowdown”, with a decrease in the warming rate. But it also applies to a decrease in the cooling rate.
The upper troposphere is staying at about the same temperature, not much warming or cooling.
The lower troposphere shows definite warming, at about +1.87 degrees Celsius per century. This is similar to the warming rate for the GISTEMP Global Land and Ocean temperature series.
Then I am confused … on which side of the fence do you lie?
Bobdesbond,
I am on both sides of the fence, and sitting on the fence, all at the same time (sometimes that gets a little uncomfortable).
I am just seeking the truth. There is SOME truth on both sides of the fence.
Many people, because of their bias, think that their side has a monopoly on the truth.
I am willing to listen to any reasonable person. I will judge the truth of their statements, based on my own (limited?) knowledge and ability to reason.
I developed Global Warming Contour Maps as a way to show what the truth is. Sadly, many people reject the truth, when it doesn’t match their prejudices.
The truth is AGW is a scam and it has nothing to stand on.
Salvatore Del Prete,
do you deny that the earth has warmed by about 1 degree Celsius in the last 100 years?
S,
Do you deny that CO2 has no magical heating abilities?
Do you deny that 7 billion people produce more heat than 1 billion people?
Do you deny that thermometers indicate differences in heat?
Do you deny that climate is just the average of numerical records?
Deny, divert and confuse. That’s all you’ve got isn’t it?
Carry on.
Cheers.
Case in point
Sheldon – a warming planet does not establish that CO2 is warming the planet. In fact, the planet has been warming, with variations, for at least the past 100 or so years. But CO2, according to conventional estimates, did not really take off until mid-century.
It is papered over with appeals to fudge factors like unmeasured aerosols and such, but the fact of the matter is that CO2 cannot explain the rise in the earlier part of the century.
The upshot is, the long term warming trend was laid in well before CO2 could have been the culprit. If you remove that trend from consideration, there is very little left that could be attributed to CO2.
Bart says:
But CO2, according to conventional estimates, did not really take off until mid-century.
That’s false. By 1950, CO2 radiative forcing had already reached 1/3rd of its present value.
Bart says:
…but the fact of the matter is that CO2 cannot explain the rise in the earlier part of the century.
Nobody says it can.
It’s not false. The temperature increase 1910-1940 was almost precisely that of 1970-2000. That is not in proportion to CO2 concentration, or even the log of concentration.
Global temperature anomaly over the last century has been dominated by a trend + a ~60 year oscillation, which were laid in before significant CO2 increase. Take those prior characteristics out, and there is very little left that could have been induced by increasing CO2:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/wasioj.jpg
sheldon…”The lower troposphere shows definite warming, at about +1.87 degrees Celsius per century. This is similar to the warming rate for the GISTEMP Global Land and Ocean temperature series”.
Do you mean the fudged GISTEMP series which is based on the fudged NOAA series?
Where did you get the propaganda about 1.87 C/century?
Gordon, what evidence do you have of any fudging?
None.
You’re just lying again. It’s clearly second nature to you.
David, you are trolling again. Its clearly second nature to you.
The overall sea surface temperatures are around +.15c deviation from 1981-2010 means. I think they still go lower.
If this holds this year will continue to be cooler then last year.
This is just the beginning. I am pleased with year 2018 thus far.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/08/02/108-graphs-from-89-new-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warmth/
This is the reality. This period of time in the climate not even being close to being unique.
Yep – the current phase of ocean cooling is not even close to being unique.
Who said it was?
Salvatore, anything from NoTricksZone is automatically suspect. Their citations are always mis-represented.
A quick glance at their first several papers shows that again.
Stick to the scientific literature.
Poisoning the well (trolling again)
B,
Yep. And Antarctica has to get a lot hotter before it returns to being ice-free.
Do you think more CO2 in the atmosphere might restore the natural state of an ice-free Antarctica?
Have you figured out how to define the GHE yet? Make sure you account for the Antarctic ice in your explanation.
How hard can it be?
Cheers.
Correct Mike
That melting is already in motion.
In the past, sea level has ultimately risen 10-20 meters for every degree Celsius of warming.
It takes thousands of years, but is already irreversible.
Greenland is 7.4 m of sea level equivalent, and other land-based glaciers and ice caps are 0.4 m SLE.
So Antarctic melting will have to provide at least 2 m SLE, and perhap as much as 12 m SLE.
That’s a lot of melting from Antarctica. And it’s barely begun to show….
Shelton it has warmed that much since the Little Ice Age ended but it has done that and much more many times and to greater degress of magnitude changes over a shorter period of time. Just look at the historical climatic record.
Look at my post sent at 5:00am today. AGW has largely hi jacked natural variation.
This time in the climate is not unique not even close. I also have been saying year 2018 is going to be a transitional year due to very low solar moderated by a geo magnetic field which is in sync with solar. Both fields are weakening.
My theory is simple, which is if two solar conditions are met which are 10+years of sub solar activity in general (2005) followed by a period of time of very low average value solar parameters equal to or greater that is observed during typical solar minimum periods(started late 2017) the sun will then have a more significant effect upon the climate.
Low solar equating to lower overall sea surface temperatures(less UV/visible light intensity) and a slightly higher albedo due to an increase in global cloud/snow coverage and major explosive volcanic activity(galactic cosmic rays increasing). The result lower global temperatures.
I will be very surprised if any further global warming takes place from here.
I had predicted by the end of this summer global temperatures would be at or below the 1981-2010 baseline they are lower but not quite that low yet, but the trend has been good so far.
Overall sea surface temperatures surprisingly have fallen more then global temperatures ,some .2c since last summer and this will be the key to where global temperatures go.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
“I also have been saying year 2018 is going to be a transitional year due to very low solar moderated by a geo magnetic field which is in sync with solar.”
You said the same thing in (at least) 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017.
“I will be very surprised if any further global warming takes place from here.”
Is this in terms of months, years or longer? Are you predicting TLT will be below 0.32C for August?
You know how Lucy asks Charlie Brown to kick the ball and she whips it away every time?
On predictions – Salvatore is Lucy. You think he’ll stick to what he says, but then he whips the ball away.
Every time.
I just spent a year testing him. Jun/Jul/Aug was crunch time. His prediction is already wrong and he walked way from it.
Really? Has Salvatore made some predictions that havent come to pass? I think thats the first time anyone has mentioned it.
We’ll criticize what Salvatore predicts, as long as he repeats it ad nauseam and spreads it over every corner of this blog.
And why don’t you just shut up? You contribute nothing to this blog, and no one pays you the slightest bit of mind.
David, please stop trolling.
barry…”You think hell stick to what he says, but then he whips the ball away”.Mr. Obfuscation chimes in.
A while back I gave you a direct quote from the IPCC who claimed no warming from 1998 – 2012. They called it a warming hiatus. You raved that I was wrong and went off on a rant about short term trends.
A 15 year trend is short-term????
Later I gave you another direct quote in which NOAA freely admitted to slashing over 75% of their data. They felt OK admitting it but you went into a fit, claiming I was lying.
You claimed they had actually increased the number of stations, referring to pseudo-data NOAA conjured in climate models by interpolating and homogenizing less than 25% of their data.
You are blind to fact and deluded by fiction, yet here you are claiming Salvatore is obfuscating.
Gordon, what’s the statistical uncertainty of a 15-year trend? It’s p-value?
What if you exclude autocorrelation?
What if you include autocorrelation?
Gordon Robertson says:
Later I gave you another direct quote in which NOAA freely admitted to slashing over 75% of their data.
What effect did that have on their calculation of global mean surface temperature? (Numbers please.)
First get him to point out the sentence where NOAA said they deleted 75% of the data. Or deliberately cut any of it.
He can’t. But he accuses me of distortion.
Come on, Gordon, quote the exact part where NOAA ‘admit’ to deliberately cutting any station data.
Plain English, please, not twisted interpretations by you.
From this point on.
Salvatore, do you really not see how foolish you’re making yourself look? Please, at least for your own sake, stop it with your never ending series of “warming stops now” predictions.
I am as confident as ever that the warming is over.
“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
Dr. Spencer, I parsed your data to demonstrate that CO2 doesn’t impact atmospheric temperatures…at least not how the alarmists claim.
Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/isolating-the-impact-of-co2-on-atmospheric-temperatures-conclusion-is-co2-has-no-measurable-impact/
CO2isLife,
There is no way you could look at Christy & Spencer’s data alone and figure out whether or not CO2 has an impact on atmospheric temps … You need to compare it to the all-sky radiative fluxes (ASR and OLR) at the ToA to do that:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-sun-not-man-is-what-caused-and-causes-global-warming/
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/verifying-my-near-global-1985-2017-olr-record/
Your general conclusion, however, is correct.
Kristian, thanks for the comment, but I’m not sure it is 100% correct. The GHG is due to thermalizing outgoing LWIR. The role the sun plays is to warm the surface and oceans. Cosmic Rays can cool the earth when there is a hot sun. The important factor isn’t how hot the sun is, the important factors is how much radiation from the sun reaches the earth’s surface. I use the warming oceans as a proxy for how much radiation is reaching the earth’s surface. I admittedly didn’t control for the sun because the analysis of just controlling for H20 and the Urban Heat Island Effect is so convincing. I’m sure that controlling for the sun would only make it even more convincing.
I admittedly didnt control for the sun because the analysis of just controlling for H20 and the Urban Heat Island Effect is so convincing.
Oh boy.
No need for data when CO2 has it all figured out anyway.
No need for a proper response when trolling will do. Please stop, David.
David, you can never control for every factor, and the CAGW crowd don’t attempt to control for anything. The fact that they rely on Ground Measurements proves controlling for external factors isn’t a concern. That is why I specifically chose Satellite data so I could pinpoint the data sets that best isolate the impact of CO2. You can’t do that with ground measurements. Anyway, I’d be interested in how you can explain CO2 is the cause of the warming when I demonstrated that there was no warming. Does the physics of the CO2 molecule change depend on where it is located in the atmosphere? If all CO2 molecules are in fact equal, you have a hard time making the case COw is causing warming when there is no warming.
The last time we had a summer like this in the UK was 1976, the winters were freezing though. Get ready for the grand solar minimum.
Global average will be back to the 2003-2013 average by this time next year and the pause will slowly make its way back.
Heh. They said the pause would be back directly after the el Nino.
Then it was the year after the el Nino, with the definitely-coming la Nina.
They kept pushing the date back as the trend since 1998 kept climbing.
Now it will “slowly make its way back.”
Because wishful thinking means you don’t have to do any other kind of thinking.
The ‘pause’ since 1998 is not coming back any time in the next 5 years. Doubtful that it will return at all.
The planet will continue to get warmer over the long term.
I’m willing to lay money on that.
I keep getting no takers.
The cooling predictionists huff and puff when I try to call them on it.
Well, barry, youre all over the comment thread like a rash, trolling left, right and centre. Doing a David Appell, I believe you professionals call it. PST.
Question for the EMT: I keep trying to post a 3 sentence quote from a physics textbook explaining how to calculate net radiation emission but I never see it post. Is there something about the post being blocked?
Certain collections of letters are banned or glitched.
A.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n
r.e.f.r.i.g.e.r.a.t.i.o.n.
for example – not too many
And any letter sequence with D and C adjacent. So Had.cru has to be written like that.
For CraigT’s sake, it might be worth elucidating that D and C quirk. These were the initials of a notorious troll who inundated these pages at one point. He would be banned, and would come back with a new identity, generally with some combination of those two letters in his screen name somewhere. So, Dr. Spencer employed the nuclear option, and now those two letters in sequence anywhere provide a one way trip to oblivion.
Ger*an, also banned, has come back as JDHuffman.
*** Barry, the word “refrigeration” does NOT cause any problems. Please quit spreading false rumors.
*** DA, please learn some physics.
Because some people are allowed to use a word here does not mean all people are allowed to use it.
I’ve seen that happen to me, with words like NO.AA and N.S.I.D.C.
DA, nothing seems to work for you.
NOAA
refrigeration
Well, that works. Gordon posted that it didn’t some time back, and I couldn’t get it to either back then.
This is a wobbly blog.
fridge
Thats not my fault by the way. I keep suggesting to Dr Roy to drop the word bans in our monthly meetings, but he isnt having any of it.
The “pause” is already back, and the temperature trend is downward. The effects of the 2016 El Nino have not yet completely dissipated, but they are continuing to dissipate.
Silly. A couple of colder years does not make a pause. (The first “pause” was a myth anyway.) Try to maintain a scientific perspective here.
It’s sad to see Bart’s commentary dipping to the asinine level of the lesser ‘skeptics’ here.
The “pause” is already back
From 2016?
I think someone has stolen Bart’s identity. I cannot believe he is that stupid.
The 2016 blip is just that: a blip. It is rapidly dissipating. You are hanging onto it as long as you can, but the handwriting is on the wall.
So what is this ‘pause’ that is ‘already back’?
Did you have something actual in mind, or were you just being contrary?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1998/mean:12/trend
It’s just bobbling around this level:
http://oi64.tinypic.com/10hm5g1.jpg
This is no statistically significant trend at all.
The current decadal average is higher than the previous decadal average. Is that a pause?
It’s bobbling around at a level that is higher than it bobbled around prior to 2016. About 0.2C higher than where it ‘bobbled’ before then.
This is no statistically significant trend at all.
Ha! I saw that back-step coming a mile off.
And do you know what it means when a trend is not statistically significant? Do you know what is proven when the null is not rejected?
Not the null, that’s for sure.
The pause is not ‘already back’. Not unless you are about to pervert one of the most basic tools in the scientific tool-kit.
And since you brought up statistical significance (thank you, at last), it pleases me to report that the pause, so-called, was never statistically significant in the first place.
That is, the apparent slowdown was not statistically distinct from the previous warming trend.
Shall we speak more of statistical significance? Let’s get a firm grip on it so that we don’t fool ourselves, eh?
Or…. will you now remember that it interferes with your eye-crometer way of doing science and return to playing it down?
“The current decadal average is higher than the previous decadal average. Is that a pause?”
Of course it is, if temperatures haven’t risen in the current decade. And, they haven’t in any systematic way. They’re just bobbling around.
“And do you know what it means when a trend is not statistically significant?”
Kid, I was doing quality inspections and statistical analysis on rocket engines when you were in diapers. Probably before then.
I see this in young, inexperienced people all they time. They have no bearings, so they put an over-reliance on mathematical tools that they think someone else has perfected.
But, those tools are formulated under specific assumptions, and if you do not do a thorough analysis to assure that those assumptions hold, you have no idea whether the tools are giving you valid answers, or setting you up for a big fall.
Visual inspection is the first step. If it doesn’t pass visual inspection, then you have to choose a different path.
I said there was no statistically significant trend because there isn’t. But, in fact, that’s because talk of trends here is virtually meaningless. You can’t do statistical tests unless you have a valid model for how the data should behave, and a simple linear trend with additive i.i.d. error is not one for these data.
Just use your eyes. They are exquisite instruments. You can see right away that there was a blip, which is now essentially gone. And, except for that blip, the data are just bobbling around, as they have for the past two decades.
Yep, you walked it back from ‘statistical significance,’ as I knew you would.
Because if you invoke it, it kills the pause.
Then with all your years of learning about scientific rigour and not fooling yourself….
You tell us to ignore the numbers and go with the old eyecrometer. Because your eyes never fool you, do they?
Thanks, Dad, but we’ll rely on professional methods designed to avoid self-deception.
Just use your eyes. They are exquisite instruments. You can see right away that there was a blip, which is now essentially gone. And, except for that blip, the data are just bobbling around, as they have for the past two decades.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12
My eye tells me very clearly that there is an overall warming with ups and downs along the way.
More detail,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6
Tells the same story, and that recent (last 12 months) temps are at a generally higher level than previous.
I have to squint just like Dad wants me to to see what he’s seeing. A coming cooling he says, based on a very recent downturn. Well, I’ve seen them all through the record – bigger downturns even – and the overall warming still happened.
I know what Dad sees.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:1999/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2007/plot/uah6/from:2009/to:2011/plot/uah6/from:2018
I’m not interested in your playground games and gotchas. I’ve laid things out clearly. You are looking for excuses to doubt what your eyes can plainly see. I am not encumbered by such a yearning.
I do not care if AGW is real or not. If it were real, we could easily take appropriate action. I see no convincing evidence that it is, and it is logically unsound, given the fact that we are not in control of CO2 levels in the first place.
Im not interested in your playground games and gotchas. Ive laid things out clearly.
Bollocks.
The pause refers to a stalling in surface or lower tropospheric temperature trends.
The skeptiverse – a la Christopher Monckton – pitched it as a flat or ever so slightly declining mean trend line from 1998. He counted the months that the mean trend stayed at zero or lower(RSS data), and the skeptiverse went along for the ride.
This graphic and the phrase “no warming since 1998” was it.
2016 came along and the trend line finally went positive for the last data set. Monckton said the pause was over. The skeptiverse replied “it will be back!”
Since then certain desperates in the skeptiverse have been trying to change the goalposts. Picking a new start date. Saying the 2016 el Nino doesn’t count. And you – with ‘temps bobbling around’.
The pause is not back. The pause was a change in mean trend – absent any uncertainty values, what’s more – from 1998. If you want to talk about the pause, you must demonstrate a flat or declining trend of reasonable amount of years. Preferably from 1998. That’s all we heard about for 6 years.
That’s the standard. Anything else is just more BS from the ideological skeptiverse.
You remarked on statistical significance of trend then back-pedaled when called on it. The technical aspect of your view amounts to this – temperatures “bobbling around” some range similar to some other range at points during the period post 1998.
No, you’ve not remotely “laid it out.”
The pause was well defined once. Now that it is over the shills rush in to try to resurrect it by shifting the goalposts to ever more absurd positions. “Bobbling around.” Pathetic.
I’m not blind, nor resistant to sound commentary different from my views. You are simply full of it.
This is your failing, not mine. You very desperately want to deny what is right in front of your eyes. Your argument is ignoratio elenchi.
The current warming is not unprecedented. Any fool can say it will continue warming over the long term. Oh wait. That’s what climate un-scientists do.
You just make stupid predictions without any scientific evidence. Why would anyone want to make a bet with you? You are the one huffing and puffing.
We don’t know what will happen with the climate in the future.
SkepticGoneWild says:
You just make stupid predictions without any scientific evidence.
That’s a very stupid thing to write. Complete horsesh!t.
Please stop David-ing.
You really don’t care about the content of replies, do you?
You’re the worst troll of all.
David, I thought you were paying me no mind?
At least try to tone down the hysterical responses if you refuse to stop trolling. Keep calm.
I’m not trolling, you are. My replies have substance; your’s do not.
David, please stop trolling.
DA,
That is real rich coming from a CLOWN who thinks the earth heats the sun!!!! LMAO. Talk about BS.
What a loser.
You just make stupid predictions without any scientific evidence. Why would anyone want to make a bet with you?
I’m hoping that any or all of the people claiming – with absolute certainty – that we are about to get cooler for a few decades, will lay a bet based on their certainty.
I figure that the reason they have backed off when asked is that they are not as certain as they pretend to be.
It’s especially good fun offering a (genuine) bet to those who say the ‘warmists’ are stupid and have got it all wrong.
Watching them curl up and huff when the rubber hits the road is quite satisfying.
I’m surprised Salvatore won’t take you up on your bet — he seems so sure cooling is almost here, month after month after month, year after year after year….
Salvatore?
A bunch of ‘skeptics’ and a bunch of ‘warmists’ pooled in for a serious bet about the current decade being cooler/warmer than the last.
http://www.kiwithinker.com/climate-bet/
There are a few more out there.
I’m willing to play at any time, with reasonable conditions for both sides.
Interesting. It seems those who bet ‘warming’ have already won, unless UAH and RSS have mostly negative anomalies from now until 2020. That seems very unlikely, barring a very large tropical volcanic eruption or an asteroid or comet strike.
For what needs to happen for the coolists to win there is no statistcal precedent in the TLT records that the bet is based on.
They’re going to lose, and lose by a large margin. You can safely bet on it.
http://www.kiwithinker.com/climate-bet/#comment-63588
Bart
The temperature trend over the past 40 years is positive. Over the past two years it’s negative. Over the past two months it’s positive. Over the past week (climatereanalyzer) it’s sharply negative.
Which of those trends is meaningful with respect to AGW?
None of them. What we have is a long term trend with a ~60 year cyclic phenomenon superimposed. These characteristics predated significant CO2 increase. Take those out, and there is very little left to attribute to CO2:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/wasioj.jpg
More meaningless curve-fitting.
No source mentioned. No data given for multidecadal cycle. No statistical testing to see if temps lead or lag these cycles – are the cycles aliasing global temps or leading them?
Same old graphical rhetoric.
Cycles are ubiquitous in Nature, and the long term trend pre-dates significant CO2 accumulation. You don’t have to know why, any more than you have to know how a diesel engine works to know you better get off the tracks when a locomotive is bearing down upon you. You can see it directly.
You are trying to impress a paradigm upon the data, and insisting it is more rigorous because it explains the dynamics to your satisfaction. But, that is not a valid test of rigor. Any number of faux-sophisticate paradigms could be impressed upon these data. It does not make them true.
This is a fallacy to which many neophytes fall prey. It leads to confirmation bias, and dead ends. You cannot become married to some hypothesis to the point you ignore the glaringly obvious, and sweep it under the rug in a vain struggle to support a collapsing paradigm.
Cycles are ubiquitous in Nature, and the long term trend pre-dates significant CO2 accumulation. You dont have to know why
If you are going to state that these cycles are also responsible for long-term warming, then you do indeed have to know why.
Warming from increased CO2 has an empirical basis. Wiggle-matching doesn’t.
Without an empirical basis, and without testing the wiggle-match for lead/lag, correlation and a host of other questions, it is your hypothesis that lacks rigour. It is simply astonishing that you can’t see that, and that you even argue that establishing a physical basis is unnecessary. but perhaps I’ve been giving you too much credit.
You don’t stress your own hypothesis at all. No null hypothesis to work against it. No tests at all. Just visual inspection of graphs. The confirmation bias is glaring.
“Warming from increased CO2 has an empirical basis.”
No, it actually doesn’t. Not on a global scale. Extrapolation from the lab under controlled conditions to a complex system under a multitude of influences is at best as good as a coin toss.
Extrapolation from the lab under controlled conditions to a complex system under a multitude of influences is at best as good as a coin toss.
Well, that’s a steaming pile of rhetoric. Coin toss was a nice, obfuscatory flourish. You’d make a great politician.
What we have from experiments spectral analysis in the lab and spectral analysis in the field is actual empirical evidence. A physical basis from which to work.
We don’t have an empirical basis to tie natural oceanic cycles with long term warming. None.
Wiggle-matching and conjecture is all you have. You have the scientific process upside down, mate.
The list of such failed extrapolations is long. If you do not know this, you do not know science.
When Leeuwenhoek first saw animacules in his microscope, there was no basis for the germ theory of disease, but the connection was almost immediately obvious. This is how science works. We observe logically connected phenomena, and then we follow the threads.
A few posters have said Ice gives off 300 W/m2. If a grey body plane giving off 500 W/^2 is placed parallel between 2 planes of ice the net radiation heat loss of the grey body plane is 200W/m^2. The ice is not heating the grey body plane but reducing the loss of heat.
Your knowledge of pseudoscience is good.
Your knowledge of physics is a big FAIL.
JD I’m shocked that you would say that! But if you could be more specific about what is wrong with that calculation it would be more helpful.
The list is long.
* Radiative fluxes can NOT be treated arithmetically.
* The 500 Watts/m^2 is from a warmer surface. It would not even notice the 300 Watts’m^2 from the ice. Different spectra.
* “Reducing the loss” is not radiatively possible from a lower temperature. You must make the ice an “insulator”.
You’ve been “shocked” enough, for now.
JDHuffman says:
The 500 Watts/m^2 is from a warmer surface. It would not even notice the 300 Wattsm^2 from the ice. Different spectra.
Energy is energy, and it is conserved.
Flux is NOT conserved.
Learn some physics.
Flux = energy per unit time per unit area. So if energy is conserved, so is flux.
Wrong!
Radiative flux consists of photons. Photons have different energies. So photons are NOT conserved. Therefore radiative flux is NOT conserved.
Learn some physics.
Or remain a clown. Your choice.
If a photon of energy E1 is passing through a certain area, and another photon of energy E2 is passing through that same area, then the net flux is (E1+E2) per unit area per unit time.
Conservation of energy.
If 5 photons, each with energy E, are absorbed by a surface, and 15 photons, each with energy E/3 are simultaneously emitted, then energy is conserved, but photons (flux) is NOT.
Learn some physics, DA.
Radiative flux is carried by photons but the energy still exists after the photons are absorbed. The energy of a photon is plank’s constant times the speed of light divided by the photon’s wavelength. Two photons of 1000 nanometer wavelength carry the same energy as one photon at 500 nanometers. Two 1000 nanometer photons per second supplies the same wattage as one 500 nanometer photon per second.
Since I said the plane was a greybody object it absorbs all spectra equally. It would be happy to absorb 300 Watts per square meter no matter the wavelength of the photons bringing the energy.
This is the point you tell me I need to learn some physics.
Craig, you may have “black body” confused with “gray body”.
So yes, you need to learn some physics.
Again a meaningless response by Ger*an, attempting to cover up his ignorance.
It wouldn’t be meaningless to you if you understood.
Learn some physics.
Still more dumb.
Ger*an couldn’t give a scientific response if his identity depended on it.
It’s fun to watch.
DA, in your frantic effort to run from reality, you probably overlooked this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-315150
A greybody object is like a blackbody but it only absorbs and emits a percentage of the radiant energy striking it. I should have made the plane a black body to make the math work out as simple as it was.
Now what about your problems with spectra, photons and energy? Photons carry energy but they are not the same as radiative flux. A given level of power (say 300 Watts) can be carried by photons of any spectra. As long as an object has the physical properties to absorb a photon the energy is transferred to the object. Maxwell’s demon doesn’t jump out and block the photon because the object is warmer than the source of the photon.
Overlooked what?
I”m not clicking on your links anymore, since the invariably go to nothing that explains nothing.
If you have something to say, make it in the present.
Craig, you seem to be rambling, with no point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
craigt…”The ice is not heating the grey body plane but reducing the loss of heat”.
Would you not think the heat loss would increase since you have increased the thermal gradient both for radiation and conduction compared to the plate radiating without the ice sandwich?.
The thermal gradient doesn’t increase, it only falls slower. The plane will still cool and the ice will warm. Alone the plane loses 500 watts from every square meter with no incoming energy. Parallel to (but not touching) the ice planes it still loses 500 W/m^2 but now gains 300 W/m^2 for a net loss of 200 W/m^2.
And as I told JDHuffman I should have made it a blackbody plane so that every photon touching it was absorbed. Otherwise some of the energy would be reflected and the math wouldn’t be that simple.
Craig, one of your mistakes is in how you use the “black body”. A black body is an imaginary concept. It is used to make radiative problems easier. But the problem arrises when a black body violates 2LoT, which is what your example does.
Yes blackbodies are an imaginary concept but if they violated any law of thermodynamics they would be a poor teaching tool.The problem lies in your misinterpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
When a photon strikes an object the only thing that matters is the wavelength of the photon and the properties of the object. The temperature of the source of the photon doesn’t matter. Entropy is still increasing as two objects exchange photons – the warmer object cools and the cooler object warms.
How did Craig’s example violate the 2LOT?
Craig, when using a black body, in an example, you have to be careful to not violate 2LoT. Whenever you end up with “cold” warming “hot”, you have violated 2LoT.
Also, your statement “The temperature of the source of the photon doesn’t matter.” is WRONG!
The temperature of the source is what determines the wavelengths of emitted photons.
“Also, your statement ‘The temperature of the source of the photon doesnt matter.’ is WRONG!
Objects give off and absorb energy in a range of spectra depending on their physical qualities. Even in the case of a blackbody the blackbody temperature is just the dominant wavelength of a broad range of emitted spectra.
Now you’ve got it right.
Net heat transfer is why the stainless steel YETI cups keeps coffee hot for so long. The air between the 2 layers is just the first step. Although the coffee is giving off radiant energy the polished metal reflects most of that energy back into the liquid. There is little net loss of energy.
There’s a (near) vacuum between the two layers, that minimizes heat conduction. That works much better than if it were air.
Even better, but a vacuum doesn’t stop radiative cooling.
DA will be able to help you with pseudoscience. He doesn’t know squat about physics.
Yet you’ve ever pointed out one single thing I’ve gotten wrong about physics.
I’ve pointed out many.
You live in denial.
Learn some physics.
You haven’t pointed out any. You never do. You always take the lazy way out, spouting insults instead of science.
Wrong again, DA.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312730
Learn to face reality, then learn some physics.
Ha. Like I said, you haven’t pointed out any physics I’ve gotten wrong, just some vague meaningless words you think convince some people.
Try again.
The link was to your own nonsense, DA:
“The surface, at an average temperature of 288 K, radiates an average of 390 W/m2.
But only 240 W/m2 leaves out the top of the atmosphere.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?”
(Any more silliness, and we will just leave you as a clown.)
Why is it nonsense?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-315138
That link says “I’ve pointed out many.”
Which many are those?
And what was the question?
How about answering today’s question, instead of playing games?
Any trick to avoid reality, huh DA?
Do you really find it satisfying to come here and write inanities?
Really — do you?
DA, learn some physics. Then you wouldn’t have to use such avoidance trickery.
“DA, learn some physics.”
Hilarious..
David has long since heeded that advice, JD. He has a PhD in physics. He obviously knows physics very well.
You? What evidence can you give that you have learned any physics? Let’s see your CV.
I assume you regularly tell your doctor ‘go learn some anatomy’
You probably tell your plumber to ‘go learn how to solder’
If you wouldnt get banned again, youd tell Roy ‘go learn about precipitation’
Nate, if you had even a slight knowledge of physics, you would know how pathetic DA is. He never gets anything right, even the basics. He’s still searching for his “missing” 150 Watts/m^2.
He’ll be searching for a long time….
Come on JD. Lets face facts. You don’t have much, if any, training in physics, do you?
It is just plain ridiculous for you, then, to tell someone with a PhD in physics, to go learn some physics.
Most people get that. Im sure your grandmother gets it.
Why don’t you?
Oh, I got plenty of facts, anonymous clown. It’s you that doesn’t have any facts, or ability to understand physics.
AM radio stations–Radiative fluxes do NOT add
Igloo–Radiative fluxes do NOT add
Spectrum analyzer–Radiative fluxes do NOT add
Poynting vector–Radiative fluxes do NOT add
“Set phasors to stun”–Radiative fluxes do NOT add
Need I go on?
Anonymous JD/Ger*an, where is your CV showing your physics training? David shows his, why not you?
Again, when someone has been well educated in physics (David), telling them to go learn physics is rather silly and pointless.
It makes people question your ability to look at facts and process them logically.
‘AM radio stationsRadiative fluxes do NOT add
IglooRadiative fluxes do NOT add
Spectrum analyzerRadiative fluxes do NOT add
Poynting vectorRadiative fluxes do NOT add
Set phasors to stunRadiative fluxes do NOT add’
JD, a bunch of nonsense words are not an argument.
Meanwhile you are still running as fast as you can from answering my basic question of how ‘fluxes don’t add’ squares with the first law of thermodynamics.
Hint: it doesnt.
Nate, the trouble with replying to someone a couple of days later is that they have probably moved on to other discussions. Happy to help.
Interestingly, but not very, you and Ger* seem to have no problem following me around.
More paranoid BS from a boring climate troll. PST.
It has little to do with the material of the container. If you got a regular metal cup, the coffee would cool quite quickly. The key is that radiative cooling is much less efficient than convective cooling. The gap between the inner and outer wall makes all the difference. This is the principle of the Dewar flask:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask
And, this is why the cartoon physics version of the GHE is insufficiently descriptive – when you’ve got a convective atmosphere, surface temperature is not even remotely explained by radiative exchange alone.
C,
Yes. Your coffee still gets colder – it doesn’t get hotter, does it?
What is your point? Ancient civilisations used insulation for various purposes, but maybe this comes as a revelation to you.
There is no GHE. CO2 has no heating properties. Anybody who thinks so is simply deluded, and quite possibly stupid and ignorant into the bargain!
If you could describe the GHE yourself, then it could be examined scientifically – but you can’t, so it won’t. Boo hoo, so sad, too bad.
Time for a pointless and irrelevant diversionary analogy, wot? Maybe you could point out that bananas absorb and emit IR, or Arabs wear long robes! Nothing to do with the mythical GHE, but good for a laugh.
Go your hardest.
Cheers.
My point is that incoming thermal energy has a great deal of impact on the net energy loss. The coffee in a thermos looses energy slowly because most of the radiant energy is reflected back into the coffee.
Greenhouse gasses slow the cooling of the Earth’s surface by absorbing part of the outgoing radiant energy the ground gives off and emitting roughly half of it toward the Earth again. The less the Earth cools each night the warmer it is after a 24 hour cycle.
You can find hundreds of studies where the downward longwave radiation is measured scientifically and its impact examined.
CraigT believes: “You can find hundreds of studies where the downward longwave radiation is measured scientifically and its impact examined.”
Craig, please link to your very best such “study”.
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
Craig, DA seems to have floundered in with some of his pseudoscience. Do you want to pick one of his three, or offer one of your own?
Again ger*an has no science, just insults.
It happens every time. EVERY time.
DA, if you’re embarrassed by your pseudoscience, don’t flaunt it.
Your best course of action is to “learn some physics”.
You’re a sorry waste of time.
Roy, please block Ger*an again — he can’t do anything but troll.
DA, it was you that jumped into this thread with Craig and I. You are the biggest troll here.
Learn to embrace reality, and learn some physics.
I like David’s third link the best: Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. No computer models only good field work.
The study took measurements of the wavelength known to be abosrbed and emitted by CO2 but not water vapor and compared it to not only the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 but also CO2’s rise and fall with the seasons. The match make it clear that CO2 impacts downward longwave radiation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240/figures/4
Can you explain what about the study is pseudoscience?
C,
Any document using the words “radiative forcing” is purveying pseudoscience.
According to the IPCC “The term ‘radiative forcing’ has been employed in the IPCC Assessments to denote an externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of the Earth’s climate system.”
Pseudoscientific gobbledygook. Completely meaningless, but serves its purpose of making its authors seem knowledgeable in the minds of the stupid, ignorant, gullible, or feeble-minded.
Which category best describes you?
Cheers.
Mike, how can you discuss climate change without climate forcings? The term refers to anything that affects the temperature of the Earth. Changes in the solar output would be a form of radiative forcing, as is the distance of the Earth from the sun, the angle of the Earth’s axis and the amount of SO2 in the atmosphere.
In Dr. Spencer’s 2007 paper “Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations” he measured the “sensitivity of total (SW + LW) cloud radiative forcing to tropospheric temperature.” Was his paper purveying pseudoscience?
Craig, the “radiative forcing” term, as used by the IPCC, is bogus. Real radiative forcing, such as that caused by clouds, is observable and verifiable.
Craig, your choice of “very best” appears to be paywalled. But, all such papers, that I have seen, follow the basic steps:
1) Make an assumption that supports pseudoscience.
2) Run a computer model to support the assumption.
3) Cherry-pick some inconclusive data to support the model.
4) Declare the initial assumption is “proved”.
In the one page you linked to, there is NO CO2 spectra shown. The “assumption” is that ALL DWIR is due to CO2. So there is no way to verify how they arrived at the CO2 “forcing”.
More pseudoscience.
I found a link to a copy of the Feldman paper not behind a paywall:
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
Just in the first three sentences:
“…calculated as the difference between estimates…”
“Radiative transfer models calculate…”
“…widespread scientific discussion and modeling…”
Pure pseudoscience.
The first 3 lines of the paper:
The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earths radiation field from pre-industrial and present day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.8260.19 W/m^2. However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2.
The fourth line:
Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2.
So the paper is explicitly saying this study is not based on estimates or models but that’s why you say it’s pseudoscience.
craigt….two problems with the paper at your link.
1)The y-axis for absorp-tion is in milliwatts while the claimed surface radiation is in 100s of watts. On a similar graph I calculated the absorp-tion due to CO2 was about 5% of total surface radiation.
2)Figure 4 shows a forcing from CO2 from 2002 – 2010, a period claimed by the IPCC as showing no warming. They called it a warming hiatus.
The papers are based on estimates, not observation.
craigt…”Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2″.
An obvious fabrication. The IPCC claimed no warming during that period.
People doing research like this take liberties. There is no way to separate the effect of CO2 from water vapour since the WV spectrum overlies the CO2 spectrum. Furthermore, the effect is measured in milliwatts while the estimated surface radiation is hundreds of watts.
CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere and combined with water vapour, about 1% at sea level in temperature regions. That is clearly revealed in their absorp-tion which is rated in milliwatts.
Craig, the “models”, “estimates”, and “assumptions” make it pseudoscience.
Study the paper and identify where they prove CO2 can warm the planet. That’s the problem. They start with the belief that CO2 can warm the planet, that it has a “forcing”. Measuring DWIR is NOT proof that CO2 can warm the planet.
It’s pseudoscience.
Craig,
Both JD and Mike Flynn think simply labeling ordinary science as pseudoscience is a convincing argument. But that is the best argument they have.
They will pretend to discuss and be interested, but in the end will ignore facts, ridicule ordinary physics, and make up their own.
Nate, all three sentences are incorrect.
So, your status as a clown remains intact.
craig…”Greenhouse gasses slow the cooling of the Earths surface by absorbing part of the outgoing radiant energy the ground gives off and emitting roughly half of it toward the Earth again”.
A tired old bit of alarmist propaganda.
CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere while nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of it. It’s plain to anyone with a scientific interest that N2/O2 dictate atmospheric temperature while CO2 has no effect.
As far as back-radiation from 0.04% of the atmosphere, the 2nd law makes it clear that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. Even if the GHGs are at the same temperature, heat cannot be transferred.
Gordon Robertson says:
CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere while nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of it. Its plain to anyone with a scientific interest that N2/O2 dictate atmospheric temperature while CO2 has no effect.
Let’s see your calculations of how much heat is trapped by CO2, and how much is trapped by N2 and O2.
GR says:
As far as back-radiation from 0.04% of the atmosphere, the 2nd law makes it clear that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
That’s not what Clausius said.
DA…”Let’s see your calculations of how much heat is trapped by CO2, and how much is trapped by N2 and O2″.
I have done it several times, you lack the science background to understand.
It’s all based on the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures. Consider the atmosphere a constant volume or a sequence of constant volume layers due to the gravitational gradient.
P = (nR/V)T
Essentially, pressure is directly proportional to temperature despite the nonsense climate scientists apply on top of it with the lapse rate. Climb Mt.Everest from sea level and you will experience a direct relationship between pressure and temperature.
Apply Dalton to the pressure so that the sum of the partial pressures of each gas equals the total atmospheric gas pressure, either to the total or each layer. Since temperature is proportional to the partial pressures the percent mass of each gas represents the temperature contribution.
With CO2 at 0.04% it is limited to 0.04% of the warming and N2/O2 represent 99% of the warming.
DA…”the 2nd law makes it clear that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
Thats not what Clausius said”.
*******
It’s exactly what he said, that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder region to a warmer region.
Gordon Robertson says:
It’s all based on the Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures.
So wrong.
The very first assumption behind the ideal gas law is that the constituents of the gas do not interact with other constituents, or any other particles.
So how can it lead to a greenhouse effect??
Gordon Robertson says:
Essentially, pressure is directly proportional to temperature despite the nonsense climate scientists apply on top of it with the lapse rate.
Now even the linear lapse rate is junk, according to Gordon! Despite observations.
My god, man, there really is no lie you won’t resort to, is there?
—
In fact, while temperature declines linearly with altitude, pressure declines exponentially.
Explain THAT using your simplistic ideas.
Gordon Robertson says:
Its exactly what he said, that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder region to a warmer region.
No, it was not what Clausius said about the 2LOT.
Why don’t you quote him for us?
Gordon Robertson says:
With CO2 at 0.04% it is limited to 0.04% of the warming and N2/O2 represent 99% of the warming.
Your hatred of science becomes more apparent every day….
David, your hatred of honest debate becomes more apparent every day…
It is no longer honest debate when a repeatedly debunked idea is brought up again and again, with no attempt to refute the previous debunking arguments.
Defending such posts is enabling trolls, DREMT.
In what way you imagine I am defending anyone, or anything, I have no idea. David said:
Your hatred of science becomes more apparent every day…
Trolling, wouldnt you agree?
DREMT,
In this instance, Gordon is being a troll, for the reasons I stated.
David is pointing this out, as he and I and others have many times, to no avail.
By defending Gordon, you are enabling a troll.
Im not defending Gordon, Im criticising David.
Now please stop trolling.
“The coffee in a thermos looses energy slowly because most of the radiant energy is reflected back into the coffee. “
No, that is not why (see comment on Dewar flask above). These guys who deny the GHE entirely are just naysayers. Under particular conditions, greenhouse gases can have a substantial impact. But, the impact is dependent upon convective overturning. It is not a simple 1:1 relationship with atmospheric composition.
craigt…”Net heat transfer is why the stainless steel YETI cups keeps coffee hot for so long”.
No such thing as net heat transfer. Heat can only be transferred hot to cold without compensation.
(1) Dumb
(2) Wrong, in a nonadiabatic system. As are most systems on and within Earth.
DA, 2LoT applies everywhere. If you don’t know how it applies in a non-adiabiatic system, you need to learn some physics.
Yes 2LOT applies everywhere.
And, yes, I know how it applies to a nonadiabatic system.
But you have given evidence that you do not. So has Gordon.
DA, you don’t consider evidence that doesn’t fit your beliefs.
Learn some physics. Embrace reality.
DA…”(2) Wrong, in a nonadiabatic system. As are most systems on and within Earth.”
That’s odd, I did not notice Clausius make exception in the 2nd law for adiabatic/non-adiabatic systems, or open/closed systems.
Again: quote Clausius’s statement of the second law.
David,
Again: show some evidence that you are not ignorant, stupid, and deluded, afflicted with gotcha obsession.
Cheers.
“The TNA (Tropical Northern Atlantic) Index will update for July in a few days but June was a record negative (cold) in sharp contrast to 2017. This should lead to a quieter hurricane season in the Atlantic Basin.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/03/atlantic-tripole-of-ocean-temperatures-driving-hurricane-season-and-europes-crazy-summer/
[and it’s been warm summer in most of Europe]
The hurricane in the Eastern Pacific is heading towards Hawaii.
The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plane.
DA, that would be “plain”.
After you learn some physics, you can then learn spelling.
Not that I don’t enjoy correcting your numerous deficiencies….
A plain is also a plane.
DA avoids reality, even as it slaps him in the face.
Salvatore, you seem like a very desperate man. You post your claims in many sites all over the Web. I don’t mean this to be a personal attack but I can’t help but wonder what is it that frightens you the most about the fact that AGW theory may be correct?
Good question. I’ve asked Salvatore this too, but (so far) he’s ignored it. Maybe this time?
No DA, it’s a stupid question.
AGW is a hoax. The ones that are frightened are the frauds and the phonies.
Learn some physics.
Why is it a stupid question?
What relevant physics don’t I know?
DA,
What relevant physics do you know?
You don’t know, do you? If you can’t even describe the GHE, you wouldn’t know what physics might or might not be relevant, eh?
Strident assertions that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter don’t seem to be supported by any physical principles of which I am aware.
Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer certainly reduces the amount of energy reaching the thermometer, unless you can dig up some heretofore unknown physical laws. Maybe the Schmidt – Mann Principle, or Hansen’s Law? I’m sure you can put up with the raucous laughter which will ensue!
There’s dumb, dumber, and yourself – unless you can show otherwise.
Cheers.
What Mike said.
Plus radiative fluxes do NOT add, arithmetically. So your “missing” 150 Watts/m^2 is just one more indication you have no knowledge of the relevant physics.
Learn some physics.
A flux is energy per unit time per unit area.
Why, specifically, do co-incident fluxes not add?
DA, I appreciate your new interest in learning physics.
To start, study “Poynting vector”.
There’s much more, of course.
We’re here to help.
I’d like an explanation, not just throwing out some words like “Poynting Vector.”
That might impress others. It doesn’t impress me, and is very easy to see though.
Explain why co-incident fluxes don’t add.
DA, I realize learning is an effort. Likely that is why you never did it before. Don’t hide behind a bunch of excuses, just because you’re lazy.
Put out the effort. Learn some physics.
Stop squirming and dancing.
I’d like an explanation.
Or an admission that you can’t prove your claim.
DA, I’m not the one “squirming and dancing”.
You’re projecting, again.
I’m very consistent.
Learn some physics.
Why, specifically, do co-incident fluxes not add?
DA,
Keep the gotchas coming, David.
Maybe they really do make you appear less ignorant and stupid.
Or maybe not – what do you think?
Cheers.
DA, study the topic I gave you.
Learn some physics.
Ger*an – won’t answer straightforward questions.
Prefers piddling around.
Now I remember why I ignored him.
DA, I gave you the topic to study–“Poynting vector”.
You refused to study the relevant physics. You continue to avoid reality by attacking and maligning others.
Embrace reality. Learn some physics.
I already asked JD to give an answer many times regarding how can fluxes NOT add and still obey energy conservation.
Where does the NOT added energy go?
Each time, as he does here, he dodges, distracts, obfuscates, evades, blames the other guy, and avoids answering.
I already discussed Poynting vectors with him, and this turned out to be a red herring. Vectors add too.
Why does he avoid answering such a basic question?
If he has a real answer, surely, with his superior physics knowledge, he could teach us all some physics.
But no. He has no answer and is afraid to admit it. I get it.
Nate
You cannot reason with Ge*ran. He is a provocative troll and says things he knows will get the most volume of posts. This thread had moderate posts. When this dork started posting numbers of posts (half of them his) rose considerably.
He just says stupid things that he knows will provoke people who know he is stupid and want to correct his idiot comments.
He states over and over “fluxes do not add” everyone has shown he is totally wrong. He doesn’t care, he will post is again and again as long as he generates posts. I think maybe he generated over a thousand posts when he came up with the idiot statement that the “Moon does not rotate on its Axis”. Even the skeptics called him an idiot over that one. It is just what his goal is. I like to ignore this troll and his stupid troll partner (another idiot) “DREMT”.
It is not useful to respond to them in anyway. I will do it from time to time, then you see you are wasting your time. You ignore these two and they jump into your posts uninvited with some stupid comment.
Here is a link Ge*ran linked to about radiative fluxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_flux
I also quoted the definition: “Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.”
I asked this babbling dork to turn on one light and then another, will more energy enter his eyes? Yes it will, there will be more power radiated through the given area of his pupil.
He is too stupid to waste time with. He does create huge amounts of posts. Probably something that excites his simpleton brain.
Nate and Norman confer on their confusion over radiative fluxes.
Nate wasn’t able to understand my last hint–“Set phasors to ‘stun'”. That’s okay, poor Norman believes AM radios do not work because one station interferes with every other station. And, he believes that an igloo with 30 sq. meters of interior ice, melts due to the internally “added” flux of 9000 Watts.
As you might realize, neither has any physics background.
nate…”I already asked JD to give an answer many times regarding how can fluxes NOT add and still obey energy conservation.
Where does the NOT added energy go? ”
Conservation of energy applies to all energies involved. For example, the 1st law, which is about conservation of energy, sums work and heat both externally and internally. The thermal and mechanical energies must sum to a total.
Radiative energy is meaningless in itself until it contacts matter. Even, then it’s frequency, hence it intensity governs whether it will be absorbed. If it’s not absorbed, it is free to roam anywhere in the universe as EM.
I think conservation of energy is sometimes stated too loosely. If energy is emitted from the Sun, and moves into general space, how to you keep tract of the sum? There has to be times when the COE does not hold.
norman…”He states over and over fluxes do not add everyone has shown he is totally wrong”.
Fluxes don’t add together for the simple reason that you cannot identify ‘a flux’. You have them visualized as particles of EM which is sheer speculation.
Flux comes from fluxion by way of Newton. By fluxion, he meant a derivative, which is an instantaneous change in a field at a point. To calculate the field over a surface, you have to apply a surface integral to sum the instantaneous values.
Since these points cannot be measured or seen they are essentially imaginary, stated by definition only.
If you want to increase the density of a flux field you have to add more flux per unit area. You do not add one line of flux to another, you have to increase the number of flux lines in an area.
Gordon Robertson
Here is the established use of radiative flux.
Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.
You can make up any version for flux you want. That won’t help you communicate with anyone. You still say silly things and make up your own versions of reality. Stick to the established use of the term of don’t post.
YOU: “Fluxes dont add together for the simple reason that you cannot identify a flux. You have them visualized as particles of EM which is sheer speculation.”
Don’t be an idiot like JDHuffman. You make up science all the time but you don’t have to be stupid. It is a measured value of energy in W/m^2 not an visualized speculation. If you don’t accept photons I really don’t care, it is your own opinion. Means nothing to me, a lot of people have lots of opinions.
Now here is the test you can do in your own home. JDHuffman (Ge*ran) is too lazy or stupid to be able to figure it out.
In a dark room turn on one light and look around. Now turn on more lights. Look at the accepted concept of radiative flux. Is more energy entering your pupils when you turn on more lights? If it is then please don’t post in favor of idiot Ge*ran. Look again at the accepted definition of radiative flux.
Norman, every time the correct physics is explained to you, you run. You don’t want reality. For some reason, like several others, you fear reality.
I offered the simple example of AM radio stations. One station’s transmit frequency (flux) does NOT add to another local station’s different transmit frequency. Fluxes do NOT add.
You ran from that simple example.
Next, there was the simple example of an igloo. (Thank you, Ms Svante.) A sealed igloo with 30 square meters of interior area would be emitting 300 Watts/m^2. So, if radiative fluxes simply added, that would be 9000 Watts inside the igloo! Obviously, that is FALSE.
You ran from that simple example.
Now, you have conjured up that the human eye can recognize turning on more lights. If you can’t understand the previous simple examples, you certainly can’t understand the human eye. (The Poynting vector is MUCH easier to understand than the human eye.) The eye has specialized receptors to recognize photons. So, to your eyes, the fluxes are adding. But, that is due to the human eye’s ability to recognize all photons within the visible range.
Again, the two simple examples indicate that fluxes do NOT add. A much more technical example would be a spectrum analyzer. A spectrum analyzer could easily recognize two different fluxes within its bandwidth. It could display the two distinct spikes on a screen. The fluxes do NOT add. Simple experiments with a spectrum analyzer could further verify that fluxes do not add.
But, you’re welcome to run from reality, all you want. Your avoidance of reality, along with your constant insults and attacks, just make you another clown.
JD, you raise examples always involving blocks of ice, in not so simple geometries.
You then turn ice into straw, by forgetting about the fact other surfaces are emitting as well the ice. That the net flow of heat is TO the ice from warmer surfaces.
Meanwhile you ignore the simplest example that I gave that get at the fundamentals. 3 spotlights 1000 W each shining on one black object. I claim the three spotlights will sum to produce 3000 W, no matter the wavelength.
You say no, fluxes don’t add.
We could measure the temperature rise of the black object and determine how many Watts it received. It will be 3000 W.
If you say no, then you have to find where the 3000 W went.
I predict you will insult, obfuscate, distract, weasil, evade, dodge, but you will in the end avoid answering this basic question.
Because you are have no answer. And that should tell you something.
Anonymous, but funny, clown Nate, I don’t have to insult you. You do that quite well, all by yourself. That’s why you are a clown.
1) You did not ask a question, so it’s hard to guess what your specific problem is.
2) The three 1000 W spotlights would not be able to deliver 3000 W to a surface. Not all of the Watts are magically turned into photons. And whatever flux was at the surface of the bulb would be lessened with the square of the distance from the bulb.
You’re just terribly confused, like a fish out of water.
‘The three 1000 W spotlights would not be able to deliver 3000 W to a surface. Not all of the Watts are magically turned into photons. And whatever flux was at the surface of the bulb would be lessened with the square of the distance from the bulb.’
The beginnings of an answer, but still attempting to distract and obfuscate, confuse, as a way out.
The point of the question was to make it simple so that the fundamentals can be explored, don’t try to change it to make it more complicated.
As stated in the original question, each 1000 W spotlight delivers 1000 W of light flux (photons) to the object. Simple.
‘Square of distance’ All of the 1000 W of flux from each spotlight is hitting the object. Simple.
And….he has no answer.
JD,
If you can’t find my missing Watts, then they are not really missing, are they? They have been summed.
There is no other option given that, I assume, we all believe in 1LOT.
This means you are unable to support your assertion that fluxes don’t add.
We will find out just how correct it is over the next few years.
You’ve been saying that for years too, after predicting cooling to start in (at least) every year since 2002.
Yet you are too foolish to learn.
Peter…”I dont mean this to be a personal attack but I cant help but wonder what is it that frightens you the most about the fact that AGW theory may be correct?”
What frightens me is the destruction of science if this consensus-based garbage is accepted as science.
Gordon, you’re not entitled to that opinion. You haven’t earned it.
So what about AGW scares you so much that you have to deny the science in the dumbest ways?
“that AGW theory may be correct”
Is like, Al Gore is a competent scientist.
Or:
Humanity’s only hope has been dashed forever- because Hillary Clinton isn’t the US President.
She was the only way and “the one”.
Moonbeam has been the greatest Governor.
Marxism actually makes a lot of sense.
You’re arguing with yourself about the wrong things.
What are right things to be arguing with myself.
What does David argue with himself about?
AGW theory is wrong.
And warming is a good thing for this planet to do.
Ice Ages are cold.
15 C is cold.
An ocean with average temperature of 3.5 C is cold.
gbaikie…”Marxism actually makes a lot of sense”.
To everyone but Karl Marx. Marxism has nothing to do with his theories.
I’m off to ground myself by observing Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. Venus has already set for the evening.
If AGW were correct, the answer would be obvious: move to nuclear power in a big way. Anyone who claims to be seriously worried about AGW, yet opposes the only genuine path to fossil fuel independence, is not seriously worried about AGW.
But, AGW is not correct, and nobody is genuinely worried about it. So we have this weird movement composed of those in favor of coercive government using it as a vehicle to impose their political vision, claiming the mantle of Science, but opposing scientific solutions to the purported problem.
Well stated, Bart.
Correction, VERY well stated!
“But, AGW is not correct, and nobody is genuinely worried about it.”
I know many people who are worried about it, particularly younger people.
Again, Bart, you show that you easily substitute your beliefs for available facts and data.
Younger people are worried about getting jobs and signaling their suitability for mating. In the service of the latter, they are not always sincere.
These people are worried:
http://tinyurl.com/yagjuufj
Are they advocating nuclear power?
Maybe, I think we need everything we can muster, but current nuclear power has difficulty competing with the alternatives.
There are no alternatives. It’s FF or nuclear. The rest is niche. As I said above, if you’re not thinking nuclear, you’re not seriously worried.
Allright then, if you insist.
The first thing is to stop building new coal power plants.
Natural gas can be a stop gap measure.
Looks like you where right here:
http://tinyurl.com/yd5pkf9k
Up until 2011.
It’s not based on accounting gimmicks. It is based on potential. FF can supply our energy needs because they have been storing solar energy for eons. Nuclear can because of E = mc^2.
Wind has such a poor energy/unit-of-effort-and-land-and-material density that it simply will never satisfy more than a fraction of our energy requirements. Ditto solar. These are over-hyped pipe dreams that promise the sky, and deliver meager and intermittent results.
Nuclear power has great potential but we don’t need to prescribe solutions, markets and technology will optimize it once the true prices are there.
http://tinyurl.com/ybklvd34
“Wind has such a poor energy/unit-of-effort-and-land-and-material density that it simply will never satisfy more than a fraction of our energy requirements. Ditto solar.”
This is your standard assertion. But make it quantitative.
When we do, as I have shown you several times, the argument falls apart.
Coal: how much land is torn up and piled on with waste products?
“…markets and technology will optimize it once the true prices are there.”
If you removed all the subsidies for wind and solar, the markets for them would collapse.
“When we do, as I have shown you several times, the argument falls apart.”
Not hardly.
https://tinyurl.com/ydezcnvs
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C60GSCGU0AAI84S.jpg:large
Cartoons are not a quantitative argument.
More assertion without evidence, par for the course.
Bart says:
“If you removed all the subsidies for wind and solar, the markets for them would collapse”.
Look again, the graph shows the unsubsidized cost.
http://tinyurl.com/yd5pkf9k
Cost relations have changed.
Each of the light colored splotches is a coal mine-throughout Kt and WV.
Many more out west.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5810141,-82.0937529,262771m/data=!3m1!1e3
Adds up to considerable area..
I propose a bet.
There is no way the ‘pause’ since 1998 is going to return by the end of 2020 (although I’ll gladly wager anyone who claims the opposite). The trend inertia is too strong to be reversed in that time.
But if coolists are right, the trend could return by 2025.
All that needs to happen is that the average monthly UAH anomaly from now until the end of 2025 is 0.09C.
Salvatore is predicting that UAH is going to hit and stay at the zero line or under in the very near future. He predicts that cooling will ensue for the next few years to decades.
He should make this bet if he really thinks he’s right.
I’ll take any takers.
One caveat – if there is a super-massive volcanic eruption between Jan 2020 and Dec 2024 – a Pinatubo size eruption – the bet is off.
Punters are welcome to make their own caveats, to be reasonable.
Maybe a coolist will put their money where their mouth is?
Or propose your own – reasonable – bet, dear coolists.
Do you truly believe the guff you’re spouting, or are you just waving your arms on the internet?
–barry says:
August 4, 2018 at 6:27 PM
Or propose your own reasonable bet, dear coolists.–
I suggest you pick a ICCP projection you think understates the amount warming which will occur, and bet on it being warmer and others can bet on it not being as warm as projected.
IPCC projection. [not as I typed, ICCP projection]
Do you believe we are headed for a long cooling period, gbakie? Do you want to make a bet?
others can bet
What about you? Do you have the stuff to put up a stake, or are you just going to cat-cal?
To be clearer:
But if coolists are right, the ‘pause‘ could return by 2025.
All that needs to happen is that the average monthly UAH anomaly from now until the end of 2025 is 0.09C or less.
An increase in major explosive volcanic activity is part of my equation I have been saying it for years.
What’s the evidence for that?
How should we frame a bet, Salvatore?
Shall we set a date in the future – I proposed 2025 – to see how temps evolve since some time before?
There’s a few ways to construct the bet. I suggested a trend. We only need to find a mutually agreeable one.
Another bet could be that the decade after 2016 will be warmer than the decade before it. EG, average temps 2006-2015, and average temps 2017-2026.
Neither decade includes the big 2016 spike, so no one can complain that either decade is unduly influenced by that year’s el Nino.
I would put up a starting bet of $100. Not too shocking, but not nothing, either. I’m prepared to go higher.
barry, I would bet that, in a properly conducted experiment, CO2 cannot warm a system.
Interested?
Is water vapor a greenhouse gas?
Are clouds concealing UFOs?
Is water vapor a greenhouse gas?
Are clouds concealing alien space craft, from other galaxies, ready to invade Earth?
You can’t even address a simple question.
You proved my point very well — you are a fake and a troll.
Useless. But for some reason you get your jollies by writing replies that are utterly meaningless. All day long. Every day. What a sad life.
Didn’t you once say that your wife died a few years ago? You really need a better hobby, man.
DA, you are the biggest troll here. Just count your number of comments.
And, you never know what you’re talking about. You have me confused with someone else, but can’t figure it out. If you had a dog, he would probably bite you.
Learn some physics. It will change your life.
Trollishness isn’t determined by who writes the most comments.
It’s determined by who writes the most off-topic comments. Ger*an wins that, hands down.
DA, your entire existence is “off topic”.
Embrace reality. Learn some physics.
David, you are completely unwilling, or unable, to stop trolling. Its the way you argue that makes you this sites biggest troll. You use every underhand debate trick in the book (as do all the professional trolls here) and you comment over just about every conversation going, under every single article. PST.
DA…”Is water vapor a greenhouse gas?”
What’s a greenhouse gas?
Is water vapor a greenhouse gas? Dr. Spencer Thinks so:
“Importantly, evidence for ENSO related radiative forcing of temperature would involve the atmospheric radiative changes preceding the ocean temperature changes, after internal ocean mixing changes have already been accounted for. These atmospheric changes could involve some combination of cloud shortwave albedo, cloud longwave, or water vapor changes.”
The Role of ENSO in Global Ocean Temperature Changes during 1955 2011 Simulated with a 1D Climate Model
Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell 2013
DA,
What the heck is a greenhouse gas, anyway? Is it supposed to be especially effective at reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer, thereby lowering its temperature?
Why is this important?
You do realise that bananas are a good source of potassium, as well as absorbing and emitting IR, don’t you?
Try learning physics, rather than parroting a fake scientist like Schmidt, or a fake Nobel Laureate, like Mann. Alternatively, keep on with pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo – forcings, feed backs, back-radiation, hot-spots, fingerprints and all the rest!
Oh, how we laughed!
Cheers.
No thanks to those above who have gone on and on and on with trivial, largely non-scientific comments, greatly devaluing the information presented by Dr Spencer.
You did it the month before, as well.
And the month before that.
This pattern is one of deliberate intent to lessen the value of Dr Spencer’s work, which has been recognized as proper and significant by several major awards. This is a greater achievement than any of you, to my knowledge, has ever demonstrated. Be considerate and recognize class, even if you lack it personally.
Why not cease your schoolboy standard comments for the present month of August, when Dr Spencer will likely update the time series once more.
Thus, the abundant dross can be forgotten and a show of gold in the blog comments might become easier to see. I hope it does. Geoff.
Devaluing how?
DA,
Pointless gotcha, much?
Cheers.
I think I agree with Geoff. I’ve read posts where Dr. Spencer patiently explains radiative forcing and the greenhouse effect. It falls on the deaf ears of posters waving around the 2nd law of thermodynamics like they had a clue what it really meant.
For example, Dr. Spencer’s 2007 paper “Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations” analyses the impact of shortwave and longwave radiation on sea surface temperatures. Most posters would call that a violation of the second law and and immediately turn off. One would tell Dr. Spencer to “Embrace reality. Learn some physics.”
Craig, that almost sounds like a false accusation.
If you believe something in that paper violates 2LoT, feel free to point it out and we can discuss.
It’s just one more opportunity to embrace reality and learn some physics.
Quite the contrary I think it is a valid approach to climate study. The warming caused by downward longwave radiation in no way violates the 2nd law. But you seem to feel what Dr. Spencer is doing in the paper is pseudoscience.
Craig states: “But you seem to feel what Dr. Spencer is doing in the paper is pseudoscience.”
Craig, why do you have to resort to such tricks? Is your grasp of science that poor? Is your character that weak?
How do you know how I “seem to feel” about the paper. I have never even read the paper, just the first page.
Again, if you have something substantive, show me the quote. Don’t just make up stuff, just because you have no facts.
JD you have repeatedly said that downward longwave radiation cannot warm the Earth. Why should your opinion change based on a single quote?
Dr. Spencer’s paper I mentioned states “The tropical tropospheric heat budget is dominated by a quasi-equilibrium balance between latent heating in precipitation systems and longwave (infrared) cooling to outer space. The precipitation systems also produce clouds that both warm the atmosphere through longwave greenhouse warming, and cool the surface through shortwave (solar) shading.”
See Craig, that’s the advantage of exact quotes. Now, I can see why you are confused.
When I say “DWIR”, I am referring to infrared from the clear sky. Infrared from a clear sky can NOT warm a 288 K surface. Clouds can be quite a lot warmer than clear sky. A simple rule-of-thumb is low clouds keep it warmer, at night.
Hope that clears it up.
Geoff…”This pattern is one of deliberate intent to lessen the value of Dr Spencers work….”
No way, I am a staunch supporter of Roy’s work. You have to be around here for a bit to get the link between what is being discussed and Roy’s articles. Today, we could be carrying on a debate about an article Roy wrote a year ago.
It’s all connected. Just about everything being discussed is related to articles Roy has written at one time.
There are factions who are pro Roy and those out to discredit his views. It is to Roy’s credit that he allows such diversity on his blog.
Hmm, odd:
Bizarre rogue planet discovered wandering in our galaxy
“A bizarre rogue planet without a star is roaming the Milky Way just 20 light-years from the Sun.”
“The peculiar and untethered object, succinctly named SIMP J01365663+0933473 (we’ll call it SIMP for simplicity’s sake), was first discovered back in 2016. At the time, researchers thought SIMP was a brown dwarf: an object that’s too big to be a planet, but too small to be a star. However, last year, another study showed that SIMP is just small enough, at 12.7 times the mass and 1.2 times the radius of Jupiter, to be considered a planet — albeit a mammoth one.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/04/bizarre-rogue-planet-discovered-wandering-in-our-galaxy/
What could be more strange, is if this was quite common.
Relevance to climate change?
gbaikie…”Bizarre rogue planet discovered wandering in our galaxy….”
I hardly think it would be just wandering. It had to get momentum from somewhere, hence it direction. Also, it would have to be under some kind of influence from the galaxy.
Of course, that’s coming from a human mind with no understanding of how the universe works. Maybe there is a race of giants out there firing brown dwarf-like planetoids from a sling shot.
Just wanted to put a little math on Gordon’s asinine comment upthread that if AGW is true, each year should be warmer than the last – it’s ‘logical’ according to Gordon.
First, let’s look at how much natural variability there is in annual temperature. Gordon’s (originally Salvatore’s) claim is about annualtemps, so we’ll use UAH, they’re favourite data set, and check how much the temperature can change year on year. Here are the yearly averages.
1979 -0.21
1980 -0.04
1981 -0.11
1982 -0.30
1983 -0.04
1984 -0.24
1985 -0.36
1986 -0.22
1987 +0.05
1988 +0.04
1989 -0.21
1990 +0.01
1991 +0.02
1992 -0.28
1993 -0.20
1994 -0.06
1995 +0.07
1996 -0.01
1997 -0.01
1998 +0.48
1999 -0.02
2000 -0.02
2001 +0.12
2002 +0.22
2003 +0.19
2004 +0.08
2005 +0.20
2006 +0.11
2007 +0.16
2008 -0.10
2009 +0.10
2010 +0.34
2011 +0.03
2012 +0.06
2013 +0.14
2014 +0.18
2015 +0.27
2016 +0.51
2017 +0.38
Annual changes of 0.2 are not uncommon, natural variation gives us a range of change from virtually nothing to as much as 0.5C from one year to the next.
In order for CO2 warming to make every year warmer than the next, one of 2 things have to occur.
1) All natural variability must cease completely. No influence from ENSO, the sun, volcanoes, or anything else that effects global temperature on interannual time scales.
OR
2) The warming signal from CO2 has to be so strong that it is greater than +0.5C per year. That’s 5C/decade. That’s 50C over a century. That’s a statistical requirement for Gordon’s (and Salvatore’s) view looking at all the UAH data.
The IPCC puts CO2 warming even at the highest rates an order of magnitude smaller than the rate required for CO2 warming to cause year on year warming every year.
So it’s not the rate of warming.
Gordon and Salvatore must believe that the IPCC claims natural processes completely cease in the face of CO2 warming.
There is nowhere they can find this claim to show us who said it.
This notion is a complete fabrication – and a hopelessly gormless one – from the fetid minds of the ‘skeptic’ camp.
As straw man arguments go, this has to be the most obviously stupid.
And if you think I’m being unfair – yes, they actually said that.
Gordon Robertson:
“It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”
Salvatore:
“Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year. Every model printout shows this.”
Oh really?
https://tinyurl.com/yclqtqh8
These 2 are displaying weapons grade stupidity.
Sal may click on that link, see that every model output has a different profile and non-linear warming, but still repeat the same wrong statement in a day or 2.
A mushroom has more awareness.
B,
You cannot describe either the operation of natural variability, or the mythical GHE, can you?
What seems to be a fact is that the Earth has demonstrably cooled over the last four and a half billion years. If you are claiming that either natural variability or the mythical GHE will suddenly reverse this fact, you might have to provide a testable hypothesis.
Of course, you cannot. The hallmark of the fool or the fraud? Or maybe you are just stupid and ignorant.
Still no GHE to be found. Maybe it’s hiding with Michael Mann’s Nobel Prize?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
Really
“Gordon and Salvatore must believe that the IPCC claims natural processes completely cease in the face of CO2 warming.
There is nowhere they can find this claim to show us who said it.”
It’s indicated in IPCC climate projections.
And basically IPCC climate projections is “everything” that IPCC is saying.
Obviously all IPCC climate projections [that I am aware of] are wrong and even mentioning IPCC invalids your case against Gordon and Salvatore.
It’s indicated in IPCC climate projections.
No it isn’t. Did you not click on the link?
https://tinyurl.com/yclqtqh8
Plenty of natural variability there. Some years are warmer than others, some hotter, overall warming.
Furthermore, the IPCC reports discuss the effect of natural variation at length. Climate models try to recreate many natural processes – for example the ENSO process. This is exactly the kind of natural variation that would have to cease for Gordon and Salvatore’s comments to have any meaning.
You are in danger of being as stupid as those two. I recommend actually reading the IPCC reports before making up any more rubbish.
Or you or Gordon or Salvatore could actually supply some links to corroborate what you are saying.
But you can’t because you’re talking complete rubbish.
“You are in danger of being as stupid as those two. I recommend actually reading the IPCC reports before making up any more rubbish.”
The projections show ever increasing temperatures.
Since the end of Little Ice Age the average temperature has been rising, but the addition of CO2 to atmosphere is suppose to double the amount of CO2, from 280 to 560 ppm and get a corresponding increase in global temperature.
So each decade that pasts should get increasing effect from this CO2 increase.
Currently CO2 is at about 410 ppm, and at it’s peak, and if continues it’s pattern, it will lower to about 405 ppm and then increase again, but the long trend is increase of 100 ppm.
And the UAH temperature graph from 1979, has yet to show warming from this 100 ppm of added CO2.
At top:
“The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through July 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”
And CO2 should increase this at some point in the future to a +0.14 C/decade [or much more].
Barry says:
“All that needs to happen is that the average monthly UAH anomaly from now until the end of 2025 is 0.09C.”
One could say we living in golden age of getting shortest time period of doubling CO2- requires less time to double 280 than double 560 ppm.
If you allow 2 ppm increase per year in 20 years it will add 40 ppm to the peak level, 410 + 40 = 450. And more than 1/2 way to the doubled of 560 ppm.
Or it seems if going to get some measurable effect of CO2, we should be seeing it soon.
And Barry want to bet CO2 has a cooling effect rather than a warming effect.
I would rather bet that by 2025, China runs out of coal- or it has to decrease it’s use rather than having any possibility of increasing it’s yearly coal use.
But after 2025 AD China will still remain the top country by a large margin, it’s just it’s time of doubling it’s CO2 emission in shortest time possible is over.
And US by 2025 AD will have continue to decline in it’s CO2 emission- and this is largely due to US become a world leader in Natural gas production.
And nothing to do with using alternative energy, and nothing to do efforts that cost US tax payer trillions of wasted dollars.
gbaikie says:
“largely due to US become a world leader in Natural gas”.
Coal to gas switching did 33% of the successful US carbon cutting 2005-2016. Wind and solar did 22%.
http://tinyurl.com/ya3b65cw
The claim here is that model projections show every single year getting warmer than the last, and that this is what is expected under AGW.
That is completely false, as a glance at any of the model outputs will reveal to anyone who is not willfully blind – see below.
It is astonishing that you hold this view. I did not think you could be as ignorant as the other 2.
Here are numerous graphs of model outputs. Only the completely stupid or willfully blind could look at these and retain the belief that monotonic annual warming is expected under AGW.
https://tinyurl.com/ycl6xpbw
https://tinyurl.com/ya3bd8p5
https://tinyurl.com/yb6o47da
And last but not least, our very own Dr Spencer’s graph which displays 5-year means of the model runs, and there are still ups and downs – not monotnonic warming.
https://tinyurl.com/ls9rpge
gbakie, if after seeing these model results you continue to espouse that every year should be warmer than the last according to the logic of AGW, or that this is what models show, then I’m sorry, but you are as stupid as the other 2. It’s a woefully brain-poor fabrication.
“barry says:
August 5, 2018 at 7:20 PM
The claim here is that model projections show every single year getting warmer than the last, and that this is what is expected under AGW.
That is completely false, as a glance at any of the model outputs will reveal to anyone who is not willfully blind see below.
It is astonishing that you hold this view. I did not think you could be as ignorant as the other 2.”
It is possible I am as ignorant as the other 2, but obviously I don’t agree with other 2.
If allow for noise and greenhouse gases are increasing- particularly “the most important greenhouse gas” which some claimed causes all warming it should warm each year and over say 10 to 20 year period you should detect the signal of this warming.
But as I said endlessly, global temperature depends on the temperature of the whole ocean. We in an icebox climate because the entire ocean temperature is between 1 to 5 C and presently it’s at about 3.5 C. And our ocean has increased by amount which has [so far] been fairly immeasurably- and that is the recovery from LIA.
The entire ocean does warm and does cool, and has a been warming for at at least 100 years. AGW thinks the world only started warming around 1950, as that is when one had significant increase of CO2 levels.
The ocean surface temperature has increase more and it directly reflects global average temperature [as it’s 70% of entire surface of Earth] but surface temperature of ocean is not really the average temperature of Earth climate- rather it’s what is measured as average global temperature, but it’s like measuring only land surface- it’s like a proxy, it gives a clue, and is a significant improvement over reading tea leaves.
But I would regard a accurate measure of the entire ocean as a more direct measure of Earth average global temperature.
Or I do think the Argo floats are a good idea- and hard to do and will take awhile but it is right direction.
Of course I would like to someday get to the point of being able to say what the temperature of entire ocean is, rather than just saying it’s about 3.5 C.
And though less important I would also like to know what Earth’s average ocean is, rather than saying about 17 C.
Or said differently land has increase in average temperature and ocean surface has increased in temperature- hence quite likely entire ocean has increase in temperature and the thermal expansion of ocean is probably about 2″ and if correct, the entire ocean has been warming.
Of course some large chunks of ocean has likely been warming more than other large chunks- and/or ocean basins have had different amounts of warming, and global average temperature will be some sort dance of entire ocean[s].
But if not adding heat on yearly basis- we aren’t warming.
Now one view it, as believer in AGW, that increase of CO2 is like some kind of potential for warming- which going to leap out the closet someday, but I think most believers imagine the entire earth is actually warming due to CO2. Or everyday they say how terrible the warming has been and of course will be.
Now leaping out closet idea may also be along the lines that some days it gets very hot and other days extremely cold and transform itself into strange weather and extreme weather or weird weather.
It is possible I am as ignorant as the other 2, but obviously I dont agree with other 2.
Thank goodness. I rate you much better.
barry, I would imagine people are as impressed by how you rate them as they are by your elaborate straw men. In other words, not a lot.
Yes and yes
You said model output shows year-on-year warming from increased CO2.
Here is model output from increased CO2 – it’s an image from the most recent IPCC report.
https://tinyurl.com/yclqtqh8
You are wrong.
You should immediately say so, but for some reason you are immune to facts.
Obviously all IPCC climate projections [that I am aware of] are wrong and even mentioning IPCC invalids your case against Gordon and Salvatore.
Idiotic statement.
Gordon and Salvatore are making claims about the models – about ALL the models. The IPCC collates them so it is already invoked by their ridiculous statements.
Let’s be clear about what they said:
Gordon:
“It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”
Salvatore:
“Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year. Every model printout shows this.”
This is the position you are defending. I didn’t think you were a stupid person.
barry, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Please stop posting.
No.
Please.
No, sorry.
barry…”It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.
Salvatore:
Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year. Every model printout shows this.
This is the position you are defending. I didnt think you were a stupid person”.
***
one of us is stupid and it’s not me or Salvatore. Barry lacks the ability to see the obvious, he lives in a world of denial and moving goalposts.
https://tinyurl.com/ycl6xpbw
See the projected temps go up and down?
Models do not show every year being warmer than the last, only general warming.
Want to see the same result from Dr Spencer?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png
That graph is of 5-year averages of model output, and still there are downs as well as ups.
No, Gordon, no one expects every year to be warmer than the last under AGW, and neither is it ‘logical’ as you said.
Which us why you are not defending your intellectually moribund comment with any logic, only ad hominem.
Moving the goalposts?
This is what you said:
“It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”
Care to explain how i moved the goalposts while responding to that precise quote, as well as the one from Sal that mirrors it?
Or are you about to move the goalposts and starting waving your arms about NOAA, IPCC, pauses, and whatever else lets you not have to deal with the topic to hand?
Come on man, defend your comment here on point or concede it was just wrong.
The temperature anomalies in the middle Atlantic have decreased. The hurricane season in the Atlantic will be very weak.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/catlssta.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/eatlssta.png
Low expectations
The coming storm
The brain is surrounded by liquid
barry, please stop trolling.
Gbaikie look at the upper low in the Atlantic.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atl&product=wv-mid
barry…”lets look at how much natural variability there is in annual temperature”.
According to AGW there should be a regular trend superimposed on the natural variability. There is not.
That’s what Trenberth was ranting about in the Climategate email scandal, circa 2009. It had to be apparent to him by then that the warming had stopped since 1998, a fact confirmed by the IPCC in 2013.
In the email, Trenberth claimed it a travesty that no one knew why the warming was not showing up. Later, he blamed it on the lack of instruments sensitive enough to detect it. I’d say that is a clear indication that CO2 warming is not detectable.
Then he got desperate and claimed the oceans ate it. The old standby for children who had not done their homework: the dog ate my homework.
You’ve not responded to what I said. You’ve moved the goalposts.
You quote me in a post that picks out and responds to a comment of yours.
“It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”
I made an argument that it is neither logical nor shown by models that every year should be warmer than the last under AGW.
On the contrary, it is highly illogical (statistically), and links to model outputs show no monotonic, year on year warming.
Trenberth’s ‘homework’ has nothing to do with this notion.
You have now changed your position, but you haven’t said, “let me correct myself.” Now you say:
“According to AGW there should be a regular trend superimposed on the natural variability.”
That’s right, the natural varability means that even if there is a general warming – an underlying regular trend – some years will be warmer, and some cooler than the last.
That is the case whether the warming were from solar increase, fewer clouds over time, or any source where the warming rate produces a gradual rise – even if it were 5C over a century.
There is no ‘logic’ that says this natural variability would disappear under AGW.
barry, please stop pettifogging.
If the neutrons in Oulu reach 7000 counts, it will be a record.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00969/7fcj4rin5vht.gif
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
ren…”If the neutrons in Oulu reach 7000 counts, it will be a record”.
It’s not clear why they are counting neutrons. Cosmic Rays tend to be protons or the odd electron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
It should be noted that cosmic rays are not rays at all, they are particles with mass. A proton generally comes from hydrogen stripped of its electron.
The Sun spits out protons and electrons as the solar wind but fortunately they lack the energy to cause much damage (that we know of), most of them being diverted by our magnetic field while inducing large voltages and current into our planet.
Climate alarmists posting on this thread. You know who you are. I’d be curious as to your take on this article.:
Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/08/01/isolating-the-impact-of-co2-on-atmospheric-temperatures-conclusion-is-co2-has-no-measurable-impact/
Dr. Spencer’s data seems to provide pretty convincing evidence AGAINST CO2 being the cause of any global warming. The data, when controlled for the urban heat island effect and water vapor pretty much rules out CO2 as the cause of any warming at all. At least that is what the data says.
CO2isLife, Your graphs don’t demonstrate anything about the Urban Heat Island Effect, as the physical areas covered by urban development is tiny compared to the land area included in the satellite data. Thus, your claiming that you have “removed” the UHI is totally bogus. Furthermore, your comments regarding water vapor ignores the fact that the tropopause marks the altitude above which water vapor is removed, not the altitude at which the temperature has declined to 0 deg C.
Of course, you also don’t comprehend that the data over the Antarctic is also bogus, as Spencer & Christy long ago warned when they began to present their data. The high latitude of the East antarctic Ice Sheet intrudes into the scan altitude of the MSU/AMSU instruments, while the Ozone Hole also has produced a cooling effect. RSS removes the Antarctic area from their analysis for that very reason, which is the main reason that the RSS data shows greater warming than UAH for the SH.
swannie…”Thus, your claiming that you have removed the UHI is totally bogus”.
Would that be totally bogus, or just bogus? You are not allowing your emotions to take over your reason are you?
Gordo, I was trying to be somewhat civil, instead of writing “the UAH Antarctic data is total crap”. As for emotions, it was you who suggested that a commenter should receive a lobotomy just a few posts above. That would register as a threat or bodily harm against another person.
swannie…”As for emotions, it was you who suggested that a commenter should receive a lobotomy just a few posts above”.
You heard wrong, I offered to do the lobotomy for him. I do brain surgery as a hobby.
Gordo wrote:
We know from your other hobby, climate change denial, that your technique would likely involve a blunt instrument delivered swiftly from the back of the head with typical totalitarian precision.
E Swanson, please stop trolling.
I’d much rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. Geoff.
E. Swanson says:
“your technique would likely involve a blunt instrument delivered swiftly from the back of the head”.
Yes, based it on his own re-interpretation 19th century science.
http://tinyurl.com/y7aadndv
S, PST.
“CO2isLife, Your graphs don’t demonstrate anything about the Urban Heat Island Effect, as the physical areas covered by urban development is tiny compared to the land area included in the satellite data. Thus, your claiming that you have “removed” the UHI is totally bogus.”
That is interesting. How did you reach the conclusion that isolating the data to the data over Antarctica didn’t control for the Urban Heat Island Effect? Are there cities in Antarctica that I am not aware of?
Also, CO2 is 411 ppm over land and sea, if the Urban Heat Island doesn’t impact satellite measurements, how can you explain the difference in temperature trends. You certainly can’t blame CO2.
Also, there are millions and millions of miles of roads in the N Hemi. I find it difficult to believe that those roads don’t distort temperature readings.
CO2isLife, The Urban Heat Island Effect is due to the concentration of many structures in high density URBAN areas. The connecting roads won’t have much impact because they don’t store more thermal energy than land. The land data shows more warming than the oceans because the oceans have not reached steady state and thus are warming more slowly.
Your use of the UAH MT ignores the fact that the MT is contaminated with the well known cooling trend in the stratosphere. That fact was the original justification for the LT (or TLT or T2R) back in 1992.
Eric,
“the oceans have not reached steady state and thus are warming more slowly”
When do you estimate that the oceans will catch up to the land, and by what mechanism? Or more simply, when will the land reach a steady state? Geoff
It proves the model is inadequate, nothing more.
It proves that such a simple model is inadequate for describing the relationship between CO2 and temperature, nothing more.
nealf…”It proves that such a simple model is inadequate for describing the relationship between CO2 and temperature, nothing more”.
The models are programmed with pseudo-scientific nonsense. They have a positive feedback that contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics and a warming factor for CO2 that seriously exceeds its percent mass in the atmosphere.
Due to that trivial percent mass, CO2 has no significant effect on warming.
“It proves that such a simple model is inadequate for describing the relationship between CO2 and temperature, nothing more.”
I’ll take that. My 20 minutes of writing a blog post has proven that the billions spent on IPCC Models has resulted in an “inadequate” model. That is pretty powerful stuff given this is a settled science and I’m not a peer-reviewed scientist or part of the consensus.
It did not occur to me that a blog post written in 20 minutes could undo decades of work by tens of thousands of scientists.
The kung fu in this one is strong.
barry remember, if they believe CO2 can warm the planet, try to falsify records, and censor valid physics, they’re NOT “scientists”.
(You might want to commit the above to memory, for future reference.)
barry…”It did not occur to me that a blog post written in 20 minutes could undo decades of work by tens of thousands of scientists”.
Would not be a problem undoing the crap written in favour of AGW. Load of wannabees chasing the almighty dollar in the forms of grants and tenure.
SkepticGoneWIld says:
August 5, 2018 at 9:25 AM
DA,
That is real rich coming from a CLOWN who thinks the earth heats the sun!!!! LMAO. Talk about BS.
What a loser.
___________________________________________
Indeed, because of the earth the sun is warmer than it would be without earth. Of course unmeasurable little, but it is.
That’s clown talk, Fritz.
Learn some physics.
fritz…”Indeed, because of the earth the sun is warmer than it would be without earth. Of course unmeasurable little, but it is”.
You need to study the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How would you go about transferring heat from a planetary surface at 15C on average to a boiling cauldron of hydrogen and helium?
Gordon Robertson says:
August 5, 2018 at 3:39 PM
fritz…”Indeed, because of the earth the sun is warmer than it would be without earth. Of course unmeasurable little, but it is”.
You need to study the 2nd law of thermodynamics….
____________________________________________________
Unnecessary.
No law in this universum allows any energie to disappear.
Also not the energie radiated from earth to sun.
See Fritz, that’s why you need to learn some physics. You’re making the same mistake as other clowns. You believe that “All photons must always be absorbed”. That’s incorrect.
All photons are not always absorbed.
JDHuffman says:
August 5, 2018 at 8:01 PM
See Fritz, that’s why you need to learn some physics. You’re making the same mistake as other clowns. You believe that “All photons must always be absorbed”. That’s incorrect.
__________________________________________________
No matter what you believe what I may believe:
The energy radiated from earth to sun doesnt dissappear; and each input of energy makes the sun warmer than it would be without this input.
Its really as simple as it sounds.
Fritz, you keep keying on “energy disappearing”. That’s called a “straw man”. No one is saying energy disappears. I’m just saying photons from Earth would not be absorbed by the Sun.
It’s very similar to saying you can’t warm a campfire with a block of ice.
JDHuffman says:
August 6, 2018 at 9:54 AM
Fritz, you keep keying on energy disappearing. Thats called a straw man. No one is saying energy disappears.
__________________________________________
So you agree, that the energy radiated from Earth to sun doesnt disappear?
But you deny, that this energy warms the sun…?
Please tell me: What the fuck else happens to this energy??
I have absolutely no idea, how something can disappear without disappearing….
Fritz,
Bad physics leads to all sorts of dumba$$ beliefs.
Ice emits IR, but it won’t warm you up.
Neither does the earth heat the sun, dork.
A warmer sun can only be warmed if energy is added to it. There is none to add. First Law. A cooler earth cannot heat warmer sun. Second Law. What the hell happened to our school system, producing all these science pretenders?
Fritz says: ‘Please tell me: What the fuck else happens to this energy??
I have absolutely no idea, how something can disappear without disappearing….’
SketpicGoneWild says:
‘August 7, 2018 at 10:41 AM
Fritz,
Bad physics leads to all sorts of dumba$$ beliefs.
Ice emits IR, but it won’t warm you up.
Neither does the earth heat the sun, dork.
A warmer sun can only be warmed if energy is added to it. There is none to add. First Law. A cooler earth cannot heat warmer sun. Second Law. What the hell happened to our school system, producing all these science pretenders?’
__________________________________________________
@SketpicGoneWild
Very very interesting, what you are telling me….but as you see, its not the answer to my simple question. I didnt ask you what sun can or can not, or what you think about our schoolsystem, or about me.
I give you opportunitity to proof your firstclass science-education:
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ENERGY, RADIATED FROM THE EARTH TO THE SUN??
I am really extremly interested in your highly-qualified oppinion.
On-the-Fritz,
“I am really extremly interested in your highly-qualified oppinion(sic).”
No you are not. You are interested in maintaining your ignorant position. Crack open a thermodynamics textbook.
Here’s a simple experiment for ya:
Take one of those 1500 watt floor heaters. Get a parabolic reflector and place it in front of the floor heater so it can reflect some of that IR back to the floor heater. Does the floor heater burn hotter with the reflector. What happened to that reflected “energy”?
Hint: When a red line shows under your text, you may have a spelling issue.
SkepticGoneWild says:
August 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM
On-the-Fritz,
“I am really extremly interested in your highly-qualified oppinion(sic).”
No you are not.
________________________________________
Yes I am!
Have you really no idea, what the fuck happens to this energy?
Tell me your opinion; I promise not to laugh.
But pleaseplease no more timewasting digressions. It becomes boaring.
Just a short answer.
If you have no idea, just let me know.
fritz…”So you agree, that the energy radiated from Earth to sun doesnt disappear?
But you deny, that this energy warms the sun…?”
Your statements are unrelated. It’s plain that EM radiated from the Earth does not disappear but it is not plain that it warms the Sun. How about the 99% of the radiation that is not intercepted by the Sun?
No one knows what happens to the EM intercepted by the Sun, quantum physics and the 2nd law make it clear that it is not converted to heat.
We have a similar situation with visible light. If broad spectrum EM strikes an object, some is absorbed and some is not. What we see as colour is the part of the spectrum not absorbed.
Broad spectrum EM appears white to the eye whereas black objects absorb all the EM. What happens to the EM not absorbed by a white object?
fritz…”If you have no idea, just let me know”.
No one knows what happens to it, furthermore, no one knows what energy is.
You are presuming any EM incident on a body must be absorbed. You are confusing the real world with blackbody theory, an old fiction that should be scrapped. BB theory was developed 75 years before it became clear that it is not possible for bodies to absorb all EM. If that was the case, we’d have to scrap quantum theory.
Mind you, I think some of the more esotric parts of quantum theory should be scrapped, like entanglement theory. Also, the speed of light factor should be removed from relativity theory to bring it in line with reality. A steel ruler will not change it’s dimension when sped up in velocity toward the speed of light and time cannot dilate because time does not exist.
Fritz,
Are you on drugs? Or did you even complete 5th grade?
I mean seriously. You make the following mistakes:
“Boar” instead of “bore”
“proof” instead of “prove”
“energy” instead of “energy”
The list goes on. I am done with your incoherent ramblings.
fritz…”No law in this universum allows any energie to disappear”.
I can buy that but we are talking about heat being transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed the atmosphere (according to AGW). That not only contradicts the 2nd law, it represents perpetual motion in the form of recycled heat producing a gain in heat.
Gordo, As usual, another false claim that the Green House Effect violates the 2nd Law, based on in incorrect understanding of thermodynamics. Does a Dewar bottle or multi-layer insulation in the vacuum of space violate the 2nd Law? The answer is NO and the same applies to the atmospheric absorp_tion and emission processes involving greenhouse gases.
There’s no way that I know of by which AGW might power a device in perpetual motion. The long winded paper by G & T describes the 2nd Law using a mechanical device which produces work, but then jumps to a description based on energy transfer from cool to warm and claims this is impossible, even though they had previously noted that all bodies constantly radiate thermal radiation, which is energy which must be transferred to the other bodies which surround the cooler one, EVEN IF THE OTHER BODIES ARE WARM. Of course, the warmer bodies are also radiating as well and if one of the warmer bodies receives external energy, the net effect on the steady state temperatures will be that the heated warm body will be a higher temperature than would be the situation without the energy supplied by the cooler surroundings.
E. Swanson, it appears you are still making the same mistakes.
E.S–“…which is energy which must be transferred to the other bodies which surround the cooler one, EVEN IF THE OTHER BODIES ARE WARM.”
WRONG! There is no “must”. Photons are not always absorbed.
You keep believing that all photons MUST be absorbed. That false belief leads you to then claim that the absorbed energy will raise the temperature of the warmer object. You just make one mistake after another.
Are you able to see your hand in front of your face? You see your hand because photons are being reflected off your hand. They were NOT absorbed. Photons are NOT always absorbed.
You seem very confused. I hope this helps somewhat.
Huffingman, Yes, photons may be reflected or absorbed. But, they don’t vanish and the IR EM absorp_tion coefficient of a body doesn’t change depending on the temperature of the source of those photons. When those photons are absorbed, the internal energy of the body increases, which may result in increased IR EM radiation as the result of the temperature increase of said body.
Hope this helps your deluded mind.
E. Swanson provides an excellent example of deception.
He begins: “Yes, photons may be reflected or absorbed.”
So he’s agreeing that photons may be reflected, whereas before he stated they MUST be absorbed. It sounds like he is admitting he was wrong. No way.
He continues his deception: ” But, they dont vanish and the IR EM absorp_tion coefficient of a body doesn’t change depending on the temperature of the source of those photons.”
This, of course, is just all “straw man”. He’s just adding filler before he completes the deception.
Swanson states: “When those photons are absorbed, the internal energy of the body increases…”
So now, his deception is complete. He started with reality, that photons may be reflected, but ended up with they will be absorbed, consequently “cold” can warm “hot”.
Deception is an important part of pseudoscience.
Huffingman wrote: “Deception is an important part of pseudoscience”.
You should have written: “Disinformation is an important part of propaganda.”
If the emissivity (= absorp_tivity) of a surface is 0.95, then 95% of the photons will be absorbed. My statement would have been more correct if I had used “may be” instead of “must”. Your excessive concern with semantics is just another excuse for trolling.
JDHuffman says:
August 6, 2018 at 8:32 AM
E. Swanson, it appears you are still making the same mistakes.
…
You keep believing that all photons MUST be absorbed. That false belief leads you to then claim that the absorbed energy will raise the temperature of the warmer object.
________________________________________________________
Swanson surely doesnt believe each body beeing a perfect black body which absorbs all photons..
It doesnt matter at all, if a body absorbs 1% or 99% of all photons. Fact is, in each case energy is transferred, just less or more, and the body will be warmer than it would be without this transferred and absorbed energy.
JDHuffman
You identify your self here: “Deception is an important part of pseudoscience.”
Since all you post is your made up versions of physics, and you NEVER support any off your stupid declarations (yet make them anyway like your very stupid the Moon does not rotate on its axis or that raidative fluxes do not add, very stupid, no supporting evidence pure pseudoscience).
You deceive yourself constantly. One really big deception you tell yourself is that you understand physics of heat transfer. You are so stupid on the topic.
You are the Master of deception and pseudoscience. I am glad that so far only Mike Flynn (a complete idiot) and Gordon Robertson (King of making up his own versions of physics but rejecting everything else he can’t comprehend) think you know what you are talking about.
It gives me hope that science will prevail over the stupid people like you.
E. Swanson: “My statement would have been more correct if I had used “may be” instead of “must”. Your excessive concern with semantics is just another excuse for trolling.”
Swanson, “being more correct” is indeed better than being completely wrong.
It’s not about semantics, it’s about getting your physics correct.
Fritz states: “It doesn’t matter at all…”
Fritz, it matters if you’re trying to violate 2LoT.
That would make you a “climate clown”.
(No need to even respond to Grinvalds’ rambling nonsense.)
swannie…”Does a Dewar bottle or multi-layer insulation in the vacuum of space violate the 2nd Law?”
I don’t get your point. In either case, heat is always transferred from a hotter region to a cooler region. In the case of the atmosphere, where cooler GHGs absorb EM from the hotter surface, there is no problem. The problem comes when claims are made of a heat transfer from cooler gases in the atmosphere to a warmer surface.
That is your contradiction of the 2nd law. Both of your experiments contradict it as well. In either case, you are claiming heat can be transferred from a cooler object to a warmer object. Eli Rabbett is thoroughly confused about that but G&T are not.
In the case where the surface radiates EM and warms GHGs in the cooler atmosphere, AGW is claiming that heat can be recycled back to the surface to raise the temperature of the surface beyond the temperature it is warmed by solar energy.
That is your perpetual motion. Show me another instance where heat can be recycled from a source and back to the source to warm the source.
fritz…”It doesnt matter at all, if a body absorbs 1% or 99% of all photons. Fact is, in each case energy is transferred, just less or more, and the body will be warmer than it would be without this transferred and absorbed energy”.
*********
Alarmists tend to obfuscate the problem by talking in terms of a generic energy. We are talking here about heat, thermal energy, and a fundamental law related to heat, the 2nd law, states clearly that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a cooler body to warmer body.
There is no mentioned of a net heat or EM transfer, that is pseudo-science created by alarmists trying to apply Kircheoff to bodies of different temperatures.
The 2nd law does not apply to electromagnetic energy, which has no heat. However, electrons in atoms are required to absorb and emit EM and there are rules for that emission/absorp-tion. Both must obey E = hf, where E is the energy difference in eV between orbital energy levels to which the electron can jump in an atom, and f = the frequency of the electron in those energy levels.
The frequency of incoming EM must exactly match the frequency of the electron and that is not possible when E comes from a cooler atom. Cooler atoms simply cannot emit the required frequency that an electron needs to jump to a higher energy level hence heating the atom.
I am using ‘heat’ loosely here because it’s ridiculous to talk about the heat in one atom just as it’s ridiculous to talk in terms of one photon, especially when we have no idea whether photons exist or not. I am trying to illustrate a point derived by Bohr in 1913 when he proposed the rules for electron/proton interactions in an atom.
You should discard blackbody theory in this case, it applies only to bodies in thermal equilibrium. When Kircheoff derived the notion, he was talking only about thermal equilibrium. When the blackbody was defined as having to absorb all energy incident upon it, the definition came some 75 years before it was understood how EM interacts with electrons in real bodies.
Even at that, the theories and equations of Stefan-Boltzmann applied only to bodies of different temperature which obeyed the 2nd law. That is, the equation was derived from hot bodies cooling or a platinum wire heated electrically and radiating to a cooler space.
Alarmists apply S-B in both directions, which is a bad interpretation of the law. Some engineering texts are guilty of that as well and unfortunately Norman has read that nonsense in them. Swannie has fallen for it too.
Gordon Robertson says:
August 7, 2018 at 1:15 AM
fritzIt doesnt matter at all, if a body absorbs 1% or 99% of all photons. Fact is, in each case energy is transferred, just less or more, and the body will be warmer than it would be without this transferred and absorbed energy.
*********
Alarmists tend to obfuscate the problem by talking in terms of a generic energy. We are talking here about heat, thermal energy, and a fundamental law related to heat, the 2nd law, states clearly that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a cooler body to warmer body….
________________________________________________
Long text.
The only point interesting to me:
Doe you agree what I said?
Doe you understand, that a body receiving energy is warmer than it would be without receiving energy?
Yes or No?
If “No”, please tell me whats wrong in your opininion, and why.
Gordon Robertson says:
August 7, 2018 at 12:56 AM
swannieDoes a Dewar bottle or multi-layer insulation in the vacuum of space violate the 2nd Law?
I dont get your point. In either case, heat is always transferred from a hotter region to a cooler region. In the case of the atmosphere, where cooler GHGs absorb EM from the hotter surface, there is no problem. The problem comes when claims are made of a heat transfer from cooler gases in the atmosphere to a warmer surface.
_________________________________
You always speak of “problem”.
What does it mean? Who has the problem?
Physik itself has no problem. It just follows its own rules without discussion.
Doe you accept, that GHGs radiate towards earth-surface?
And that this radiation transferes energy to surface?
Fritz, you’re still trying the old “Twisted Science Two-Step”.
Step 1–You mention that the sky emits infrared toward the surface:
“Do you accept, that GHGs radiate towards earth-surface?”
Step 2–You assume all the infrared is absorbed by the surface:
“And that this radiation transfers energy to surface?”
In science, you don’t get to make your assumptions into facts. That only happens in pseudoscience.
Gordo wrote:
No, Gordo, you still have no clue regarding heat transfer. The source of the energy is the Sun and the surface of the Earth sits between the Sun’s energy flow and the vast “sink” of deep space where the energy eventually ends up. The surface temperature is just the result of the balance of flows and the atmosphere acts much like insulation within the walls and ceiling of a house. For a house, the air temperature within the boundary for a fixed rate of energy inflow will be increased if the thickness of insulation is increased. That’s not perpetual motion, that’s not a mechanical device which converts thermal energy into work, which was what Clausius was investigating.
My Green Plate Demo did not violate the 2nd law. The visible EM energy from the light still ends up flowing thru the device and out to the surrounding room. It’s still a “downhill” flow, so to speak, it’s just that the internal temperatures change when there is a structural change within the bell jar. Of course, you still haven’t provided a physical explanation for my results, as usual, while continuing to simply assert that I’m wrong, repeating yet again your biased opinion.
JDHuffman says:
August 7, 2018 at 8:11 AM
Fritz, you’re still trying the old “Twisted Science Two-Step”.
Step 1–You mention that the sky emits infrared toward the surface:
“Do you accept, that GHGs radiate towards earth-surface?”
Step 2–You assume all the infrared is absorbed by the surface:
“And that this radiation transfers energy to surface?”
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
No, I dont assume that. I didnt say it and I didnt think it.
You dont need to explain me, what I ‘assume’.
Just hours before, I explained, that earth of course isnt a perfect black body wich absorbs each single photon.
Really no one af the scepticians able to answer my 2 simpple question?
Or are you still thinking abou it?
Fritz, I thought I answered your two questions. But, maybe something got lost in translation.
Here are my answers:
Fritz question 1: “Do you accept that GHGs radiate towards earth-surface?”
JDH answer: Atmospheric radiative gases radiate in ALL directions.
Fritz question 2: “And that this radiation transfers energy to surface?”
JDH answer: Only if the photons are absorbed.
swannie…”If the emissivity (= absorp_tivity) of a surface is 0.95, then 95% of the photons will be absorbed”.
ONLY AT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM.
ONLY AT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM.
ONLY AT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM.
repeat till it sinks in.
You are quoting Kircheoff. All his work was done at thermal equilibrium.
Gordo, For solid bodies which differ in temperature by a few tens of deg K, how much different will the emissivity and absorp_tivity be in the real world? What reference can you provide to show that this is a major factor? Your assertion without a reference is of no value in a scientific discussion, just like your earlier claim that the IR EM from a cooler body is “ignored” by the warmer body.
E. Swanson, if you’re only talking tenths of a degree, then you believe there is no violation of 2LoT. So, if the temperature is only one degree, still no violation of 2LoT, to you.
2 degrees, you still see no violation.
10 degrees, no problem.
100 degrees, same.
Swanson, you deceive yourself, trying to deceive others.
That makes you just another clown.
JDHuffman says:
August 7, 2018 at 1:17 PM
Here are my answers:
Fritz question 1: ‘Do you accept that GHGs radiate towards earth-surface?’
JDH answer: Atmospheric radiative gases radiate in ALL directions.
Fritz question 2: ‘And that this radiation transfers energy to surface?’
JDH answer: Only if the photons are absorbed.
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Of course only the photons which are absorbed by a surface do transfer energy to this surface.
Thats a quite superfluous remark.
As we all know, some photons are allways absorbed. Even a mirror wouldnt reflect all of them.
So always energy is transferred.
And if you accept, that the transferred energy cant escape to some paralleluniversum, then you finaly understand the principle of Global Warming.
Congratulations!
Fritz, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
August 8, 2018 at 4:01 PM
Fritz, please stop trolling.
______________________________________
Stop disturbing the discussion!
You havent been taking part in a discussion. You ignored every word said to you and simply repeated the same questions over and over again. Once answered to your satisfaction, you simply declared yourself the victor.
Thats trolling. Please stop.
Stop disturbing the discussion!
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
August 9, 2018 at 5:09 AM
You havent been taking part in a discussion. You ignored every word said to you and simply repeated the same questions over and over again. Once answered to your satisfaction, you simply declared yourself the victor.
Thats trolling. Please stop.
________________________________________________
I declare JDHuffmann also ‘victor’. Because now he understands the principle of Global Warming.
If not, than Im the loser, because I failed to explain good enough.
When an explanation is understood, its always a win-win-situation. Otherwise lose-lose.
And now let us alone. Noone needs your help.
There is no emergency.
.
F, PST.
“Gordon:
“”It stands to reason, based on logic, that if CO2 is increasing each year then the global average temperature should increase each year.”
Salvatore:
“Yes AGW claims every year will be warmer then the previous year. Every model printout shows this.””
******
For Sal, Gordon, and others just as thick, here is a simplified explanation for why the above comments are so inane:
Year 1)
– el nino drives temps up
+ 0.5 C
– AGW forcing: + 0.013 C (10% of the decadel trend)
– combined forcing: + 0.513 C
Year 2)
– ENSO is neutral
– AGW forcing: + 0.013
– accumulated AGW forcing: + 0.026
Year 3)
– La nina drives temps down – 0.5 C
– accumulated AGW forcing: + 0.039
Combined forcing: – 0. 461 C
Year 4)
– ENSO is neutral
– accumulated AGW forcing: + 0.052
Year 5)
– el nino drives temps up + 0.5 C
– accumulated AGW forcing: + 0.065
– combined forcing: + 0.565 C
Year 6)
– ENSO is neutral
– accumulated AGW forcing: + 0.078
Year 7)
– la nina drives temps down – 0.5 C
– accumulated AGW forcing: + 0.091
– Combined forcing: – 0.409 C
*******
Can the knuckleheads out there spot a pattern? Do you see why every year is not warmer than the last…..in spite of the constant AGW forcing?
* Remember, ENSO is just one of many natural variations that influence global temperature, and all those variations combine to obscure the steady background forcing of AGW, which only reveals itself in the long term trend.
Ms Snape, unable to write a computer program to model her pseudoscience, just makes up numbers.
“Climate science” for the highly uneducated.
what percent is natural and what percent is man made ? Snape welcome to th skeptics
Regards
At least you seem to recognise that sensible sceptics are aware that there is a natural contribution AND a “man made” contribution. Your comment, though, is completely at odds with comments made by Gordon Richardson, Bart, JD Huffman and Salvatore who deny any CO2 effect at all. Unfortunately, they dominate this blog which means reasonable debate and discussion is virtually impossible.
I have great respect for Roy Spencer’s work but, if this blog is to maintain any sort of scientific credibility, some of the more idiotic nonsense – if constantly repeated – needs to be censored.
John, let me guess–you would like to be the censor?
No, he would like conversation to be rooted in some basic reality.
The quality of discourse is woeful here. Truly poor. It is a pity more interesting skeptics are driven away by it. I’d enjoy a conversation where the point is stuck to, the topic is expanded and references discussed. But you and Gordon and Mike guarantee that this level of discourse will never get of the ground.
Now barry wants to be the censor.
What a wonderful world that would be, huh? You could just censor out any established physics that didn’t fit your agenda.
Your “perfect” world.
barry
I totally agree with your post. You have the posters that pretend they know physics. Ge*ran, Gordon Robertson and Mike Flynn. I would also like reasonable skeptics that know science. gallopingcamel seemed to be more on that level.
It is really no fun to have stupid Ge*ran back. He is so incredibly stupid and lacks even the little bit of logical reasoning ability.
barry…”The quality of discourse is woeful here”.
Said by an alarmist who called me a liar for citing the IPCC and NOAA directly. When I supplied the links, rather than apologize, or even acknowledge them, he went off on a tangential rant.
Barry, you are a closed-minded idiot. You talk about sticking to a point and expanding the topic. That is impossible with you because you divert and obfuscate when fact is presented to you.
When I gave you the initial definition of the 2nd law from Clausius verbatim, you found a quote, cherry-picked it out of context, and claimed Clausius had inferred heat can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures.
What you’re looking for is some kind of acknowledgement of AGW, a bad theory that should be scrapped. AGW is wasting the time and effort of legitimate scientists. We should be looking for the natural causes that are obviously behind the warming.
norman…”I would also like reasonable skeptics that know science”.
‘Reasonable skeptic’….an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Skeptics are skeptics because they are unreasonable. If they were not they would be reasonable and go along with all the opinions that claim to represent proof of AGW.
barry… “The quality of discourse is woeful here.”
Said by an alarmist who called me a liar for citing the IPCC and NOAA directly.
Your misrepresentation of what I’ve said is typical of the low-quality dreck that passes for discussion here.
Gordon Robertson
As I longed suspected you never did take any science courses. If you had you would know that your comment is not correct at all.
“Scientific scepticism draws a line in between science and pseudoscience by demanding testing proof for paranormal claims/theories, by using critical thinking and often scientific methods, to make them self-evident. Most paranormal claims defy testing.”
Scientific skeptics are quite reasonable and logical. They do not believe a claim unless evidence is provided. You make up ideas about science all the time. You do not support them, you do not provide tests for them, yet you claim them as truthful facts.
You are wrong again. A reasonable skeptic would be one that knows and understands science and is able to question the merits of an idea based upon sound science. You and the others can’t understand radiation heat transfer. You make up your own untested unsupported ideas about how EMR is absorbed (or not). You can’t grasp the Inverse Square law at all.
You are not a reasonable skeptic, just a blind person attacking what they can’t possibly understand and will not be able to learn. I gave up on you long ago when you could not remotely comprehend the Inverse square law.
Norman, is it true you bought a new pair of track shoes, to help you run from reality better?
Keep running. Reality is catching up!
JDHuffman
You just keeping posting stupid comments. It is what you do and seems all you are able to do. Meaningless stupid comments that are devoid of value.
I wish you would learn to run away from your stupid posts. I think we will endure them until you go after Roy Spencer again.
When I’m responding to clowns, I try to keep the comment very simple, so they can understand.
“Your comment, though, is completely at odds with comments made by Gordon Richardson, Bart, JD Huffman and Salvatore who deny any CO2 effect at all. Unfortunately, they dominate this blog which means reasonable debate and discussion is virtually impossible.
I have great respect for Roy Spencer’s work but, if this blog is to maintain any sort of scientific credibility, some of the more idiotic nonsense – if constantly repeated – needs to be censored.”
Well how much warming does CO2 do.
Let’s say Earth average temperature is 15 C how much as the rising CO2 levels or the mostly the last 60 years increased average global temperatures? If 15 C how much cooler would it be without it.
Now average land temperature is about 10 C
and average ocean surface is about 17 C
How much warming as last 60 year has been done to land surface temperatures- how much less than 10 C would it be?
And how less would average ocean surface temperature be without the increase in CO2 levels?
john finn…”Your comment, though, is completely at odds with comments made by Gordon Richardson, Bart, JD Huffman and Salvatore who deny any CO2 effect at all. Unfortunately, they dominate this blog which means reasonable debate and discussion is virtually impossible”.
Leave the censoring to the CO2 fetishists who believe 0.04% of CO2 can cause catastrophic warming and climate change. No one has ever proved that and if you are going to censor people based on pseudo-science what’s the point of doing science at all?
If you have proof I’d like to hear it. The IPCC has been unable to offer absolute proof that CO2 does what is claimed, all they can claim is it’s likely. Even at that, the opinion is offered by 50 lead authors who have the power to override the main report done by 2500 reviewers.
BTW, the lead authors are all political appointees and they select the reviewers. Sound familiar?
From that perspective, the IPCC has no idea what role CO2 plays in warming. They have a mandate to find proof but since 1988 they have found none. They have no mandate to investigate natural causes for the warming so we are saddled with consensus passed of as fact via innuendo.
In 2013, the IPCC admitted there had been no warming during the 15 years from 1998 – 2012. Does that sound to you like they have proof?
“…comments made by … Bart … who deny any CO2 effect at all.”
Strawman alert! There is obviously an effect. The evidence indicates that it is negligible.
snape…”For Sal, Gordon, and others just as thick, here is a simplified explanation for why the above comments are so inane: ”
Yet another thought-experiment from snape.
Explain why the IPCC claimed in 2013 that no warming had occurred for 15 years between 1998 and 2012.
Why would he want to let you change the subject when his post was sound reasoning?
Attacking a straw man is not sound reasoning. PST.
I think there will an ever increasing interest in the Sun.
I hope Parker Solar Probe is successfully launch, I thought it had already been launched:
Aug. 11 Delta 4-Heavy Parker Solar Probe
[ Delayed from July 31 and Aug. 4. [July 24] ]
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
But anyhow, was reading:
https://accordingtohoyt.com/2018/08/01/a-solar-activity-update-by-stephanie-osborn/
Linked from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
“I did my graduate work in spotted variable stars at Vanderbilt University, so in the astronomical community I would be considered a variable star astronomer. Based on our experience, many variable star astronomers consider the Sun to be at least borderline variable, and I am one of these. In point of fact, pretty much across the board, astronomers dropped the solar constant years ago, because it simply wasnt. (Unfortunately, other disciplines have not.)”
Hmm. Anyhow:
“I personally have been watching solar activity for many years now and have watched the activity gradually decrease. As a consequence, I began keeping a rough spreadsheet in summer 2016 as I watched activity begin to drop dramatically.”
And etc.
But it occurred to me, that people [generally] have always been interested in the sun [how could they not].
And the sun is doing unusual stuff lately, and likely to become even more odd.
So if Parker works, it picked a good time to launch- in terms of PR.
gbaikie…”And the sun is doing unusual stuff lately, and likely to become even more odd”.
We can only hope it does not get too odd.
As noted elsewhere, it was successfully launched- but still got to see if everything is working. [and then things could stop working, but I hope everything works and keeps on working- until the end when the sun consumes it- as tiny snack]
Harry
I don’t know how much of the 0.13 C/decade is natural versus man made. Just demonstrating to the witless that such a forcing does not prevent yearly fluctuations.
(Huffy still doesn’t get it. Big surprise)
snape…”I dont know how much of the 0.13 C/decade is natural versus man made”.
The IPCC made a strong admission about that following the AR5 review in 2012. They claimed no warming for 15 years between 1998 and 2012.
Does that not tell you that CO2 has no effect?
Since their announcement, the alarmists at NOAA and GISS have been working overtime to discredit the information. They have been promoting relatively cool years like 2014 into the hottest year ever by cutting confidence levels in half.
Are you sure you want to be aligned with such loser science?
Does that not tell you that CO2 has no effect?
No it doesn’t. In 1998 average CO2 levels were 367 ppm; in 2012 they were 394 ppm. The forcing from this increase would be about 0.4 w/m2. Even under the more extreme sensitivity estimates this would only result in warming of more than 0.2-0.3 degrees C which could conceivably offset by natural variability.
If you want to argue that the “pause” provides evidence of low sensitivity then by all means go ahead but forget the drivel about CO2 having no effect.
“The more extreme sensitivity estimates”
Did you have ECS or TCR in mind? It makes a bit of a difference. Not enough to scuttle the point. I’m just curious what parameters you had in mind.
Mean TCR (1.8C/doubling) gives about 0.13C for the 7.4% CO2 change.
Most extreme TCR in the AR5 report was 2.6/doubling, which gives a temp change of 0.19C for the 7.4% change in CO2 over the period.
john…”If you want to argue that the pause provides evidence of low sensitivity then by all means go ahead but forget the drivel about CO2 having no effect”.
All I have ever asked is that you or any other alarmist prove that CO2 can cause warming in the atmosphere. All of the posters you listed have been asking the same question in different ways.
I have gone to great lengths to disprove AGW and I think 15 years of no warming is plenty of evidence to corroborate what I have said.
I have invoked the 2nd law, the Ideal Gas Law, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and quantum theory in support of my claims against AGW, and not one alarmist has rebutted what I have claimed. The sad truth is, the alarmists on this blog are seriously lacking in basic physics, especially thermodynamics.
One alarmist, Swannie, has even offered two experiments that he claims prove heat can be transferred from a cooler body to a warmer body via radiation. The rest agree with him.
Rebuttals by alarmists have presented modified versions of the 2nd law, denied the application of the Ideal Gas Law to the atmosphere, invoking vague inferences, applied the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and Kircheoff’s laws incorrectly, and not one can discuss quantum theory wrt to how electrons convert EM to heat and vice-versa. Yet here is Barry whining that he cannot get a proper discussion about science.
You are attacking the wrong side, mate.
john…”The forcing from this increase would be about 0.4 w/m2. Even under the more extreme sensitivity estimates this would only result in warming of more than 0.2-0.3 degrees C which could conceivably offset by natural variability”.
You’re not listening. The IPCC claimed there was NO WARMING….zero, zilch, nada. They claimed the 15 years between 1998 and 2012 was a WARMING HIATUS.
Natural variability cannot in any way explain that.
Gordo, you are ignoring the data since 2015 and the fact that the large spike in temperature due to the 1998 El Nino caused the trend between 1998 and 2015 to be small. From 1999 to 2017, there’s a positive trend. You are just continuing the denialist disinformation by cherry picking a particularly period in the temperature time series because it supports your unscientific agenda.
One more thing, please do give a reference, such as a page from an IPCC report, for your claims.
He is referring specifically to IPCC AR5 Technical Summary, page 37.
The Summary for Policy Makers doesn’t include the word hiatus that Gordon fixates on to the exclusion of everything else the IPCC says about the period. The word isn’t included in the Chapter on observed change. Both these chapters discuss the period.
No, Gordon picks out one word from the technical Summary – hiatus – and this is the entirety of what passes for his ‘understanding’ of what the IPCC says about the period.
Here’s the whole quote:
“Despite the robust multi-decadal warming, there exists substantial interannual to decadal variability in the rate of warming, with several periods exhibiting weaker trends (including the warming hiatus since 1998) (Figure TS.1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12[0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for short periods are uncertain and very sensitive to the start and end years. For example, trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24] °C per decade, 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] °C per decade and 0.07 [-0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade, respectively. Several independently analysed data records of global and regional land surface air temperature obtained from station observations are in broad agreement that land surface air temperatures have increased. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have also increased. Intercomparisons of new SST data records obtained by different measurement methods, including satellite data, have resulted in better understanding of errors and biases in the records.”
Of course, Gordon does not ever quote the whole paragraph, because it interferes with his ‘interpretation.’ Just focus entirely on the word “hiatus”, exclude all the other information, and you’ll see it just like Gordon, who says:
The IPCC claimed there was NO WARMING… zero, zilch, nada.
Barry,
Who cares about a 15 year hiatus? What about the 40 years of cooling between 1938 and 1978? CO2 went up.
Alarmists seem to have short memories.
Youre not listening. The IPCC claimed there was NO WARMING…zero, zilch, nada.
That is incorrect. IPCC stated a 0.05C /decade warming, with uncertainty 2 x greater than the trend.
“The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 [-0.05 to +0.15] C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] C per decade). Trends for short periods are uncertain and very sensitive to the start and end years.”
AR5 Technical Summary, P. 37
IPCC, with that last comment there, also makes a point related to John’s – that short time periods are more sensitive to variability than any underlying trend.
Why does your brain exclude everything the IPCC says about the period except the word ‘hiatus’?
Barry, I thought I asked you to please STOP pettifogging.
For anyone interested in the planetary show this time of year here’s where to find the planets. This applies to northern hemisphere from west coast of Canada right across to UK but seems to apply to the US and Europe as well.
In locations further north the planets are in same location but slightly lower in sky. In the southern hemisphere, like Sydney, Australia, there does not seem to be much in the way of viewing since the planets are in the wrong cycle this time of year.
I used a compass to determine N-S. My compass also reads in degrees.
Between 10 pm and 10:30, Saturn is apparent almost due south. It’s altitude is 18 degrees above the horizon.
Jupiter is to the SW at 247 degrees (north is 0 and degrees move CW…south is 180 degrees) with altitude 11 degrees. These angles appear steeper than they are. I was estimating 30 degrees.
Mars is still rising and is found at 151 degrees SSE. It’s altitude is only 9 degrees but it will rise to its meridian at 15 degrees around 12:30 AM when it is due south at 180 degrees.
Venus is setting at this time but can still be seen clearly a bit south of west.
Venus is the brightest followed by Mars, which is unmistakable with it’s orange-red tinge. It’s very bright compared to background stars. It’s bright enough to be mistaken for aircraft lights, except none are flashing.
While I was watching Mars, a satellite with flashing lights zipped across my line of site and disappeared over the horizon.
Jupiter is the next brightest and Saturn is the 4th brightest although somewhat dimmer than Mars or Jupiter.
Things may vary from my location in Vancouver, Canada in the Northern Hemisphere.
Gordon, how do you know that satellite with flashing lights wasn’t a visitor from another galaxy?
They are watching us right now!
☺
More seriously, if you’re using magnetic bearings, folks should know that the bearings could change +/-10 degrees, depending on the location, due to magnetic declination.
JD…”Gordon, how do you know that satellite with flashing lights wasnt a visitor from another galaxy?”
That would have been cool. He/she was in a hurry whoever they were. It was a strobing kind of bluish light.
It occurred to me it had to be an aircraft since there was a regular strobe. However, this articles claims certain satellites can reflect sunlight from their antennae. If the satellite is rotating as it moves, maybe it can produce a regular strobing effect.
http://earthsky.org/space/i-saw-a-flash-in-the-night-sky-what-is-it
Don’t worry about the direction. I found Saturn was not dead on 180 degrees S when I looked. So I was likely off due to your declination thingy. It was in the ballpark, however, and it was the lone object in the sky that I could see.
Mars is unmistakable as is Jupiter. I had an 80mm x 800mm reflector telescope on it one night and it appeared as a fuzzy ball the size of a dime. I wanted to photograph it but the cross hairs from one of the mirrors was in the way.
For some reason, our patients get disturbed around the time of a full moon. We tend to sedate them more than usual. I don’t know how Gordon got out last night but do apologize for his latest drivel.
nurse…”For some reason, our patients get disturbed around the time of a full moon. We tend to sedate them more than usual. I dont know how Gordon got out last night but do apologize for his latest drivel”.
I think you’ve been sampling your own sedation. Your brain seems awfully numb.
nurseratched
Nevermind Gordon, you need to keep a better watch on Mrs. Huffman. She has been running amok, blabbering incoherently about fluxes. (Perhaps that was a word she picked up on TV?)
In any case, I would suggest upping her meds.
Good idea.
Since he had the sex change operation he/she has become more excitable.
Snape, as always, you need to stop trolling.
Hey, with all of the back and forth about the earth warming or cooling, how about a third option? The global mean temperature changes very little, if any during the next 30+ years?!
Right now, Dr. Spencer has the earth warming at the rate of 0.13C per decade. This seems to be very much in line with any multi-decadal swing in global temperature with the instrument record. I don’t think that is anything to get all agitated about, and to start mandating the separation of the working class from their hard-earned dollars via the carbon tax.
Instead of the earth reversing course and cooling, I think that with all we know now, the Pause may continue for the next 30 years with only a +/- 0.1C change. To me, that is every bit as much of a viable option as either a warming or a cooling earth.
As an operational marine forecaster, I just don’t have a lot of faith in climate prediction. Some say the earth is warming, some say cooling, I say it could very well just stay the same!
What pause? Could you be a bit more specific?
Rob, your “third option” is just too practical, scientific, and mature for the climate clowns. They must have their catastrophic storms, record hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, and snows. Preferably every day, everywhere.
We’re dealing with a twisted bunch.
test
Barry, The Pause can be seen in the Arctic ice during the past 10 years.
Agree with you Huffman. This is a twisted bunch!
Barry, The Pause can be seen in the Arctic ice during the past 10 years.
We were taking about temperature. One sees 10 year ‘pauses’ and longer in global temperature quite a few from the beginning of the temperature record. This is a result of natural variability. The long-term warming trend eclipses all of them. Here’s a picture.
https://tinyurl.com/y9v36kfn
Would you say that all these coolings early in the record meant that global warming didn’t happen?
We would still see 10-year ‘pauses in temp just from variability if the overall warming trend was twice or 3 times as strong, but we wouldn’t see them as often.
But let’s digress to what you want to talk about.
Do you mean the Arctic sea ice, Rob?
10 full years is 2008 to 2017. Let’s see what the data says:
A linear regression on daily data for each of the full years gives a reduction of about 54 thousand sq/km a year.
Not sure if that’s a pause.
However, I suspect that if you took a bit more care with the time period, you might be able to get a flat line. Let’stry starting in 2007 rather than 2008, because this was the second lowest anomaly (for summer ice) on record. It’s the equivalent of starting with the warm spike in global temps 1998 to make following temps look less.
A linear regression from 2007 to 2017 of daily sea ice data gives us a reduction of 38 thousand sq/km per year over the period.
Maybe this is a pause?
I can think of other ways – maybe working with just one month rather than the annual average. We could probably find a pause that way, maybe.
One way I’ve seen it done many times is by taking the extent for a single day and comparing it with the same day of the year at some point in history when the ice extent was smaller.
This is probably the best way to search for a ‘pause’ in Arctic sea ice. Just trawl through images until you find the ones you want. I’ll leave that to people more interested in telling tall tales.
Hey Barry, I can very easily call a 1% decline of Arctic sea ice over 10 years a Pause, or at least a significant slow-down. After all, many of you global warming fanatics thought the Arctic sea ice was going to melt away to oblivion within our lifetimes!
After all, many of you global warming fanatics thought the Arctic sea ice was going to melt away to oblivion within our lifetimes!
Perhaps you could seek these fanatics out, so that you may enjoy that level of discourse.
It may be impossible to find such people, as even the extremos are referring to summertime sea ice, not annual.
Best of luck.
OK Barry boy. Want some names? Got some for ya!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/
Yep, this is a twisted bunch. And they just WONT stop trolling,
Do not feed the troll. Or any of his sock puppets.
At the risk of feeding the troll, I will just ask you once again to please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Please Stop Posting!
Theres always one.
Gordon
“I can buy that but we are talking about heat being transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed the atmosphere (according to AGW). That not only contradicts the 2nd law, it represents perpetual motion in the form of recycled heat producing a gain in heat.”
I know you don’t like thought experiments (requires you to think), so I’ve come up with an easy, real life experiment that can be performed in the comfort of your home.
a) place a thermometer on the kitchen table.
b) shine a small lamp (incandescent bulb) on the thermometer until it reaches a steady 100 degrees F., or thereabouts.
c) assuming your house is around 70 F, crank the furnace up to 80 F
d) after a while, check the thermometer on the table. (You will likely notice the temp is a little higher.)
If so, then an ambient air temp of 80 F just made a 100 F. thermometer even warmer.
No Snape, the 80 F air would not be able to raise the temperature of the thermometer at 100 F.
But your ludicrous false physics allows for another teaching moment.
Just adding energy to a system does NOT ensure an increase in system temperature. For example, consider a liter container half-filled with water at a temperature of 50 C. Now, completely fill the container with water at 30 C. You have added energy to the container, but the container’s temperature DROPS!
JDHuffman
Boy are you stupid. Endless amounts of illogical stupidity and bad examples. Snape is completely correct. You are totally wrong and don’t have a clue what you are saying.
In your water example you are adding total energy to the container but you are also adding material. You are adding more material than energy so the temperature drops. Boy you are stupid. Sad that you post and embarrass yourself.
You are the only one with ludicrous false physics. You have no knowledge of real physics.
Snape is right you are wrong. Do the experiment dork and you will see that you are stupid and don’t know what you are talking about.
Don’t post until you do Snape’s test.
Norman Grinvalds, it is amazing how you try to run from reality.
It’s also funny.
(I won’t use the word “hilarious” because that would remind you of your hero.)
A 100 F object [thermometer] will have more convectional heat loss in air at 70 F as compared to air at 80 F.
So if you warm air, the heated object will have less convectional heat and will get warmer as result.
One should try it in a oven, and heat to to 300 F.
The lightbulb is close to 3000 K so depending on close the hot filament of lightblub is to object, one may be able to warm it higher than oven air temperature.
If put in vacuum one could reduce or eliminate convectional loss, and it’s possible that in vacuum it could warm to higher temperature than compared to 80 F air.
Or start a 100 F heated object by lightbulb with 70 F air in vacuum chamber and then remove air- and see what happens.
gbaidkie
E. Swanson already performed what you requested in his Blue/Green plate test in a vacuum.
When he evacuated the air the heated Blue plate temperature rose as there was no more loss of energy to convection and conduction. It rose until it reached a steady state temperature with the incoming energy and the energy it emitted by EMR (now the only way to lose energy).
When he moved the Green plate in view of the Blue plate, both plate temperatures rose. The green plate rose and then emitted energy to the Blue plate increasing its temperature until a new steady state condition existed.
I think you should look at his test. He posted it on last month’s Temperature Anomaly thread.
Here’s what Swanson “proved”:
1) Adding heat energy to a system can raise the system temperature.
2) An insulator works to insulate.
3) Swanson and Norman do not understand related physics.
JDHuffman
I understand the physics quite well. You are the one who doesn’t know what they are talking about. You say stupid things that are easily proven wrong (like fluxes don’t add, then we tell you to turn on another light but you don’t understand this easy task proves fluxes DO ADD, more energy going through an area in space).
YOU: “1) Adding heat energy to a system can raise the system temperature.”
Yes indeed that is what is happening with the Earth and GHE and the Blue plate in E. Swanson’s experiment. You are constantly adding energy to both systems.
YOU: “2) An insulator works to insulate.”
Yes it does. How do insulators work? What are they doing at the molecular level?
YOU: “3) Swanson and Norman do not understand related physics.”
Wrong! You are the one who can’t grasp physics of even the simple type. You make stupid unsupported declarations and somehow think that is how science works. Your pseudoscience works that way, not real science. Clown!
Grinvalds, your typing class must have gotten out early. Usually your rambling goes much longer.
Precisely. So why do people have to keep bringing up experiments like this, which categorically do NOT prove the point they are trying to make?
Because they are trolling. It would be great if they would please stop.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
What point do you think the experiments are trying to prove?
They certainly prove that a colder object can drive the temperature of a hotter object to higher temperatures if the colder object emits more IR than the surroundings it is now blocking. Not sure what point you are making. I know the point they are making.
Please STOP posting. You don’t have a clue of what you are talking about. Why make a fool of yourself pretending. We have a couple of those posters already.
My reply was in response to gbaikies explanation of Snapes experiment. Snapes comment provides the context of what his experiment is supposed to be proving wrong (he includes a quote from Gordon). Gbaikies explanation shows that Snapes experiment proves nothing of the sort. Your usual aggressive, petulant comments change nothing. They just once again make the case that you should please stop trolling.
No Norman, the experiment does NOT “prove” that. You just BELIEVE it does.
Beliefs are NOT science.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Okay so now you can demonstrate your knowledge of physics. How much less convection takes place from a 100 F object it the air around it is 80 F compared to 70 F.
Let us know your results.
Norman says:
Okay so now you can demonstrate your willingness to stop trolling. I will ask you to stop trolling, and your response will indicate whether you are willing to, or not.
Please stop trolling.
(Let us know, whoever us is meant to be, your results).
UAH6.0 lower troposphere global anomaly – decadal comparison
1998 to 2007 average = 0.15C
2008 to 2017 average = 0.19C
The latter decade includes the coldest year of the 20-year period (2008). Both decades include one strong el Nino.
Anyone care to estimate the statistical uncertainty of a decade’s worth of UAH anomalies?
For an average it’s just the uncertainty for one data point divided by the square root of the number of points (120, presumably).
What’s the uncertainty of one data point? It should be prominently displayed on UAH’s data pages, but is not. Getting a definitive value is like pulling teeth.
S,
If you could actually explain the GHE in useful terms, you could devise a disprovable hypothesis. But you can’t, so you lurch off into the irrelevant.
I’ll just point out that igloos are made of ice (which is a reasonable insulator – 30 cm has an r value of 10 or so), and are built to protect their users from killing cold.
If you think that the Eskimos within are kept “warmer than they otherwise would be” due to the 300 W/m2 emitted by the ice, you are quite deluded. You are stupid and ignorant if you believe you can raise the temperature of an object by exposing it to any amount or intensity of radiation from a colder one. Einstein discovered this, amongst other things, while doing the work related to the photoelectric effect which earned him his Nobel Prize.
Many scientists of the time believed as you do. They were wrong, just as you are.
Thoughtless thought experiments leading to seemingly logical conclusions abound. You will notice that the laws of thermodynamics do not mention particular temperatures for a reason. Until you can utiliise the heat energy in ice of any temperature to raise the temperature of melted ice, your convoluted scenarios involving multiple heat sources and bizarre conditions are unconvincing.
All pointless, however, until you can actually describe this mythical GHE in such a way as to allow scientific examination of the claimed phenomenon. If it takes an Einstein to do so, so be it. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about, have you?
Cheers.
MF, You talking to me? If so, well, your igloo comment is plain wrong, as igloos are constructed of blocks of snow and snow is an excellent insulator. Ask anybody who has spent time in a snow cave. But, in both cases, much of the apparent warmth is due to the blockage of convection with the free atmosphere. Your igloo might feel warm when it’s -30 C outside, but that’s the result of not being exposed to a large mass of air at -30 C.
You, of course, continue to ignore all the scientific investigations of spectral transmission in the atmosphere, both downward and upward at many locations and altitudes. Those same spectral investigations were similar to those first used by the physicist of the late 19th century to explain atomic structure, etc. One would not need to ” utiliise the heat energy in ice of any temperature to raise the temperature of melted ice”, just show that the temperature of the heated warmer body is greater in surroundings at a temperature of 0 C compared to the temperature when immersed in surroundings at a lower temperature. That’s what my “Green Plate Demo” showed.
The distinction is that the warmer body is heated at a constant rate, such as is the situation for the Eskimo’s body within the igloo. Without that external energy source, the warmer body eventually cools to the the temperature of the surroundings. But, I’m sure you already know that.
E. Swanson,
You rightly mention the two main physical phenomena involved: blocking of convection and resistance of the snow to thermal conduction. Why don’t you mention backconduction in this case when you absolutely want to use backradiation in the case of the resistance to radiative cooling ?
What’s the number attached to “backconduction,” in W/m2?
Tcold / R
Many warmists like to claim that the MWP (Medieval Warm Period) was ONLY regional. As if that means that it is not important.
But what these warmists dont realise, is that the present day global warming is ONLY regional, as well.
Can I prove that? Of course I can. I divided the earth up into 8 equal sized areas, by latitude. They were:
90N to 48N, 48N to 30N, 30N to 14N, 14N to Equator, Equator to 14S, 14S to 30S, 30S to 48S, and 48S to 90S
As you move from north to south, the warming rate decreases consistently. From +3.98, to +2.53, to +1.99, to +1.63, to +1.61, to +1.29, to +1.07, to +0.26 (all in degrees Celsius per century).
Look at the brightly coloured Global Warming Contour Maps, which show the decreasing warming rates from north to south, as colours. They go left to right, and top to bottom. Look at the legend, to see what warming rates each colour represents.
I will put full sized versions of these contour maps on my website, when I have time. Until then, enjoy the eye candy:
https://i1.wp.com/agree-to-disagree.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Regions-8-equal-sized-areas-by-latitude.png
Here is the legend:
https://i0.wp.com/agree-to-disagree.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/legend.png
My website is:
https://agree-to-disagree.com
Unless I’m reading your maps wrong, I’m seeing that every region has a warming trend if the period is 25 years or more. As a global climate period is defined as 30-year blocks, it would seem that every region is indeed warming – as a climate phenomenon, rather than just weather.
What is said by some about the MWP is that some regions warmed while others didn’t. These are multidecadal to centennial periods. So to compare apples to apples, that’s a difference between now and then.
(Of course, the smaller your time interval, the more cooling trends you’ll get – but presumably we’re interested in climate, not weather)
Thanks Sheldon; very nicely done.
There is that claim, particularly from the resident troll DA, who asserts the MWP only occurred in Europe and North America. Some say that the MWP T was not contemporaneous, global nor uniform.
It seems absence of evidence means evidence of absence for DA. Of course he didn’t try too hard for I remember reading a Chinese paper a few years back which emphasised that China too had experienced similar MWP warming,
Greenland certainly experienced it and its history now seems legendary. So that’s two more regions. But there were other papers years ago that made similar claims farther afield.
Salvatore referred to recent papers of many locations showing there is nothing unprecedented about our current period (some cover the MWP ):
http://notrickszone.com/2018/08/02/108-graphs-from-89-new-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warmth/
One even found T was up to 9C higher near the start of the Holocene compared to today.
Barry has observed that there has been an increase in all areas no matter how modest for 25 year. That would not fix the models which failed to give those results. We can detect these smaller changes because of our instruments and methods. Proxies which can have a resolution of up to 300 years (Marcott) can hardly yield that sort of detail to make like for like comparisons.
tonyM says:
David Appell is very good at quoting science. In this case it was PAGES 2k:
http://tinyurl.com/y7n359sw
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age”.
I think we can drop the “synchronous” and say that there was a global MWP/LIA:
http://tinyurl.com/y9twn5fq
Svante, you may have selectively missed “reconstructions show”, from the next sentence.
Yes,
“all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 19712000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”
AGW was a good thing to start with, 40 ppm might have been just right.
Svante,
Appell has made those assertions on a number of occasions including when appearing with meteorologist Chuck Wiese in a debate. He is/was quite adamant that the MWP was confined to Europe and North America even rudely interrupting Chuck to emphasize this point.
If he is as true to the literature as you suggest then he would know of the various studies which conflict with his version. He often distorts the facts; fits them for his purpose and can argue like mad bull when one points out the discrepancies.
If one tried to show the effects of current warming via proxies I would suggest similar descriptors would apply; not global, not synchronous and not uniform. Sheldon’s contour maps show these differences very well even with limited maps.
I usually agree with David, but here I agree with you Tony.
If MWP/LIA was not synchronous/global then neither is the current warming.
Perhaps it’s just semantics, just look at the PAGEs 2k diagram.
Tony, so which studies show the MWP and LIA were global???????
If you can’t present any evidence, then you have nothing. Science is based on evidence, not wishes.
David Appell says:
Tony, so which studies show the MWP and LIA were global???????
If you can’t present any evidence, then you have nothing. Science is based on evidence, not wishes.
Now Appell perhaps to show that you are not simply a troll and not a simple dolt you might like to show me where I have said it was Global (and whartever that implies).
Now go and check what I actually said! Might be smarter.
There is that claim, particularly from the resident troll DA, who asserts the MWP only occurred in Europe and North America.
Are you denying that that is what I actually wrote? Are you saying you did not say that the MWP was confined to Europe and North America?
If you deny it I will have to rub your nose into your own shite again as you make a habit of denial and/or distortion of facts or explicit statements just like you did in the Tamino exchange. Similarly with your self determined proclamation that Dr Spencer was implying a polynomial fit as a model for his T graph which you then extrapolated into the future to ridicule him.
You might reflect on my comment to Svante that you gloss over and obviously don’t understand:
If one tried to show the effects of current warming via proxies I would suggest similar descriptors would apply; not global, not synchronous and not uniform. Sheldon’s contour maps show these differences very well even with limited maps.
Where does that suggest that I claimed MWP was global? But the evidence clearly shows that it was not confined to Europe and North America.
Problem with rubbing your nose in your own shite is that you think it has a sweet smell; it is called cognitive dissonance.
Svante: so you’re using PAGES 2k’s own data to contradict their own conclusion.
That doesn’t compute. Try again.
Yes, those scientists are very strict, aren’t they?
tonyM says:
The keyword in the PAGES 2k quote is “synchronous”, but it was left out in the debate. Apart from that I think David did well.
there has been an increase in all areas no matter how modest for 25 year. That would not fix the models which failed to give those results.
Which models failed to produce a +25 year warming in all the regions specified by Sheldon’s contour maps? Do you have a reference for this specific claim?
Proxies which can have a resolution of up to 300 years (Marcott) can hardly yield that sort of detail to make like for like comparisons.
Individual proxies can have much better resolution than that – as little as several years, though generally not so fine when constructing a multiproxy analysis.
From Marcott et al:
“The 73 globally distributed temperature records used in our analysis are based on a variety of paleotemperature proxies and have sampling resolutions ranging from 20 to 500 years, with a median resolution of 120 years”
https://tinyurl.com/nkjra87
A straightforward like-for-like would be centennial changes. Almost all late Holocene reconstructions have that sort of resolution, and many do better (Marcott is a study of the entire Holocene).
At centennial and sub-centennial scale, quite a few studies show inhomogenous surface temperature change. I’d say the jury is still out, but that the evidence tends towards this conclusion.
Barry,
while my comment would include any positive or negative T change at 25 year outcomes is there any reason you would restrict it simply to this which is hardly a test at all? Do you reasonably think I would kick an own goal given that virtually all the models have been running hot globally?
The last contour map does not show a universal increase at the 25 year interval as you suggested – but that did not concern me and was not the point I was trying to make. The issue is that the models fail to give those results as shown by ALL the regions in line with the actual data. That is where Sheldon’s succinct series of maps are of value.
I note he even has a weather balloon map and hopefully he can publish more relevant mid troposphere tropical results. The models fail the “Hot Spot” analysis which according to Monkton was so named by him and is uniquely attributed to CO2 forcing (I am aware of what you claim – but you can’t have it both ways viz: surface warming and no hot spot). Christy has written on this recently comparing models and reality.
Do you believe there is even one model put forward before a start date that could replicate ALL those contour maps reasonably? Please guide me to such a model?
Thanks for your reference to Marcott. I am familiar with it and have pulled up our resident troll DA on at least two occasions in that Marcott himself stated that the centennial and bicentennial proxy measures could not be compared with modern records. It does not stop DA using it including the hockey stick blade which Marcott subsequently clearly downplayed
Not sure what you mean by in-homogeneous changes as I don’t think anyone expects some ‘pure’ homogeneous outcomes. This is illustrated in the varied papers even in that Notrickszone reference. It was surreptitiously illustrated in the famed hockey stick saga which did involve truncating pine tree proxies because the sequence showed a distinct downturn around the sixties
tonyM says:
It does not stop DA using it including the hockey stick blade which Marcott subsequently clearly downplayed
Where did Marcott do that?
David Appell asks:
Where did Marcott do that?
Well David I am reasonably sure he did not do it whilst sitting in the toilet or dancing on the moon. I have covered this with you before and will state what I told you before.
DA this is your hallmark of sensationalism and trolling. I have had to admonish you when u cited Marcott’s work as confirming the current status as being unprecedented. You are forever the troll when Marcott himself stated that modern instrumental records could not be compared with centennial and bicentennial proxies used in his paper.
Now I posted Marcott’s statement – see reply to Barry earlier in the week just below:
[The] 20th-century portion of our paleo-temperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
So stop wasting my time as you are well aware of all this. Your interaction with Steyn (about his book) which typifies your approach surely put you straight where he says:
“….a quick addendum tomy postabout “science journalist” David Appell’s false accusation that I doctored a quote inmy new book. Mr Appell has nowwithdrawn the charge
…
…
You might think he’d learned his lesson about making specific accusations about a book he hasn’t read. And yet, amazingly enough, he goes and does it all over again two inches down the page:
[quote DA] I wonder if Steyn has examined any of theother evidencefor the hockey stick, some derived with independent mathematical techniques. Like Marcott et al Science 2013,PAGES 2k, orTingley and Huybers.
I expect he hasn’t. If not, why not?
Yes, why not, Steyn? Ha! You’ve got no answer to that, have you?
….
In fact, there’s an entire section on other, supposedly “independent” hockey sticks, starting at page 171, and I devote pages 185-190 to Marcott et al.
Between apologizing for his previous false accusation and making his new false accusation, Mr Appell observes plaintively of himself:
[DA] Me, a poor freelancer scratching the floor for grains of wheat.
[end of quote from Steyn]
[TonyM says] Appell do you have any sense of introspection or will you forever bumble along as a dunderhead? You seem to lie or distort events with almost every person in contact with you who has a different view. Your reputation precedes you; a legend in your own time!
No surprise at all Mr Steyn, no surprise; we know him well!!
Barry,
while my comment would include any positive or negative T change at 25 year outcomes is there any reason you would restrict it simply to this which is hardly a test at all? Do you reasonably think I would kick an own goal given that virtually all the models have been running hot globally?
The last contour map does not show a universal increase at the 25 year interval as you suggested – but that did not concern me and was not the point I was trying to make. The issue is that the models fail to give those results as shown by ALL the regions in line with the actual data. That is where Sheldon’s succinct series of maps are of great value.
I note he even has a weather balloon map and hopefully he can publish more relevant mid troposphere tropical results. The models fail the “Hot Spot” analysis which according to Monkton was so named by him and is uniquely attributed to CO2 forcing (I am aware of what you claim – but you can’t have it both ways viz: surface warming and no hot spot and still claim model validity). Dr Christy has written on this recently comparing models and reality.
Do you believe there is even one model put forward before a start date that could replicate ALL those contour maps reasonably? Please guide me to such a model?
Thanks for your reference to Marcott. I am familiar with it and have pulled up our resident troll DA on at least two occasions in that Marcott himself stated that the centennial and bicentennial proxy measures could not be compared with modern records. It does not stop DA using it including the hockey stick blade which Marcott subsequently clearly downplayed
Not sure what you mean by in-homogeneous changes as I don’t think anyone expects some ‘pure’ homogeneous outcomes. This is illustrated in the varied papers even in that Notrickszone reference. It was illustrated in the famed hockey stick saga which did involve truncating pine tree proxies because the sequence showed a distinct downturn around the sixties
Sorry I did not mean to have two posts but it would not display the first time.
Yes, the last contour map has a bit of cooling just beyond the 25-year mark, but you’d have to get really selective with the start and end dates. I figured you might accept that the preponderance of possible trends beyond 25 years is warming in the last map, so all good.
No one claims that long-term climate models would be able to predict weather. We are interested in long-term climate changes. Why would we expect a GCM to predict in which month an el Nino would appear in 2028, for example?
So there’s no reason that models should forecast these contour maps – which display as much weather in the bottom half as clime change in the top half – the long-term results.
As I said above, “Of course, the smaller your time interval, the more cooling trends youll get but presumably were interested in climate, not weather”.
In terms of climate change, the contour maps of the various regions all show warming – long-term change in the same direction.
Are you contending that the models do not show the same thing?
Or are you saying they do not model the weather in advance – that they do not forecast that 2028 will be hotter or cooler than 2029?
I’m unsure.
Not sure what you mean by in-homogeneous changes
That change is not spatially or temporally homogenous – ie, in the same direction at the same time in different places. IOW, that MWP warming is not global.
A number of multiproxy studies show this (eg Mann et al 2009 – but not limited to that work). But there are some papers which argue differently.
Marcott paper says that their results match Mann et al (2008) for the past 1500 years, and that recent warming s unprecedented in that context. But they recommended higher temps likely prevailed in the early holocene.
There’s nothing in there about whether the MWP was global, though, and it’s not discussed in the Mann paper there referenced (IIRC).
Barry;
I thought you may have been jesting by suggesting that a simple +ve T test suffices to validate models. Your comment reaffirms this view.
Look at FAR 1990 predictions:
Based on current model results, we predict:
Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C)” [IPCC FAR summary]
By 2020 the prediction will be a clear failure but it will satisfy your criterion that at least they show a positive T increase.
I have a friend who does ‘readings’ for people (makes predictions). I suggest she would be equally as effective as these models and far cheaper. She has even heard of El Nino and La Nina so that’s a great start. She goes by the name Elizabeth Messenger; quite an appropriate replacement for climate models.
You continue to jest by using Mann as some exemplar of integrity backing Marcott. Let me quote from the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick saga:
A cardinal rule of statistical inference is that the method of analysis must be decided before looking at the data. The rules and strategy of analysis cannot be changed in order to obtain the desired result. Such a strategy carries no statistical integrity and cannot be used as a basis for drawing sound inferential conclusions.
This is a no brainer. Wegman did suggest they get some help from professional statisticians. He was too polite. This field is characterised by the sort of subjectivity and convoluted reasoning even in deciding what proxies and how to standardize them that at best we need look on proxies as a guide. When done well it is our best guide but still only a guide. There can be a strong element of data mining which is also a violation of good statistical practice.
Go compare Mann et al., 2008 ; Briffa, 2000 and Loehle & McCullach, 2008 covering the same period yet are chalk and cheese even though supposedly using the same reconstruction method.
Your comment on Marcott and unprecedented recent warming is a poor account of his comments. Marcott et al. re-dated a number of core tops, changing the mix of proxies to achieve that (contrary to what had been done in his PhD thesis using the same proxies and showed no uptick). Further in his own words answering the question put to him:
[The] 20th-century portion of our paleo-temperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
Tony M.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott_PAGES2k.png
This shows the global average temp from the pages 2k study. The points are the proxy data, and they do capture the current warming well.
Nate,
thanks for that which Svante also referenced.
I have commented to both Barry and Svante about the vaguaries associated with proxies. I fully acknowledge the difficulties and that they are virtually our only guide to looking at the past but they remain at best as a guide rather than some solid arguing point.
Of course they will show upticks for modern periods but not necessarily uniform, global, synchronous or unequivocal. For example Brifa’s pine series started to go down in the 1960’s.
In some cases we have historical reckoning to match as well. For example we know grapes were grown near Hadrians Wall in Roman times and it is doubtful if similar varieties would grow now.I have read where Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps from Trans-Alpine Gaul into Italy would not have been possible today (cf 218 BC). It was not long ago that an ancient man was uncovered by melting ice in a Swiss/Italian Alpine area indicating less snow in the past (subject to dating of the corpse). Similarly tree trunks that become exposed by melting snow or past tree-lines further north (in Northern hemisphere).
So some of this confirms modern warming and some confirms warmer periods in certain regions in the past all contributing to the jigsaw puzzle. One question I have is why has the Holocene not been as hot as previous inter-glacials.
tonyM says:
“One question I have is why has the Holocene not been as hot as previous inter-glacials.”
It seems to be in middle here:
http://tinyurl.com/y8u95ahs
A more interesting question is why it is so prolonged, other interglacials have sharp peaks.
I say Ruddiman is quite right, the agricultural revolution added as much as the industrial revolution to global temperature.
Svante says:
I say Ruddiman is quite right, the agricultural revolution added as much as the industrial revolution to global temperature.
Are there measurements of (I presume) atmospheric methane concentrations that prove this? Or other GHGs, like CO2 from land use changes?
It’s based on the estimated GHG forcing in “a range of model runs”.
The result is 1.1 deg C, but not enough to turn around the natural decline.
It’s at 42:40 here:
http://tinyurl.com/ybrvus6a
So China contributed more global warming than the US : – )
Yes, mainly CO2 from forrest clearance and CH4 from rice fields.
His top down evidence is the Holocene departure from the normal temperature/GHG relationship.
His bottom up analysis quantifies GHG emissions by historical evidence.
Did that answer your question David?
Nate,
Page2k is a sinister joke.
Not a single proxy correlated with temperature high frequency shows significant trend in the twentieth century. No one, before hacking obviously.
But if anyone knows of a rare gem, I am very interested.
PAGES 2k looked at much more than the 20th century.
And what the hell does this mean?
phi says:
Not a single proxy correlated with temperature high frequency shows significant trend in the twentieth century.
The sentence doesn’t even make sense, and you offered no data to prove it.
David Appell,
Not a single proxy correlated with temperature at high frequency shows significant trend in the twentieth century.
Is it better ?
Otherwise, it is obviously not for me to provide data but to those who claim to reconstruct past temperatures.
I still gives you an example to think about : http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/polar2.png
I don’t even know what this means:
Not a single proxy correlated with temperature at high frequency shows significant trend in the twentieth century.
At “temperature at high frequency??”
Earlier Phi was saying proxy data is BETTER than the instrumental record.
Now he says its a joke. The ‘reliability’ of data all depends on whether it agrees with his beliefs or not.
This is Phi’s standard MO. He insists the data is wrong, a joke. But when pressed, he can never explain why.
Nate,
Sophistry.
1. A proxy is not good by definition but one can select the good proxies on the basis of high frequencies.
2. Good proxies do not show a significant trend in the 20th century.
3. Pages 2k somehow incorporate the signal of the stations into their results.
Again, if you have raw data that contradicts this, I would be very interested.
1-3.
More arguments by assertion, phi, your specialty.
The pages 2k has 30 y time resolution. Plenty good enough to see 20th century warming.
But not going to capture enso oscillations, nor does it need to for the job.
Nate,
You wrote :
This shows the global average temp from the pages 2k study. The points are the proxy data, and they do capture the current warming well.
I point out that:
Not a single proxy correlated with temperature at high frequency shows significant trend in the twentieth century.
What don’t you understand ?
sheldon…”Look at the brightly coloured Global Warming Contour Maps, which show the decreasing warming rates from north to south, as colours”.
As Crocodile Dundee might say, “that’s not a contour map, THIS is a contour map”.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2018/july2018/JULY%202018.png
Whole series of them here, month by month.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
You can see the regional warming/cooling clearly. Trouble is, it moves around month to month. The so-called warming in the Arctic is not only localized to hot spots it moves around regularly.
Look at the great swath of white around the Tropics where it has not warmed at all.
Gordon Robertson,
that’s not a contour map, THIS is a contour map:
https://i1.wp.com/agree-to-disagree.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Big-Contour-Map.png
When you look at this contour map, the cursor should be a magnifying glass, with a plus sign in it. I dare you to click the “+”.
When I plot my contour maps, I have to ask Excel to plot it on a graph 1 metre by 1 metre, so that it can fit in all of the 343,206 linear regression results.
Then I shrink it by a factor of 4 (1/16 the area), so that it fits on a computer screen.
CO2 will not be causing any further global warming not that it ever did.
All the temperatures changes have been natural and thus far this year cooling is across the board.
El Nino is a natural event and if it should occur it has nothing to do with AGW and is very temporary.
The temperature trend overall from this year and for the foreseeable future will be lower global temperatures.
I will be in shock if that turns out not to be the case and wrong.
The problem is those on the other side will never even entertain the thought of being wrong.
If global temperatures go up from here -next few years I will be wrong.
My biggest fault is trying to pinpoint everything which leaves myself opened but that is ok.
All my previous predictions for cooling were off due to the low solar criteria never materializing , this time the low solar criteria conditions has materialized , so I will have nothing to fall back on. Even worse for me I have the geo magnetic field weakening so it better cool.
Sounds as if SDP is getting ready to toss in the towel.
Not surprising, since the global average SST has been steadily increasing over the past week.
https://www.iceagenow.info/global-warming-is-the-biggest-fraud-in-history-dan-pena-video/
That web site appears to be run by somebody who studied architecture and not much else.
Good luck in getting any facts from it.
About 95% of his posts are links to actual news/weather events, often including videos.
In pseudoscience, actual facts are quickly dismissed, as your effort indicates.
myki…”That web site appears to be run by somebody who studied architecture and not much else.
Good luck in getting any facts from it”.
You’d rather get ‘the facts’???? from the IPCC where 50 politically appointed lead authors re-write the main report by 2500 reviewers. The 2500 write the main report then the lead authors write a Summary that is often at odds with the main rport. The Summary comes out first then it is used to rewrite the main report.
Or you get the facts from NOAA and/or GISS, where they blatantly cheat by cutting confidence levels in half to move a relatively warm year into first place as the warmest year ever. Both did that with 2014, dropping the confidence level to 48% and 38% respectively.
It must be seriously vexing at times to have a brain like yours with such a strong appeal to authority. A brain that ignores what is right in front of it and accepts bs.
Gordon says:
Or you get the facts from NOAA and/or GISS, where they blatantly cheat by cutting confidence levels in half to move a relatively warm year into first place as the warmest year ever. Both did that with 2014, dropping the confidence level to 48% and 38% respectively.
Gordon **STILL* doesn’t understand what the yearly temperatures mean.
Abysmal. Gordon has no interest in science or in learning — he just wants to spout off.
“Who is Bindidon?”
No, Geoff Sherrington: I’m not Nathan Bindoff.
Bindidon is a kind of lazy shortcut for the french expression: ‘Eh bien dis donc!’, something similar to ‘So what?!’.
Btw let me point out that I fully agree to your comment dated ‘August 4, 2018 at 10:15 PM’.
This Nathan Bindoff??
http://www.utas.edu.au/profiles/staff/imas/nathan-bindoff
Hello one more time bilybob
You mentioned upthread a stability of the highest maxima registered by weather stations across the last century or so, by using about 100 of them.
This I can pretty good confirm upon processing of over 35,000 GHCN daily stations from 1895 till 2017:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1533566497843.jpg
As you can see, the red line is desperately flat, contradicting warmist blah blah.
A look at the blue line is of interest: it is the same analysis as shown by the red plot above, but obtained with the stations’ lowest minima instead.
While the trend estimate for the maxima is 0.04 C / decade, that of the minima is a surprising 0.90 C / decade, what means that during the last 125 years, the highest minima registered by stations were increasing.
Please draw your own conclusions.
Bin, are all 35,000 GHCN stations operating through the period?
And are those absolute temps rather than anomalies?
If no to the former and yes to the latter, there may be problems with the analysis. Eg, what if later in the record more cold (or more hot) stations were added, such as in the Arctic or at higher elevations? That would skew the results.
AGW predicts….
Nights warm faster than days.
Reason: The (enhanced) greenhouse effect stands out when the sun goes down, is dominated by daily sunshine.
Similar for summer and winter. Winter’s are predicted to warm faster than summers.
If you have the time and/or interest, Bin, I’d be curious to see what Winter v Summer looks like.
(However, the night time/day time divergence appears to have disappeared over the last 30 years or so)
“Bin, are all 35,000 GHCN stations operating through the period?”
No! This is the sum of all staions having reported data within subsets of the period.
Here is the plot showing how many of them were active in each year:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1533571510117.jpg
“And are those absolute temps rather than anomalies?”
Well barry I thought the scale on the left would explain enough.
The two plots show a statistics proposed by commenter bilybob:
– to notice for each station the year in which it had its highest absolute temperature on record during its lifetime;
– to build for each year the average of these stations’ maxima.
bilybob’s idea was to show that there are actually no more stations recording their lifetime’s highest maximum than earlier.
I added the same procedure but for these stations’ lowest minima.
Barry says, “AGW predicts….
Nights warm faster than days.”
I believe you mean, they cool more slowly. Nights never warm faster than days.
Are you making a joke, bilybob, or do you need me to explain?
No, and an explanation is really not needed. I have seen where that goes and really not useful to me.
AGW = long term warming.
Over multiple decades it is expected that night time temps will rise faster than daytime temps from ‘greenhouse’ warming.
It is exactly what Bin’s analysis shows.
Or said another way, over multiple decades night time cooling will decrease due to GHE, raising overall recorded temperature averages.
to notice for each station the year in which it had its highest absolute temperature on record during its lifetime;
to build for each year the average of these stations maxima.
I found that difficult to get: let’s see if I understand.
You take the record-breaking high temp for each station. This is a once-only report for every station there is.
You are only ever averaging record-breaking temps for each year there is one for whatever stations record it. Only the one-off record-breakers are included in the assessment.
bilybob’s idea was to show that there are actually no more stations recording their lifetimes highest maximum than earlier.
I did get that from the earlier discussion. Your caution was a good one, I thought.
If it was run as anomalies rather than absolute temps, and the result was significantly different, then we’d know that there was a skew to the result based on spatial changes in station location over the record.
Thanks Bindindon,
I believe this generally supports my view. Average and minima temps are up, with maxima temps either flat or maybe even down slightly.
As far as conclusions. CO2 impacts/interacts with both incoming solar radiation and outgoing terrestrial radiation. A small percentage of energy from the sun during the day interacts with CO2 entering the system. A higher percentage of terrestrial radiation interacts with CO2 leaving the system. The result is max day temps are still the same but night time lows are may not cool as much as they would have. Thus the average temps go up. Max day temp is a wash because even though the percent of Solar is lower than Terrestrial, Solar is a higher energy source.
No new energy from the sun is created, however, more is being used thermally/for heat/temperature. And I will defer to the physics persons on this blog for the appropriate term. Essentially, it is warmer on average, but not necessarily at the extremes. Thus we still have country by country record max temperatures that are over 80 years old. This does not imply that they will not eventually be replaced. We still have the Milankovitch Cycle.
I am also still trying to conceptually understand Gbaikie comments on the Ocean temps and how they impact the process and Salvatore theory on solar cycles and their impact. A unifying theory would be nice, but then we would not have these colorful debates.
Ultimately I am trying to conceptualize energy in and out, not just IR. I am not a climate scientist, just interested in the process. Please feel free to criticize the above, I have a fairly thick skin, and more interested in learning.
Thanks Again
There are 2 possible confounding elements to the test Bindidon kindly performed.
1) If there is a preponderance of stations clustered in a small area, this will not give a properly weighted global assessment. It would instead weight the analysis toward a particular region.
2) Station location is not uniform over the whole period. It could be that an increasing number of stations from cold (or hot) locations have been added to the later part of the record. This would skew the results using absolute temps down (up).
An immediate check on 2 would be to do the same test with anomalies only, to see if there is a significant difference.
I agree with using the anomalies being better with one caveat. Anomalies are good for determining trends for specific stations, or regions or even the globe as a whole. But for maximum temperature there may be no shift at all for the stations in the hottest regions or even lower (as exhibited in CONUS). IOW, the max temp for the hottest of areas on the planet may still exhibit a reduce average max temperature even if the cooler sites increase in their average max temperature and the overall effect is positive. I believe this is still consistent with the GHE.
For CONUS, the trend of Tmax since 1895 is +0.13 C/decade.
Not sure I understand your caveat. Anomalies still record the highest maximum temp at the same time and place. They can be applied to your inquiry in the same way absolute temps were and lose no essential information. All that gets mixed out is any bias from geospatial changes as stations drop in (and out) over the record.
I’m not suggesting replacing absolute temps with anomalies for the purposes of your interest. Just as a check on results.
I think it’s as likely as not that there will not be a significant difference to the result using anomalies. I’m also curious because I have a hunch the particular metric you are interested in is likely to reveal any spatial bias if the anomalies were run in comparison to absolute temps.
The caveat is related to the new max record discussion we (Bindindon/myself) have been having for some time. You can have the average tmax anomaly being higher than a baseline (1950 – 1980, or whatever your baseline you desire). But tmax itself does not necessarily have to be a new record to achieve this. i.e. 35, 40 and 45 average to 40 and 41,42, 43 average to 42, but the record still remains 45. And yes there is a spatial bias to this. Records going to 1900 are limited and mostly are for CONUS. However, where records do exist to early 1900’s I have been finding the Tmax record for that station are for the most part still intact. There are examples for all continents. So it is not limited to CONUS, it just CONUS distorts the analysis.
Bin described the process, and I may have misunderstood. He said he averaged all the yearly max record-setters. I thought that was a feature of the inquiry rather than a bug.
The two plots show a statistics proposed by commenter bilybob:
to notice for each station the year in which it had its highest absolute temperature on record during its lifetime;
to build for each year the average of these stations’ maxima.
I think I’m probably misunderstanding, but that just makes me want to get it.
You can have the average tmax anomaly being higher than a baseline (1950 1980, or whatever your baseline you desire). But tmax itself does not necessarily have to be a new record to achieve this
But we’re only talking about maximum record-setting values, right? Not any other data. You can do this with anomalies just as well as absolute temps, station by station, and then averaged out as Bin said.
Geospatial bias I get, and thanks for commenting on that. I’d like to understand why we lose information using anomalies.
bilybob says:
The result is max day temps are still the same but night time lows are may not cool as much as they would have.
Do you have data showing that?
Because Tmax is certainly increasing in the USA48.
binny…”This I can pretty good confirm upon processing of over 35,000 GHCN daily stations from 1895 till 2017:”
*********
You need a serious reality check.
“This image shows 3,832 records longer than 50 years, 1,656 records longer than 100 years, and 226 records longer than 150 years”.
But you have more than 35,000 stations. Are you on something?
NOAA admitted to slashing the 6000 GHCN stations it uses to less than 1500.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png
“The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) is one of the primary reference compilations of temperature data used for climatology, and is the foundation of the GISTEMP Temperature Record. This map shows the 7,280 fixed temperature stations in the GHCN catalog color coded by the length of the available record. Sites that are actively updated in the database (2,277) are marked as “active” and shown in large symbols, other sites are marked as “historical” and shown in small symbols. In some cases, the “historical” sites are still collecting data but due to reporting and data processing delays (of more than a decade in some cases) they do not contribute to current temperature estimates”.
Gordon Robertson says:
NOAA admitted to slashing the 6000 GHCN stations it uses to less than 1500.
How many are needed?
After all, they cost money to build, install, read and maintain.
Bindidon
“The two plots show a statistics proposed by commenter bilybob:
to notice for each station the year in which it had its highest absolute temperature on record during its lifetime;
to build for each year the average of these stations maxima.”
That doesn’t make sense to me. Let’s say in the year 1962, 10 stations recorded their lifetime maxima, and the average of those maxima is 0.30 C.
What If in the next year, 1963, 15 stations recorded their lifetime maxima, and again the average of those records is 0.30 C.?
More maxima records were set in 1963 than in 1962, but that fact would not show up using your methodology.
Am I missing something?
Snape, I think you nailed it. The number of new maxima records do not provide the complete answer. The ratio of new maxima to new minimum without knowing the magnitude has little meaning.
Example,
10 sites are put into operation year 1, and each set a record max and record min for the year.
100 sites are put into operation year 2, and they set a record max and record min, original sites set record min only.
In year 3, 100 sites record new max temp record no record cool and 10 sites record new min record and no max. A 10 to 1 ratio.
Is year 3 warmer or cooler than year 1?
A good point, Snape.
Snape
I wouldn’t say you are missing something: I would say you did not understand the idea.
The idea was to show that bilybob was right as he thought that when considering the period 1895-2017 over the whole world, averaging the lifetime’s maximal temperatures recorded by an accurate number of stations in each year woud show no increase during the last 50 years in comparison with the period before.
While bilybob used a rather restricted station set, I reproduced his test with all GHCN daily stations available (in the sum over 35000).
Additionally, I added a plot showing the same processing for the stations’ lowest minima they recorded during their lifetime.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1533566497843.jpg
It does not interest at all here how many stations contributed in a year to the average maximum or minimum.
I constructed a chart showing similar maxima / minima averaging plots, but only for the GHCN daily stations having been active during the period 1895-2017 (there are 1058). I have no direct access to it from my LINUX corner and will add it later.
binny…”While bilybob used a rather restricted station set, I reproduced his test with all GHCN daily stations available (in the sum over 35000)”.
Binny, you are being an idiot again. The 35,000 stations you mention do not exist and never have. They are derived from dividing the planet’s surface into 5 degree x 5 degree squares and populating the spaces largely with pseudo-data.
Some squares have valid average data but most of the squares are derived from using the real data and interpolating it over adjacent squares that have no real data. In mid-ocean, and much of the Arctic and Antarctic, where they have no data, they simply make it up.
Barry is as much an idiot. He thinks the 35,000 squares exist in reality. He used that reasoning to counter a link I posted in which NOAA admitted to slashing 4500 stations from 6000 globally. Even with 6000 stations globally, that’s a far cry from your 35,000.
Robertson, Rose is right.
You are a dumb, ignorant and incompetent boaster, who never has been courageous enough to face reality.
What you are talking about is GHCN V3 monthly.
What I am talking about is GHCN daily.
I know: it is useless to show you these links but I do:
1. List of the GHCN daily stations (about 100,000, roughly 36,000 of them dedicated to measurements of minima, maxima and day average temperature)
https://tinyurl.com/ydbymtp6
2. List of all GHCN daily stations showing
– what they measure (temperature, precipitation, snow, ice, etc)
– their lifetime:
https://tinyurl.com/yae4aydn
You can deny reality, Robertson. But you can’t put it away:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1533710146802.jpg
And you can name anybody an idiot, Robertson. That can’t remove how dumb you are. Dumb enough to think anybody would use the GHCN network to measure ocean temperature.
Robertson, vous êtes vraiment bête à manger du foin.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
DREMT,
Stop enabling trolls.
OK, you have a point. Here we go then:
Nate, please stop trolling.
binny…”List of the GHCN daily stations (about 100,000, roughly 36,000 of them dedicated to measurements of minima, maxima and day average temperature)”
*********
This is part of the obfuscation you use as an alarmist idiot.
Here’s what NOAA had to say about the number of stations they actually use:
http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
“Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe — from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time”.
**********
If they have over 100,000 stations as you claim, which are they using less than 1500 stations? Then ask the obvious question, how can NOAA cover the planet with less than 1500 stations? They can’t, nor do they care, they have turned to guesstimates using climate models which spew out temperatures biased toward warming.
Answer the question and stop leading bilybob astray with your imagined bs. You actually have the nerve to use this pseudo-data to challenge the UAH data, which is based on legitimate data.
Here’s direct proof of the chicanery happening at GHCN/NOAA.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
“GIStemp and ANY THING ELSE USING GHCN DATA produce no useful results after 2006. The temperature series are too broken by thermometer deletions”.
The surface data has become a serious joke.
Gordon Robertson says:
If they have over 100,000 stations as you claim, which are they using less than 1500 stations?
How many are required to get a good-enough measure of temperatures?
More than this doesn’t contribute anything.
One more time, Robertson: you are too dumb to understand simplest evidence.
I repeat nevertheless:
What you are talking about is GHCN V3 monthly.
What I am talking about is GHCN daily.
It is simply impossible to be more stubborn than you are.
Barry is as much an idiot. He thinks the 35,000 squares exist in reality. He used that reasoning to counter a link I posted in which NOAA admitted to slashing 4500 stations from 6000 globally.
This is so far removed from what I’ve said that it is on another planet.
Gordon has to be losing his marbles. There’s no other way to account for such an outrageous fabrication. I never mentioned 35,000 squares or stations or that number at all. Or anything remotely like what he’s just said. Is it dementia or something?
It is to bad Roy doesn’t provide the baseline temperature from which the anomaly is measured. I am guessing it is about -30C. Pretty dam cold. You see this average temperature is taken at about 25,000 feet in altitude.
If you live on the surface of the Earth, check the NOAA, GISSTEMP or Hadley records. Or if you are concerned about scientists manipulating temperature records, use the dataset developed by global warming skeptics (including Judith Curry) to avoid changing any temperature records, the Berkeley BEST dataset.
http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperatures-2017/
Ingersol says:
“It is to bad Roy doesn’t provide the baseline temperature from which the anomaly is measured. I am guessing it is about -30C. Pretty dam cold.”
Roy has those numbers, you can probably find them among the data, TLT around -9 C and look like this:
http://tinyurl.com/ya6n69d8
Yes, the BEST method is great.
Grid absolute values are pointed out on the linked page.
“It is to bad Roy doesn’t provide the baseline temperature from which the anomaly is measured. I am guessing it is about -30C. Pretty dam cold.”
Svante kindly gave you Roy Spencer’s absolute temperatures for the UAH 6.0 LT record.
Let me please add to Svante’s info that using the data stored in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
you can easily transform any UAH anomaly found in the files
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.1979_6.0
till
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.2018_6.0
into the corresponding absolute value.
The same applies of course to the other atmospheric levels inspected by UAH (mt, tp, ls).
I didn’t check it ever, but I think the lower stratosphere’s average temperature level measured by the UAH 6.0 revision is about 30-40 K lower than that of the lower troposphere.
ingersoll…”It is to bad Roy doesnt provide the baseline temperature from which the anomaly is measured. I am guessing it is about -30C. Pretty dam cold. You see this average temperature is taken at about 25,000 feet in altitude”.
Absolute nonsense. The AMSU units use several bands to measure oxygen emissions in the microwave band. The lower bands measure surface temperatures directly and the lowest band actually intercepts the surface.
It is stated right on the UAH graph that the baseline is the average temperature between 1980 and 2010. What’s the chance that temperature was -30C? If the anomalies were based on -30C, that means the global temperatures would be -30C +/- a few tenths of a degree C.
Here’s a graphic of how that would look with our current series plotted on a graph with a vertical axis using 2C divisions:
See Figure5:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090225192924/http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html
Of course, the series would not be at 0C, it would be up around 15C. The graphic portrays, however, the relative insignificance of current warming.
Alternative facts from Gordon.
Yes Svante, people a la Robertson live in an own virtual world in which only their egocentric narrative counts.
Robertson knows even more about UAH data than do both Roy Spencer and the data itself.
You’re underestimating Gordon. He knows more than ALL the data groups measuring temperatures.
And all the scientists in the IPCC, too.
Also: Einstein
S, B and DA, PST.
Gordon, let Dr Spencer clear up your misguidedness.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
Lower troposphere absolute temps (annual average) is about -9 C. Look at Dr Spencer’s graph.
UAH do not produce a surface temp record because they are unable to make one. The 12 km swathe of atmosphere weighted at 4km is the closest they get. -9 C is the average annual temp. There is a large seasonal cycle, which gets filtered out for the official product.
barry…”Lower troposphere absolute temps (annual average) is about -9 C. Look at Dr Spencers graph”.
UAH do not produce a surface temp record because they are unable to make one. The 12 km swathe of atmosphere weighted at 4km is the closest they get. -9 C is the average annual temp. There is a large seasonal cycle, which gets filtered out for the official product”.
*******
To begin with I am on record as having stated my objection to this nonsense about anomalies. I think temperatures should be stated in absolute temperatures.
The surface stations do no better. Hansen has already admitted that, claiming the placement of surface stations near the surface does not capture the real nuance of the atmosphere. Temperatures above them can be hotter and temperatures nearby can be different.
Now that NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut are synthesizing temperatures statitistically, I don’t see the point of continuing with surface data.
With the advent of electronic temperature measurement, which I take to be thermistors, the average is in question because some are taking instantaneous readings over a few seconds to indicate daily maxima. Thermometers with vials average those spikes to give a better average.
I don’t agree with your weighting at 4km. You make it sound as if a channel receiving data from the surface layer is receiving only data from 4km and that some kind of statistical smoke and mirrors is applied.
The channel on the AMSU unit that covers the surface portion will average the temperature in that region. In this case it is -8C or so.
That tells you nothing about the 4K to which you refer, it tells you the average temperature, INCLUDING the 15C at the surface.
Remember, the AMSU unit is designed to receive microwave emissions from oxygen somewhere around 60 Ghz. Each channel receives at a different frequency.
If UAH is measuring an average of -8c, it would be a simple matter of determining the related altitude and extrapolating to the surface at 6.5C/kilometer, if that was desired.
The advantage of the AMSU unit is it’s ability to scan a swath of oxygen molecules, which represent bazillions of data points. The surface channel receives microwave data from the surface up and averages it, just as a mercury thermometer averages molecular activity.
The thermometer is entirely local whereas the AMSU covers large areas. When it comes to averages, the AMSU is far more accurate and comprehensive than thermometers up to 12 km apart.
Gordon Robertson says:
The surface stations do no better.
As Carl Mears of RSS says, the surface measurements are more reliable.
That’s because the satellite models must now extrapolate over something 11 or 13 different satellites since 1979.
They have to try to figure out how today’s satellites compare to once 11/13 generations ago from 1979.
That obviously pumps in a great deal of uncertainty.
Carl Mears, Senior Research Scientist, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)
“A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets….”
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures
video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BnkI5vqr_0
Gordon Robertson says:
To begin with I am on record as having stated my objection to this nonsense about anomalies. I think temperatures should be stated in absolute temperatures.
It’s not possible, because satellites don’t measure temperatures.
Appell, you are as less knowledgeable as is Robertson.
Like Robertson, you are unable to understand that UAH very well records absolute temperatures, out of which their anomalies are computed like those for GHCN.
Have a look at this file, Appell
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
ant try to understand what is a climatology…
Ingersol says:
It is to bad Roy doesnt provide the baseline temperature from which the anomaly is measured.
Roy does provide the baseline, at the bottom of their data page:
It’s Jan 1981 – Dec 2010.
Calculating absolute temperatures is not possible.
Amazingly, you can’t even link to UAH’s own data pages here.
And even more amazingly, despite having been told at least so many times as Robertson about how to easily circumvent the problem, you both still couldn’t manage to handle such a simple matter.
You are the two sides of one and the same odd medal.
I think a science blog should as least allow links to its own data, without having to take several other steps each time to fake out the Web site just to post a comment.
Ingersol,
Unfortunately NOAA, GISSTEMP, Had_CRUT and BEST are not usable in climatology because these constructions are all based on the conservation of short-term trends of unreliable data. Long-term climate trends are actually much smaller.
Satellite data do not have this defect but it is necessary, to approach surface trends, to correct the values to take into account the variation of the absolute humidity with temperature (factor of approximately 0.6 in global).
What? NO.AA, GISS and Had.CRUT have data going much further back than the satellite groups, and so allow the calculation of longer trends.
Satellites do not model surface temperatures.
David Appell,
It is longer but unusable and, from a metrological point of view, it is simply catastrophic.
Otherwise, nothing prevents the use of TLT as a proxy of TS.
Unusable?? Why?
Because the methodology used returns to calculate anomalies by integration of the averages derivative of the homogeneous segments. It is from the point of view of metrology unusable to infer long-term trends.
What???
You’re spouting gobbleygook.
Your sentences aren’t even proper English. They’re not coherent.
Could you please show some valuable paper sustaining your claim?
Or is it some kind of personal communication of a private theory?
You can meditate on Figure 1 of Hansen et al. 2001.
Papers, phi. Papers.
Bindidon,
I gave you a paper and I do not trade it. Try to think for yourself or specify your request.
I am not interested in meditating on figures, but in reading papaers showing clearly that what you pretend:
“Because the methodology used returns to calculate anomalies by integration of the averages derivative of the homogeneous segments. It is from the point of view of metrology unusable to infer long-term trends.”
is not bound to your private thoughts, but is a scientifically verifiable matter.
Bindidon,
You are right, it is a scientifically verifiable matter.
Do you know what is a scientific approach?
Test
Testing
ES,
I was actually responding to Snape, but no matter.
I should have said frozen water, I suppose. On the other hand, ice will suffice.
Are you disagreeing with anything else I said, or just having a whinge on principle? Have you managed to describe the GHE satisfactorily yet?
You cannot raise the temperature of a thermometer with radiation from colder CO2!
No GHE. bad luck.
Cheers.
Bilybob
“Is year 3 warmer or cooler than year 1?”
That’s sort of a trick question, in that you can’t tell if one year is warmer than another based on minima/maxima records set.
I understand your original point, though.
If the 1930’s was an especially warm decade, then stations going back that far will be less likely to set new maxima records than stations introduced more recently.
Agreed, I do not really call it a trick question though, more of it can’t really be answered without additional information.
Or more to your point, newer stations would be more likely to set maxima records than the older ones.
I thought the point of interest was whether the temperature value of record-setters had changed through the decades, rather than the actual number of stations setting records.
I understand how changing station counts can affect the overall results, but if the station locations were purely random over time over the whole globe, then one would expect to see higher maxima over time in a generally warming world.
If the mean temp of newer stations is different to the rest, then that would indicate a geospatial bias to the result.
Note also that there is a fairly significant ‘dropout’ of stations from 2012. You lose about 1000 stations from peak by 2016, a record-breaking year. it wouldn’t make a huge difference to the long-term trend, though, I’d imagine.
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1533571510117.jpg
In the mid 1990s the Australian Bureau of Meteorology switched from mercury max-min thermometers in stevenson screen boxes to electronic temperature recorders.
Before around 1910 there was no standardised mercury thermometer housing so the BoM surface temperature series starts in 1910, consequently newspaper reports from the later 1800s recording extreme heatwaves are not acknowledged in that series.
The electronic thermometers record instantaneous spikes in temperature that were not picked up by the mercury type, spikes that are more likely to be warm than cold at recording locations in cities and airports.
If a change in the instrumental set-up is reason to exclude the pre-1910 record then the post-mid ’90s surface record should also form a separate series.
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/bom-scandal-one-second-records-in-australia-how-noise-creates-history-and-a-warming-trend/
Chris…”If a change in the instrumental set-up is reason to exclude the pre-1910 record then the post-mid 90s surface record should also form a separate series”.
The point is, these pseudo-scientists who run the BOM, and NOAA, and GISS, should be prosecuted for negligence. They are misleading the public then deleting genuine data so it cannot be verified or compared.
Why in this day and age, with the scads of memory we have available, would anyone delete data? Only one reason, they are cheaters trying to promote a political ideal while negating a different point of view.
NOAA and GISS are known to lower confidence levels, at least in half, to promote relatively cool years as records. Both are known to have slashed real data and manufactured data in a climate model based on interpolation and homogenization of the real data,
This is Big Brother incarnate.
Gordon has no proof of anything he claims here. He can’t follow and understand the mathematics of temperature adjustments, and so in an attempt to save face he just denies all of it wholesale and says it’s all just fraud.
David, please stop trolling.
Hi Barry
I thought Bin and bilybob were trying to see if the claim, “more Tmax records are being broken than Tmin’s”
is accurate. Bilybob pointed out that a lot of the CONUS stations were introduced after the dust bowl years, which in theory would make Tmax records easier to break.
(Bilybob, please correct me if I’m confused about this)
I believe you understand what we have been discussing. There are more Tmax records because there were more post 1950 sites (a cooler period in Earth History). I do not believe there is any disagreement on this. Pre 1950 Tmax records that exist are still for the most part intact. There are a percentage that have changed post 1950.
bilybob says:
There are more Tmax records because there were more post 1950 sites (a cooler period in Earth History).
Research groups take this into account by first averaging over some grid cell, and only then averaging over all grids.
The results are independent of the number of stations (assuming they’re >> 1).
Thanks, Snape. I was a bit confused by Bin’s graph then, having not scrutinised the earlier conversation. Your point just upthread is even better in retrospect.
AGW – all it has done is hi jack natural variability and this will be brought out over the next few years.
Oh no you don’t!
You stated categorically that it would be this year.
No more shifting the goal posts loser!
A thousand years from now people are going to worry about global warming/cooling or weather in general.
Salvatore has allowed his exuberance to back him into a corner. I, however, never set a deadline for the inevitable decline. It will come when it comes, and Salvatore will have his day.
Meanwhile, you have categorically averred that hot weather events prove AGW, so I plan to have a field day in NH winter pointing out new cold records to disprove it.
You seem frustrated Myki, and you should because your theory is going up in smoke.
I will decide when I am correct or wrong.
What you think I could care less.
I think you mean “couldn’t care less”.
Interesting.
Usually the last stage of denialism is “I may have been wrong but it makes no difference anyway”.
However, to state that:
“I will decide when I am correct or wrong.”
is like a child who is losing a game of chess and decides to knock all the pieces over.
How infantile!
Salvatore Del Prete says:
I will decide when I am correct or wrong.
We have our own say, Salvatore, and are pointing out that you’ve been wrong for almost a decade.
Yet you learn nothing from your failures. I think you, like GR, are emotionally opposed to AGW for some reason, with nothing to do with science.
David, please stop trolling.
bilybob,
I don’t know if this info will be of any use to you. I know that it is sourced from numerous data repositories.
Max/min record-breakers
http://www.mherrera.org/records.htm (2002-2010)
http://www.mherrera.org/records1.htm (2011-present)
Summary of those records (to 2016) and other tidbits
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2017-0-41-deg-c/#comment-262127
The sourcing for the mherrera website is described at the bottom of the home page.
http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm
Many of those records are minimums. Given that we are at a plateau in global temperature anomaly (for reliable records going back a mere century), maximums are naturally far more likely. So, the predominance of maxima is not very remarkable. It’s more or less tautology.
“Many of those records are minimums.”
—
As usual, commenter Bart excels far more in superficial phrasing and wording than in observation, computation, comparison.
For e.g. CONUS, while there are, in the GHCN daily data period ranging from January 1890 till April 2018, 9,399 daily record showing temperatures below -40 C, we see 885,959 record above +40 C.
Maybe today is the right moment to scan this dataset to obtain some similar info over the whole Globe.
And, Bindidon misses the point entirely.
It warmed modestly over the last century, guys. Everyone knows that. Hardly anybody disagrees with that. The bone of contention is the source of the warming.
Finding new ways to say, “hey, it warmed in the last century” adds precisely nothing to the conversation.
An enhanced greenhouse effect is the only hypothesis that explains modern warming.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
There are causes in nature, and effects.
What we’re seeing is the effect of more GHGs, and that has be proven.
I would like to point out that argumentum ad ignorantiam is not an accusation of ignorance, per se. It is an informal logical fallacy for which an argument for a conclusion based upon a lack of evidence. But, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yes, Bart, you’ve correctly identified what the data are displaying.
Its more or less tautology.
Indeed, and yet some people are unable to work out what you have reckoned so effortlessly.
I see that I’ve offered this list to bilybob before. How forgetful of me.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/04/stormy-april-to-give-snow-job-to-midwest/#comment-297883
In case you were wondering:
Linked from:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
“The Expanding Earth Lives On
The Expanding Earth theory lingers today in the conspiratorial fringes of the internet. But decades of satellite observation of the planet has turned up no credible evidence that the globe is getting larger—and there is considerable evidence that it is not.
Scientists now have a cadre of high-precision tools used to measure the position of the continents and the size of the Earth: satellite laser ranging, very-long baseline interferometry, GPS, Doppler satellite measurement. The measurements have been calculated and revised regularly since the late 1980s, providing the most definitive proof yet that the planet is staying roughly the same size.”
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a22594681/weve-been-wrong-before-expanding-earth-theory/
Can’t say I heard of this before. I wonder if related to idea Earth is hollow [have heard of that].
Now, it is accepted that some amount of water of our ocean has come from the interior of planet.
And water is compressible if talking about a lot of pressure, now one might think of this a shrinkage of Earth, but I think also possible to think of it as expansion of earth {though ocean mass is tiny compared to mass of earth- and I am thinking of a small amount of expansion- cause I wonder a lot]. But not sure how much water can be compressed and there are all kinds of states of water [as ice] which not sure they have even yet finished determining all of them.
Pseudoscience.
Maybe- but that Pseudoscience unlike most notable Pseudoscience, is not doing much damage.
But, keep on looking.
Bart
“Salvatore has allowed his exuberance to back him into a corner. I, however, never set a deadline for the inevitable decline.”
Are you thinking of Milankovitch cycles? If so, you are wise not to be as exuberant as Sal:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle
“I, however, never set a deadline for the inevitable decline.”
This is the smart way to go. Committing to something would leave one open. Should temperatures rise by a degree in 30 years, Bart could still say, “See, I wasn’t wrong!”
And, should temperature go nowhere for 20-odd years, you can still say “I wasn’t wrong!” Oh, wait… you did!
Remind me of what I predicted, would you? I wasn’t in this game more than 12 years ago.
20-odd years….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/plot/wti/from:1998/trend
I kept both big el Ninos to be fair.
But I could ditch them both just as easily.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/to:2016/plot/wti/from:1999/to:2016/trend
Hmm, maybe I’m not cherry-picking hard enough….
But how about we elevate this pissing contest into a full-blown bet, Bart?
I will commit to a prediction. Will you? We don’t even have to bet for money if that troubles you. We could make the stakes our opinions on the topic in general.
Sort of almost like honest skeptics might do as a matter of course.
Want to make a reasonable prediction re cooling or flatlining you’d be comfortable with?
These trend lines are meaningless.
No, I won’t bet. This is a chaotic system. Either one of us could lose the bet based on some arbitrary criterion, but it would not establish that either one of us was right and the other wrong.
Those trend lines are not “meaningless.” They represent increases in temperature that can be explained by the enhanced GHE hypothesis. No other hypothesis does that.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
No, it’s simply an interpretation of trends, which accord with the science of enhanced GHE warming.
What’s your evidence it’s all due to chaos? What’s your calculation for eGHE warming over the last 20 years?
If it’s just chaos, where is the heat coming from that’s warming the ocean, lower troposphere, and melting ice?
A) increasing mean solar input
http://oi68.tinypic.com/2z850s4.jpg
B) long term modal response of the Earth’s energy storage and release mechanisms, very likely in my view coupled with solar and lunar tides
The Earth is really immense. The time constants associated with its responses can be exceedingly long.
These trend lines are meaningless.
No, I wont bet. This is a chaotic system. Either one of us could lose the bet based on some arbitrary criterion, but it would not establish that either one of us was right and the other wrong.
Do you hold a view that has any predictive capability?
Either say clearly that you have no idea what the future holds, or quit telling us that things are heading for a few decades of cooling on some 60-year cycle.
Either way, stop the BS.
I predict that, in the future, the rate of change of CO2 will continue to track the temperature anomaly, as it has for 60 years now.
I predict that, if temperature anomaly remains moderate or declines, the ongoing divergence between accumulated emissions and concentration will become too great for anyone to deny.
I predict that, eventually, temperatures will fall despite a continuing rise in CO2 concentration, and this entire fiasco will become an object lesson in scientific hubris, and will result in greatly needed reforms to ensure compliance to the scientific method.
I deem it likely that temperature anomaly will revert to its historic pattern within the decade.
You want to know, but we can’t know. Placing your faith in those who claim to know the unknowable is how religious cults are formed. Some people cannot deal with the uncertainty of the unknown, and gravitate to charlatans who project an air of confidence. This, I predict, will continue for as long as semi-rational humanoids exist.
Thanks, we have some progress.
I predict that, eventually, temperatures will fall despite a continuing rise in CO2 concentration…
I deem it likely that temperature anomaly will revert to its historic pattern within the decade.
Could you sum this into some kind of prediction that we can actually test over time? What is this ‘historic pattern’?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:120/plot/gistemp/mean:12
A decade is not so long. I’ll be around, barring accident, to see it through.
Mainly I’m asking – is there any outcome possible – in line with what is projected in the medium term – that would reasonably convince you that your view is incorrect?
“Mainly Im asking is there any outcome possible in line with what is projected in the medium term that would reasonably convince you that your view is incorrect?”
No, because past data have already confirmed disabling inconsistencies in the AGW narrative.
This is like asking, if the Sun went dark tomorrow, would that convince you that you are wrong about it being bright? No, it would not. It is bright today, it has been bright all the days of my life, and according to historical data, it has always been bright. If it goes dark tomorrow, it would convince me to search for a cause, but it would not convince me it has always been dark.
I do not care about being backed into a corner.
If global warming stops and global temperatures become colder from here out , I will be correct, AGW theory will be wrong.
If any one is backed into a corner it is AGW theory which fails with each passing month.
Sure.
If pigs had wings they could fly.
When you have departures north of plus +.50 c month after month then maybe you could start bragging but right ow you have nothing global temperature wise.
What are you talking about? Temperatures are still running very hot. From all the months from January 2000 to December 2014 30% were above 0.2C. Since January 2015 86% of all months were above 0.2C. The 2016 El Nino is well over, but temperatures are still way higher than most of the previous years.
Not so long ago you said that if temperature anomalies would not drop to zero this summer, it would look problematic for your theory. It seems that you backed away from that idea.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
When you have departures north of plus +.50 c month after month then maybe you could start bragging but right ow you have nothing global temperature wise.
Hilariously stupid.
David, please stop trolling.
AGW theory enthusiast will never give up their theory no matter what temperature outcomes are from here -over next few years.
“Science advances one failed theory at a time”, to purposely misquote Max.
Except,
the temperature outcomes keep favouring us “AGW theory enthusiasts” and poor SDP clings to his failed theories year in, year out.
The global SSTs you favour are still rising, despite the fact you said they should be falling right now.
Yes, almost back to the 0.2C mark.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Telling that you haven’t broken out your trending tools on that one.
Nothing goes in a straight line
Salvatore Del Prete says:
Nothing goes in a straight line
And yet you’re predicting future climate based on a SST trend for just three months.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
swannie….I have moved this reply down here because the other thread was becoming unwieldy. Also, this is a point you need to get, both you and norman have trouble seeing it.
Swannie…”The surface temperature is just the result of the balance of flows and the atmosphere acts much like insulation within the walls and ceiling of a house. For a house, the air temperature within the boundary for a fixed rate of energy inflow will be increased if the thickness of insulation is increased”.
I have no issue with the model that the atmosphere can be regarded as an insulator, or buffer, between the surface and space. However, it is the ENTIRE atmosphere that is the buffer, not just the 0.04% made up of CO2. It is the nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere that acts as the buffer. N2/O2 set the temperature, not CO2 or WV.
According to your theory, 0.04% of the atmosphere is controlling surface dissipation. It makes no sense to ignore thw 99% made up of N2/O2.
Both you and Norman have this thing about mistaking heat dissipation for heat transfer. Both of you think that when the temperature gradient around a heated object is reduced, that it warms because its cooler environment is transferring heat to it.
That’s not the case. The heated object has a natural temperature based on its heat input. That temperature can be lowered with efficient heat dissipation, and with that in place, if you interfere with the dissipation the body simply returns to it’s natural temperature. It is not being warmed by external influences, it is always warmed by its heat source.
In your house example above, if you had a furnace with a thermostat set to keep the room at 20C, and you had no insulation and all the windows and doors open when the outside temperature was less than 20C, the heat in the room would likely never reach 20C. Any heated air from the furnace would immediately shoot out the windows, out the doors, and through the walls.
You might reach a point where the furnace must remain on all the time because it cannot heat the room to 20C. That would depend on how cold it was outside. In that case, suppose the furnace cannot warm the room higher than 18C.
Now you close the doors and windows and the temperature rises to 21C causing the thermostat to turn off the furnace. With leaky walls and ceiling and just drywall and wood between the room air and the outside air, at say 10C, the room is going to cool fast. That’s because the temperature gradient between the room air and the outside air is governed by the thermal conductivity of the drywall and the wood only.
If you introduce R-rated insulation between the drywall and the outside wall, and do the same for the ceiling, you slow down the rate at which heat can be CONDUCTED through the walls. Heat likely escapes through the doors and windows at the same rate.
By introducing insulation, you are not warming the room, you are preventing it from dissipating heat as quickly. The only thing that can raise the room temperature is the furnace.
It’s the same with the Sun. Only solar energy can raise surface temperature. You actually have it wrong. According to Lindzen, the surface is cooled by convection as heated air rises and the cooler heat takes its place. Lindzen claims the surface could be heated to 72C without convection.
R. W. Wood, an expert on IR, could not see how CO2 could warm the atmosphere at such a low density. He felt the warming was due to gases like N2 and O2 absorbing heat directly from the surface and retaining it due to their poor emissivity at terrestrial temperatures.
That theory of Wood’s far better explains the GHE than the pseudo-science related to CO2.
Gordo, The case I described with house insulation involved a constant input of energy, like a gas heater running constantly, i.s., no thermostat. Yes, the insulation would slow the flow of thermal energy thru the walls and the inside temperature would reach some steady state value for a constant outside temperature. Of course, the house should ideally be air tight. Increasing the thickness of the insulation with the same energy input would result in an increase in the temperature inside the house. Your comment that the heating device drives this situation is true, indeed that is the very definition of “some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time” which Clausius mentions.
Without doubt, the same applies to the Sun’s energy supply to the Earth’s surface, which drives the climate system, resulting in the temperature of the lower atmosphere. As you note referring to Lindzen, convection dominates the outbound energy flow in the troposphere, operating in parallel with the radiative transfer. But, above the tropopause in the stratosphere, there’s no convection because the temperature increases with altitude and there’s almost no water vapor to affect density either. In the final step, all the thermal energy from the Sun must eventually exit the top of the atmosphere as thermal radiation, without which the surface temperature would boil the oceans dry, like Venus.
I guess I have to first issue a disclaimer that I do not agree with Gordon that CO2 has no heating potential.
However, convective cooling occurs when heat is taken by atmospheric molecules from the surface, and they are lofted to altitude where they can thermalize IR emitting gases, which can then radiate the energy away. Increasing concentration of greenhouse gases can impede radiant energy from egress, but it can also facilitate egress of convected energy.
Bart, Yes, it’s long been projected that convective activity would increase as AGW progresses. That’s the basis for claims that tropical storms would intensify and that tropic to pole circulation (aka: Atmospheric Rivers) would increase. While increases in vertical convection would increase the energy transferred thru the troposphere, that energy must still be thermalized and then emitted by the greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. There is also the “atmospheric window” thru which radiant energy may pass from the surface to deep space under clear sky conditions, but that doesn’t work when there are clouds which can absorb the photons.
IOW, it is very complicated, and equilibrium is reached when all these processes balance out. The question is, what is the relative contribution of each to the balance? Because both the radiant heating potential and convective cooling potential increase with CO2 concentration.
I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that question, but what I see indicates to me they are very probably roughly on a par in the present climate state, and so that state is just not very sensitive to increasing concentration.
Bart says: <i."Because both the radiant heating potential and convective cooling potential increase with CO2 concentration."
CO2 has a radiative “cooling potential” that far exceeds its radiative “heating potential”.
Bart says:
I dont think anybody knows the answer to that question, but what I see indicates to me they are very probably roughly on a par in the present climate state
Based on what? What do you see?
A) no warming in the 2000’s despite substantial increases in CO2
B) no acceleration in CO2 concentration, despite substantial acceleration in emissions
Bart says:
A) no warming in the 2000s despite substantial increases in CO2
Says who?
What says there should have been? What’s the 10-yr trend? What’s its statistical uncertainty? What’s the trend after accounting for natural factors?
B) no acceleration in CO2 concentration, despite substantial acceleration in emissions
You have always argued here that atmospheric CO2 was increasing linearly, not exponentially.
Are you now claiming it’s rising faster than linearly?
“Are you now claiming its rising faster than linearly?”
A rise without acceleration is a linear rise. Accumulated emissions have been increasing super-linearly. Concentration hasn’t. That is the disconnect I am pointing out.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/11gniqg.jpg
I didn’t properly understand your reply, sorry.
But, yes, atmospheric CO2 is increasing exponentially.
decadal
start year end year avg CO2 diff pct incr
1959 1968 318.99
1969 1978 328.40 9.4 2.9%
1979 1988 342.34 13.9 4.2%
1989 1998 357.62 15.3 4.5%
1999 2008 375.09 17.5 4.9%
2009 2018 395.97 20.9 5.6%
(Columns not aligned.Would post an image if I could.)
It isn’t. It hasn’t been at a steady rate since 1958, but it is now – see plot posted at previous comment – and emissions are not.
Nope. I just showed the decadal increases. They aren’t constant.
Nope. I gave you the plot.
Bart says:
August 8, 2018 at 3:43 PM
A) no warming in the 2000s despite substantial increases in CO2
B) no acceleration in CO2 concentration, despite substantial acceleration in emissions
____________________________________________
A) There IS warming
B) There IS acceleration in increasing CO2-concentration
Look at Mauna Loa-Data.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html
A) It’s just bobbling around. There is no systematic increase.
B) Yes, look at how linear it is in the portion since 2000. The rate of change in concentration flattened out, while the rate of emissions increased significantly. Look at the plot.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/11gniqg.jpg
rate of rise in CO2 has been linearly increasing.
https://tinyurl.com/y93xolnr
emissions rising fairly linearly since 1960. Emissions about 4 x higher today than in 1960.
Similarly rate of co2 conc rise 4 x higher today than 1960.
http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2014.html
https://tinyurl.com/y93xolnr
(Sigh)
The rate of rise in concentration has been steady for about 20 years, ever since global temperature anomaly plateaued, at a time when emissions steadily rose over 30%. I don’t know how many times I have to copy this link, but here it is again:
http://oi63.tinypic.com/11gniqg.jpg
Emissions are a rate, so many MT per year. The claim that CO2 rise is due to accumulated human emissions implies that the emissions should match the rate of change of concentration. For the past 20-odd years, they don’t.
Bart says:
August 10, 2018 at 11:06 AM
A) It’s just bobbling around. There is no systematic increase.
B) Yes, look at how linear it is in the portion since 2000. The rate of change in concentration flattened out, while the rate of emissions increased significantly. Look at the plot.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/11gniqg.jpg
____________________________________________
No, your trendline is not since 2000.
It starts 2002 and it ends 2015
Acceleration of growingrate from 2000 til 2018 is 0.04ppm/year/year.
Forget it. There is no change in sight.
Growing will go on for very long time, and acceleration of growing for a few decades.
Even when growing of CO2 will be over, in far future, warming will go on.
And when warming ends, in a much farther future, melting of glacier und sealevelrise will go on.
We have just started a steamroller with a very long stoping distance.
A trend is clearly not what these data are exhibiting. For 13 whole years, in a time when emissions went from 7000 MT/yr to 10,000 MT/yr, they didn’t increase at all. Had they responded in tandem, the rate should have gone contemporaneously from ~2 ppmv/yr to ~3 ppmv/yr. It didn’t.
And now, as the impacts of the 2016 monster El Nino dissipate, the growth rate is lower than it was in 2002!
That is in marked contrast to the rapid growth in emissions. There simply is no discernible direct link between the two. It’s almost all a temperature effect:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah/offset:0.6/scale:0.22
Bart says:
August 10, 2018 at 5:35 PM
A trend is clearly not what these data are exhibiting. For 13 whole years, in a time when emissions went from 7000 MT/yr to 10,000 MT/yr, they didn’t increase at all
___________________________________________________
So what is this red line in your graph from 11:06AM, if not a trend? How did you calculate it? Did you paint it freehand?
From 2002 to 2015 CO2-content of course increased strongly, and also growing rate itself increased. (0.025ppm/year/year)
And even if it wouldnt-so what?
There was never exactly the same accelerationrate for each year. Generelly in warm years growing-rate should be higher than in colder years.
The trend to acceleration stays unbroken.
I dont understand what you try to demonstrate.
“Did you paint it freehand?”
Yes. When will you younglings get it into your furry little heads? There is nothing magic about linear least squares regression. It’s just a line. It is a line that happens to minimize the mean square deviation, but that’s an arbitrary thing.
You could as easily minimize the 1-norm (sum of absolute deviations) or the infinity-norm (max absolute deviation), and choosing the 2-norm over those is just a matter of personal judgment and taste.
There is nothing here that you cannot see with your own eyes. And, there is no inherent advantage to applying an arbitrary mathematical manipulation to spit out a number to you, shorn of context. Indeed, there is a huge disadvantage, because you are throwing away information that your magnificent brain is capable of interpreting beyond the confines of an arbitrarily imposed linear model.
Look at the data. They are flat. Emissions are most emphatically not. That’s all you need to know.
Bart you are telling us that the acceleration of CO2 concentration is meaningful to look at. And its average over 15 years is telling us something. Lets look at that:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/derivative/mean:180
You something other than noise to write home about?
‘ there is no inherent advantage to applying an arbitrary mathematical manipulation to spit out a number to you, shorn of context. Indeed, there is a huge disadvantage, because you are throwing away information that your magnificent brain is capable of interpreting ‘
Physical sciences are QUANTITATIVE sciences for good reasons. We don’t just show each other pretty pictures, because everyone has a different eyechrometer.
So we use standard equations to derive numbers from pictures, with statistical error bars on those numbers. Numbers with error can be agreed upon, with different eyes.
Those numbers can test theory. Only if error is small enough, is it a convincing test.
In this case you want us to look at derivative of derivative of measured CO2 by year. This number has a very large error. Not giving a useful test of your theory.
“You something other than noise to write home about?”
I see that you are unaware that the taking of derivatives amplifies noise, and that long smoothing periods create long term correlations.
“Physical sciences are QUANTITATIVE sciences for good reasons.”
No. They are both qualitative and quantitative. Math is a tool, a servant, not a master. We don’t use screwdrivers to hammer nails. Knowing whether you are dealing with a screw or a nail requires informed inspection of the hardware.
“Numbers with error can be agreed upon, with different eyes.”
Agreement is not a valid metric for discernment of truth. All kinds of different eyes once agreed that gastric ulcers were caused by stress. It took a man who looked at the data, and saw the real pattern, to break the case.
Bart says:
August 10, 2018 at 8:59 PM
Did you paint it freehand?
Yes. When will you younglings get it into your furry little heads? There is nothing magic about linear least squares regression.
______________________________________________________
@Bart
What should I get into my head?
You complained about calculated trendlines as ‘misleading’,
now you paint freehand some line?
If it was a joke, I dont undertstand whats funny about it.
You mustnt explain me, linear least square trendline isnt ‘magic’.
I know its just math.
“You complained about calculated trendlines as misleading,
now you paint freehand some line?”
It is simply to emphasize that emissions have a very clearly defined and significant increase in the interval shown, while there is no proportional such increase in concentration.
Bart says:
August 11, 2018 at 11:56 AM
You complained about calculated trendlines as misleading,
now you paint freehand some line?
It is simply to emphasize that emissions have a very clearly defined and significant increase in the interval shown, while there is no proportional such increase in concentration.
____________________________________________________
@Bart
Call it non-proportional, if you like.
So what.
It doesnt make anything worse or better.
‘I see that you are unaware that the taking of derivatives amplifies noise’
I am aware. And i am pointing out that what we are looking at in your plot or mine is primarily noise, not signal. It should not be used as proving anything.
Bart, sorry, in science one does have to be quantitative and consider error, before drawing conclusions that will be convincing to others.
That is how it works.
Fritz –
“It doesnt make anything worse or better.”
But, it does establish that there is no simple relationship between human accumulated emissions and concentration. We could go looking for a more complex relationship, but there is no need, because we already have a simple relationship between temperature anomaly and the rate of change of concentration which has not been contradicted by events. Occam’s razor tells us that the temperature relationship is the driving force.
Nate –
“And i am pointing out that what we are looking at in your plot or mine is primarily noise, not signal.”
Well, you are wrong. Emissions increased over 30% in the time interval of interest. That is enough SNR that it should be detectable in the concentration rate of change if emissions are the driving force. It isn’t.
swannie…”Increasing the thickness of the insulation with the same energy input would result in an increase in the temperature inside the house. Your comment that the heating device drives this situation is true, indeed that is the very definition of some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time which Clausius mentions”.
1)the insulation is not making the house hotter, it is the furnace. If there was no dissipation the house would max out at a temperature determined by the furnace.
When you allow dissipation, the house is ridding itself of heat at the same time the furnace is inputting it. Insulation just slows the dissipation, therefore the temperatures rises to where it would be without a means of dissipation. If you use more of it, the house warms because it cannot get rid of the heat as fast.
The atmosphere cannot operate that way. There is nothing to prevent conduction and convection.
2)’Some other change’ is not covered by what you claim. When heat is extracted from a colder object it must be immediately compensated with heat from a hotter object. That cannot be accomplished without external power and devices like compressors, refri.g.erants, condensers, vaporizers and evaporators.
It definitely cannot be accomplished in your first experiment where a heated plate is heating a plate 4″ away via convection and radiant energy. The plate located 4″ away cannot back-radiate energy to increase the temperature of the heated plate. That is a contravention of the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson says:
The atmosphere cannot operate that way. There is nothing to prevent conduction and convection.
Radiative transfer, idiot.
Gordon HAS to be a troll — no one could possibly be as stupid as him, time and time and time again.
He’s a prank. Maybe even for a sociological study.
Gordo, You are either a troll or an idiot. You wrote:
Dissipation? What’s that? The energy flows thru the walls from high temperature to a lower temperature “sink”. Of course, there’s a source of energy supplied and all that energy eventually ends up at the lowest temperature of the sink. The furnace doesn’t determine the temperature, the rate of flow thru the system does. With perfect insulation, no thermal energy would leave the structure and the furnace would melt, destroying the house as well. Is that what you mean by “no dissipation”?
You also wrote:
Sure there is. In the Stratosphere, there’s no longer any vertical convection, as the lapse rate is positive. That’s the result of the lack of water vapor and the radiative effects of the Green House gases in the air. Learn some meteorology.
As for the last cookie sheet demo, recall that the heated plate did not warm when the cookie sheet was replaced with an IR transparent thin plastic sheet. Thus, the logical conclusion is that the warming of the heated plate must have been the result of the IR EM back radiation from the cookie sheet, not convection as you claimed at the time. Besides, your appeal to the 2nd Law as your argument is specious as it only applies to mechanical systems.
ES, PST.
Gordon Robertson says:
I have no issue with the model that the atmosphere can be regarded as an insulator, or buffer, between the surface and space. However, it is the ENTIRE atmosphere that is the buffer, not just the 0.04% made up of CO2. It is the nitrogen and oxygen, making up 99% of the atmosphere that acts as the buffer. N2/O2 set the temperature, not CO2 or WV.
Exactly how to N2 and O2 act as an insulator?
Science please.
Please note, I am agreeing with you here, DA.
If N2/O2 increased surface temperature, surface radiation would increase. But, N2/O2 cannot stop that radiation from egress, so the planet would have a persistent net loss of energy, and a sustained loss of energy cannot support a higher surface temperature.
Agreed, man.
There is a loophole.
N2/O2 are not completely non-radiative. They will radiate, and some of the surface emissions will induce them to do so. About half will come back down. These emissions are high frequency, hence high energy, and they will raise surface temperatures a little.
This increases the amount of surface radiation, which increases the amount of energy in the excitation band of N2/O2. Thus, they will radiate more, and the surface temperature will rise a bit more.
So, we have a positive feedback loop, and as with all positive feedback, it doesn’t matter how small the impact is to begin with – it will grow exponentially until counter-influences check it, and a balance is reached.
When will that balance be reached? With a negligible temperature rise, or a substantial one? Respondents must show their work.
As I wrote elsewhere here, N2 and O2 do have a small greenhouse effect, because during collisions they briefly ab.sorb and radiate IR.
(The surface emits almost no high-frequency radiation.)
This effect has been calculated.
“The natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2)
and nitrogen (N2),” M. Hpfner et al
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L10706, doi:10.1029/2012GL051409, 2012
From the abstract:
“The effect of collision-induced ab.sorp.tion by molecular
oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) on the outgoing longwave
radiation (OLR) of the Earths atmosphere has been quantified.
We have found that on global average under clear-sky
conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 Wm/2 and
due to N2 by 0.17 Wm/2. Together this amounts to 15% of
the OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at present atmospheric
concentrations.”
It sounds a bit pedestrian. Yes, of course, they reduce the OLR. But, why by that particular amount? What is the condition under which the positive feedback loop becomes inoperative?
“The only thing that can raise the room temperature is the furnace.”
********
Looks to me, Gordon, like “reducing heat dissipation” can raise the room’s
temperature too:
“Now you close the doors and windows and the temperature rises….”
Snape, turn the furnace off and see how much you can raise the room’s temperature.
(Don’t stop, your humor is appreciated.)
Fritz moans:
“But pleaseplease no more timewasting digressions. It becomes boaring.”
Boaring? LMAO. Did you complete 5th grade?
What do wild pigs have to do with anything? Do you hunt wild pigs or something?
Huffypuff
Keep the windows and doors open and see if the furnace can raise the room’s temperature:
“You might reach a point where the furnace must remain on all the time because it cannot heat the room to 20C. That would depend on how cold it was outside. In that case, suppose the furnace cannot warm the room higher than 18C.”
******
You see, Mrs. Huff, it’s not one or the other, it’s both (rate of input/rate of output).
You and Gordon are birds of a feather. Remember this?
“Binary, black-or-white thinking doesnt allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.”
Fallacious, irrelevant, illogical, diversionary, and debilitating, but funny.
JDHuffman
You are right about something. I am amazed. You correctly have interpreted your own post. “Fallacious, irrelevant, illogical, diversionary, and debilitating, but funny.”
It has no valid point like most your posts. But as far as Snape’s post went. Very logical, easy to read. Excellent point about how you and Gordon can only see energy as the amount emitted or absorbed. You have not been able to understand both processes take place and can be very different rates.
Keep posting. It will be “Fallacious, irrelevant, illogical, diversionary, and debilitating, but funny.”
You are good at something. Physics is not something you can do. But you can make terrible posts, and do it quite often.
More typing practice, for the typist.
(Norman, I have a friend in the Omaha area that is looking for a job. He just wants a no-pressure job where he can play on the internet all day. Do you have a name he can contact at your company? He types really well.)
Roy, won’t you please ban Ger*an again? He’s now using the name “JDHuffman,” but his tactics and insults are just the same. He contributes nothing here.
Appells back…and his sights are set LOW
It’s very telling that the clowns are always calling for someone to be banned.
I’ve never seen anyone that understands physics calling for a ban.
The clowns must fear exposure as much as they fear reality.
Dont get me wrong, I would love for people to stop trolling. But I would never expect them to stop commenting, or want them banned. Thats just pathetic.
DA reminds me of a little kid–“Mommy, Johnny won’t give me back my toy!”
DA, grow up.
Then, learn some physics.
JDHuffman
You are right about something. I am amazed. You correctly have interpreted your own post. “Fallacious, irrelevant, illogical, diversionary, and debilitating, but funny.”
Norman, copying my words will definitely improve the quality of your comments. But, the “copy/paste” feature has pitfalls. If you don’t know how to use it, it just makes you look “stupid and ignorant”, as Mike Flynn might say.
Maybe they will teach you the correct methodology, when you get to a more advanced typing class.
Snape,
You and your ilk enjoy a good analogy.
What you are trying to say, by claiming the surface heated by the Sun is the same as a heater in a house, is just plain bizarre – not to say really, really, stupid and ignorant.
Reversing all your peculiar ideas about insulation, try to convince anyone that putting your house heater outside the house (just like the Sun is on the other side of the atmosphere) will make the interior hotter if you increase the insulation!
What a pack of deluded fools! No wonder you can’t even define the GHE!
That bearded balding bumbler, Mann, has just publicly proclaimed that climate change has altered the jet stream so it makes weather more extreme, and longer lasting! He said on the one hand, the hotter air holds more water, creating more floods, and makes the ground hotter at the same time, creating more droughts!
Only a delusional psychotic, or someone mentally deficient, could keep a straight face while babbling such nonsense. Climate is the average of weather by definition. It is a result – not a cause! Of course it changes – it is the average of the ever changing weather from which it is calculated.
Mann is obviously exceptionally confused from time to time – he couldn’t even figure out whether he was awarded a Nobel Prize or not! It doesn’t seem terribly difficult to realise that if the Nobel Committee hasn’t informed you that you have been awarded a Nobel Prize, you are probably not a Nobel Laureate!
Oh well, onwards and upwards! Keep that CAGW, AGW, global warming, climate change, extreme weather – or something, story going. Just keep claiming “Scientists say . . . ” or “It’s worse than we thought . . . “, or “Tipping point . . .”, or whatever creates maximum alarm and grant funding.
I enjoy the humour, but GHE suckers can’t even provide that cost effectively! Vast sums spent to present the same jokes over and over. No wonder people are losing interest.
Cheers.
MF wrote:
Herein is a clear display of MF’s confusion or, perhaps, unwillingness to accept reality. The Earth is our “house” in that we live within it’s “walls”, that is, within the atmosphere. The “heater” (i.e., the Sun) is outside the house, but provides the energy which warms things enough for us to survive. The Sun’s EM radiation passes thru our “wall”, then is absorbed, becoming thermal energy in the atmosphere and at the surface. In the analogy of a house with a heating system, the energy for the heater comes from outside the envelope as wood, oil, nat gas, propane or electricity. In both situations, the external energy flows thru the system out to the surrounding environment, resulting in some steady state temperature.
The results are similar in both situations.
MF is just a troll. Don’t let him mess with you — he long ago admitted there is a greenhouse effect. Ignore this mope.
“The atmosphere is an insulator. CO2 is around 90 to 750 times as opaque to some wavelengths of light as N2 or O2.”
– Mike Flynn, June 18, 2017 at 3:34 AM
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/06/a-global-warming-red-team-warning-do-not-strive-for-consensus-with-the-blue-team/#comment-251624
Mike Flynn says:
May 23, 2017 at 5:16 PM
“I hate to bore you the real science, but the transmittance of the atmosphere increases as the amount of GHGs in it drops.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247988
“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
But David, YOU are a troll. And you just wont stop trolling.
I’m making an argument. That’s not “trolling” — which,ironically, is what you are doing. No one pays the slightest bit of attention to you. Shove off.
Universally reviled, eternally disgraced climate charlatan David Appell, please stop trolling.
norman…”When he [Swannie] moved the Green plate in view of the Blue plate, both plate temperatures rose. The green plate rose and then emitted energy to the Blue plate increasing its temperature until a new steady state condition existed”.
The green plate warmed because the warmer blue plate was transferring heat to it. The blue plate warmed because the green plate was interfering with its heat dissipation via radiation.
The only source of heat for the BP was from external sources. It could not receive heat from the cooler green plate.
Your explanation contradicts the 2nd law and mine does not.
Gordon Robertson
Here is a link (I hope you read and learn the material).
Gordon, as far as I am concerned I will stick with established physics that is based upon years of experiment, logic, math and now it works quite well in real world applications.
https://tinyurl.com/y72nnud9
Look at the slide 3 of 55. Read it! Energy is exchanged between both hot and cold. The hot emits to the cold the hot absorbs energy from the cold. This is established physics. That you don’t want to accept it is not something I can help you with. You can stay ignorant as long as you like. You are making up your own science. I am using actual valid science. You are just wrong, wrong about so much.
Also look at slide 13 of 55. Look closely at equation (10.10)
No you are just wrong and don’t accept real science. You are almost in a sick state of having to make up physics to support you absolute fanatic belief that Carbon Dioxide cannot cause global warming or GHE.
No Norman, you’ve just found another link that you can’t understand.
Hint: Study slide 9, carefully.
JDHuffman
Again a stupid unsupported declaration (is that all you can do?) Notice, other posters add some supporting information like phi.
You and Mike Flynn both respond with stupid posts.
I already know the contents of slide 9. What is your point (if any except to annoy and troll)?
You have not addressed the primary point of the slides given in slide 3.
YOU make the stupid unsupported declaration: “No Norman, youve just found another link that you cant understand.”
So explain what you think I don’t understand? Otherwise it is in the same long list of very stupid and pointless declarations you make.
Norman, you have a history of rejecting reality. You refuse facts. When I spent time trying to convince you were wrong about CO2 emitting more to the surface than to space, all you could come up with was you had used the wrong wording.
No Norman, you were WRONG. You just can’t admit it.
That’s why I no longer waste any time with you. Until you show an ability to learn, all you, and your ilk, will get from me are hints.
Hint: Study slide 9. Notice the column headings.
Mike Flynn
Snape already addressed your very limited understanding of heat transfer. You can’t understand what people tell you. You don’t know enough physics at this time to grasp the points. Read through the slides and it will answer you question.
YOU: “You say the hot absorbs energy from the cold. It doesnt seem to be capable of raising the temperature of the hotter water one tiny bit nothing, nil, zero.”
An ignorant post since posters have explained it to you in clear fashion hundreds of times (if not more).
The hot water is emitting more radiant energy than it absorbs from the cold object.
All your cases deal with objects and water that does not have an external energy source. The energy from a cold object will NOT increase the temperature of unheated (no new external energy added) water. It will increase the temperature of heated water. This has been explained to you countless times and yet you make the same claim again and again. Why are you doing this? What is the motivation to state something that has clearly been addressed?
JD would benefit from studying these slides thoroughly.
Maybe he could learn some physics.
There’ll be some homework at the weekend, and a quiz next week to make sure.
N,
You wrote –
“The energy from a cold object will NOT increase the temperature of unheated (no new external energy added) water. It will increase the temperature of heated water.”
How much ice is needed to increase the temperature of heated water? How hot does the water need to be? If you heat the water to 100 C, what proportion of ice will be necessary to raise its temperature by 1 C?
Or are you invoking unstated and concealed infinite climatological heat sources to achieve this apparent climatological magic? Any competent illusionist might be able to help. Physics certainly won’t.
Keep trying to turn fantasy into fact.
Cheers.
N,
How much ice do you need to raise the temperature of a teaspoon of water by 0.000000001 K?
You say the hot absorbs energy from the cold. It doesn’t seem to be capable of raising the temperature of the hotter water one tiny bit – nothing, nil, zero.
You claim this is not physics. It might not be your bizarre magical climatological pseudoscience, but it is reality.
Here’s a quite relevant analogy – if you measure a voltage of 5 Volts between two points, can you prove it is not the result of 2000 V of one polarity, and 1995 V of opposite polarity?
If you cannot even define the GHE (and nobody has, or can), then waffling about irrelevancies is not likely to restore funding for fools who believe in the non-existent.
Carry on Norman. Enjoy your fantasy – just don’t expect me to participate, or pay for it.
Cheers.
“The blue plate warmed because the green plate was interfering with its heat dissipation via radiation.”
Good job, Gordon. The cooler plate made the warmer plate warmer still. Why? Because it reduced the warmer plate’s rate of heat dissipation.
Not perfect, but you’re catching on.
Yes, Snape, if you separate statements from the full context of the discussion, you can try to make it sound like people are agreeing with you. But then, thats only another form of trolling (please stop).
Snape,
Because it reduced the warmer plate’s rate of heat dissipation.
Yes, and this reduction corresponds to an increase in resistance to heat flow and not at all to a heat flux.
A heat flux is measured in W and a resistance to a thermal flux in W/(mK) or in W/K for example.
The assimilation of CO2 to W (radiative forcing) is an absurdity derived from a trick that removes thermodynamics from the calculation of the greenhouse effect (see, for example, Ramanathan and Coakley 1978).
phi says:
A heat flux is measured in W and a resistance to a thermal flux in W/(mK) or in W/K for example.
Actually it’s measured in Watts per unit area.
This is not systematic and the interest of the objection is rather limited.
No, it’s not systemic. Energy per unit time is power, not flux. Flux is per unit area, such as W/m2.
This article needs attention from an expert in Physics. The specific problem is: confusion between flux and flux density. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Physics may be able to help recruit an expert. (September 2016)
Inspired?
confusion between flux and flux density
Then define what you mean when you use the word and the confusion will vanish.
DREMT, the snowflake, keeps redefining trolling.
Now agreeing with people is trolling!
Pretending to be unable to read and understand a simple comment, in order to attack a straw man, is also trolling, Nate. Unless you genuinely didnt understand, in which case, you werent trolling (but were just being stupid instead).
Which part of Gordon’s comment did he he (I) not understand that is also factual?
Which part specifically is a strawman? Or are you redefining that too?
Oh, maybe you ARE just thick. OK then.
The straw man is suggesting that I am saying agreeing with people is trolling. It is not.
Snape and Gordon are NOT in agreement. But by taking a sentence out of context, Snape seeks to pretend that Gordon has come round to his point of view.
I have made the same comment as Snape did to Gordon a couple of times, agreeing with The blue plate warmed because the green plate was interfering with its heat dissipation via radiation., while not agreeing with all else he said.
No context issue at all, not trolling at all.
I call it discussing.
Try it sometime.
I already know that to you, trolling and discussion are one and the same thing.
Its OK though, Im here to help people see through your tactics.
phi says:
(see, for example, Ramanathan and Coakley 1978
How exactly do they prove radiative flux is meaningless?
EXPLAIN YOURSELF
Because thousands of scientists today understand and use radiative flux, and they’re read Ramanathan & Coakley, and many more papers than you have.
Calm down, troll.
Gordon Robertson
Why do you have to do this every time!! It does get very old after 100 times!
My explanation DOES NOT AT ALL contradict the 2nd Law.
You are a strange person. When I say energy you automatically see the word “heat”. I never stated that the Blue Plate would receive “heat” from the green plate. Look at my post and see if you find the word heat used. It is not!! Quit doing that. It gets old and annoying.
YOU: “The blue plate warmed because the green plate was interfering with its heat dissipation via radiation.”
You say things like that but what does that mean at all? This is just your made up fantasy. You will NEVER see this nonsense printed in any established work of physics. You can make up science all day long and believe it to be true. It is not, it only means you are living in a fantasy world.
Here is a link (I hope you read and learn the material).
Gordon, as far as I am concerned I will stick with established physics that is based upon years of experiment, logic, math and now it works quite well in real world applications.
https://wiki.epfl.ch/me341-hmt/documents/lectures/slides_10_Radiation.pdf
Look at the slide 3 of 55. Read it! Energy is exchanged between both hot and cold. The hot emits to the cold the hot absorbs energy from the cold. This is established physics. That you don’t want to accept it is not something I can help you with. You can stay ignorant as long as you like. You are making up your own science. I am using actual valid science. You are just wrong, wrong about so much.
Also look at slide 13 of 55. Look closely at equation (10.10)
No you are just wrong and don’t accept real science. You are almost in a sick state of having to make up physics to support you absolute fanatic belief that Carbon Dioxide cannot cause global warming or GHE.
Once again Norman, you can not understand the links you find.
(See the hint, above, and learn some physics.)
JD, what part of “Net heat transfer from plate 1 to plate 2 = emitted by plate 1 – radiation from plate 2 absorbed by plate 1” do you not get on slide 13? Your interpretation of the 2nd law is not what is used in physics.
The statement “Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body” refers to the net heat transfer. The 2nd law also is described by an increase in entropy. It doesn’t keep an object from absorbing a photon with less energy than the average photon emitted by the object. Liquid water absorbs light with a 15 micron wavelength even though the black body temperature of 15 microns is -80C.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316160
N,
Look at the first statement from your link –
“Conduction and Convection require a physical medium to transport heat.”
A completely pointless statement. Heat is not defined (try it if you wish), much less the “transport” referred to.
Heat is a manifestation of the interaction between light and matter – nothing more, nothing less.
Feynman claimed that all physical phenomena apart from gravity and nuclear processes could be explained in the following terms –
(1) a photon goes from place to place; (2) an electron goes from place to place; and (3) an electron emits or absorbs a photon.
So far, experiment agrees with Feynman’s assertion. All you have to do to prove Feynman wrong is to demonstrate your conviction by means of a reproducible experiment.
Your fantasy seems to be firmly rooted in the 18th and 19th century. Knowledge has improved – Gavin Schmidt reluctantly accepts chaos theory (gives it lip service, anyway). These days, caloric is not necessary – neither is the luminiferous ether, or phlogiston. Keep pushing your weird notions, if it brings you contentment. It certainly puts a smile on my dial from time to time.
Cheers.
Heat, Q, is one of the fundamental quantities in thermodynamics. It is front and center in the First Law of Thermodynamics.
ΔU = Q – W
Rather than being “undefined”, heat is very will defined and described in thermodynamics. Typically stated as something like “energy transferred from one system to another as a result of thermal interactions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat
Heat is NOT some vague and meaningless “manifestation of the interaction between light and matter nothing more, nothing less.” Placing hot block of copper on a cold block of copper involves ‘heat’ — no light required.
Norman,
Look at my post and see if you find the word heat used. It is not!!
That’s the problem with you and with the greenhouse effect theory. You try to solve a thermodynamic problem by evacuating thermodynamics.
Your reference :
10. Radiative heat transfer – John Richard Thome – 28 avril 2008
phi
I do like your posts. You have intelligence and I can learn ideas from you. I did read your post but am not sure what your point is. I am hoping you can elaborate.
Can you post some links to the material you are using so I can read it and learn. My goal is to get the science correct. I told Gordon Robertson my source of information comes from established science that works. The link I posted is just one of many references I use and they all state the same thing.
What do you feel is incomplete or wrong with the reference?
Norman,
I did not see anything wrong in your reference, your interpretation is problematic.
In fact everything is there:
The empirical technique considerably simplifies the procedure for solving the thermal structure of the atmosphere. Since the temperature gradient is prescribed within the troposphere, (8) [qT(z) + qS(z) + qC(z) = const = 0] need not be solved. Instead, the equation for the radiative equilibrium condition, i.e., qT + qS = 0, is solved with the provisio that the lapse rate at any level within the atmosphere should be less than or equal to the critical lapse rate.
Ramanathan and Coakley 1978.
Calculation is impossible. To obtain an arbitrary result, however, the laws of thermodynamics are substituted by an arbitrary and strange hypothesis. The concept of radiative forcing stems directly from this hypothesis and not at all from the laws of physics.
The concept of radiative forcing is a thermodynamic aberration.
What “strange hypothesis?”
The concept of radiative forcing is a thermodynamic aberration.
In fact, it’s been measured:
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
DA, quit hiding behind pay-walled pseudoscience. Just from the abstract it appears they have confused “radiative forcing” with DWIR. And, you were unable to figure it out.
Learn some physics.
“Just from the abstract it appears they have confused radiative forcing with DWIR”
How so?
Instead, the equation for the radiative equilibrium condition, i.e., qT + qS = 0
I don’t know where this equation came from, but it’s obviously wrong on dimensional grounds. S does not and cannot equal -T.
David Appell,
In fact, its been measured
Of course not. The radiative forcing of CO2 is supposed to be a heat flux. It does not make sense. What could possibly be measured is a radiative imbalance. But a radiative imbalance is not a heat flux and it has no vocation of durability !!!
…but its obviously wrong on dimensional grounds. S does not and cannot equal -T.
???
qT and qS are heat flows.
You must read Ramanathan, it is well worth the effort.
No, qT and qS can’t both be heat flows, since they don’t have the same units.
T and S are in indices. Please, read Ramanathan instead of quibbling unnecessarily.
Then you should have made CLEAR they were indices, as in the usual notation
q_T
q_S
If you’re referring to Ramanathan and Coakley, after equation 8, that’s a boundary condition, which is only true on the boundary, not everywhere.
thats a boundary condition
Yes, so what?
The knot is here:
Since the temperature gradient is prescribed within the troposphere
So what???
The so what is that boundary conditions only apply at the boundaries — in this case, infinity.
Means that there is no thermodynamic calculation of the greenhouse effect.
Means that heating by the sun or backradiations have the same effect on the system (radiative forcing).
Means that convection is not calculated because incalculable.
Sorry for the modesty of the conclusions.
You didn’t address my questions.
David Appell,
Since the temperature gradient is prescribed within the troposphere
Ramanathan and Coakley 1978
This is not an answer?
phi says, August 8, 2018 at 4:38 AM:
Exactly right. You can’t explain thermodynamic processes using quantum mechanical conceptual thinking. The macroscopic transfer of energy in a thermal exchange of energy goes one way only. That’s why we call such an exchange a HEAT transfer. There are indeed two hemispherical directions in which individual photons can move between two opposing bodies/regions at different temperatures, but the directions are not equal to the macroscopic transfer of energy.
I’ve tried to make these people see the fundamental difference between these two aspects of reality for two-three years, at least. But it simply will not stick, much less sink in …
Kristian
Your post is not supported by any valid physics of heat transfer and goes directly against what the current science is saying.
The link I posted clearly states that there is a mutual macroscopic exchange of energy between a hot and cold object. The HEAT transfer is the NET of these two macroscopic energy exchanges. That is what the science states. You have never linked to any source of science to support your opinions. When you link it is to your own blog, not a textbook of science. When you support your idea with actual science I will consider it. As it is now it is your opinion and your own ideas on your own blog. Why is it so hard for you to link to a valid science source in support of your declarations? When I ask you for supporting information you just rant about how I don’t know anything. That just means you don’t really have any sources and just think it works the way you feel it does.
Norman says, August 8, 2018 at 12:02 PM:
Sorry, Norman. A pretender like you don’t get to dictate what the physics of heat transfer is and is not saying about heat transfer. It says what it says, whether or not you manage to grasp what it says or not. (You still don’t.) And, as has been the case since the beginning, I’m right and you’re wrong.
What is a radiative flux, Norman? How do you define it?
radiative flux = energy of radiation per unit time per unit area.
Not NET energy. Just energy.
But define it however you like. It’s just boring rhetoric. Physics is what matters, and energy flowing both ways has physical effects in both places it lands.
Kristian
You use the word “pretender” to describe what I post.
How so?
“pre•tend•er (prɪˈtɛn dər)
n.
1. a person who pretends, esp. for a dishonest purpose.
2. an aspirant or claimant (often fol. by to): a pretender to the throne.
3. a person who makes unjustified or false claims”
What false claim do I make?
You still have not linked to valid science to support your opinions. I think you are the just making the claim about me “pretender” because all you have is your own opinions on your blog.
YOU: “It says what it says, whether or not you manage to grasp what it says or not. (You still don’t.) And, as has been the case since the beginning, I’m right and you’re wrong.”
No you are wrong.
https://wiki.epfl.ch/me341-hmt/documents/lectures/slides_10_Radiation.pdf
Slide 3 of this link.
“Figure 10.1 shows two arbitrary surfaces radiating energy to one another”
Q1 to Q2 and likewise Q2 to Q1 (these are macroscopic energy values).
Final Qnet (heat transfer) = Q1 to Q2 – Q2 to Q1
Snape is correct about you. You have opinions by the roomful but you have zero supporting evidence for any of it. You act like an expert on thermodynamics but I have not seen you post to any valid science yet. You post to your own blog with more of your opinions.
You tell me I can’t understand science but you fail in showing what I get wrong. Sad thing about you. You really don’t have anything but your own opinions do you?
…, Norman opined.
“radiative flux = energy of radiation per unit time per unit area.”
For example, Watts per square meter?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316160
Kristian says:
There are indeed two hemispherical directions in which individual photons can move between two opposing bodies/regions at different temperatures, but the directions are not equal to the macroscopic transfer of energy.
Here’s what you’re always missing: the photons, regardless of their direction of travel relative to net heat transfer, still have physical effects when absorbed. Effects that can be quantified and measured.
You have screwed this up as long as I’ve been reading your comments.
DA says: “…photons…still have physical effects when absorbed.”
But, they have no physical effects when NOT absorbed.
Learn some physics, DA.
David Appell says, August 8, 2018 at 1:41 PM:
Sure. QUANTUM MECHANICAL effects. Not thermodynamic effects. THAT’S the difference.
And, Appell, it is not called net HEAT transfer. That’s a tautology. Heat is itself the net; the net transfer of energy.
Kristian says:
Sure. QUANTUM MECHANICAL effects. Not thermodynamic effects. THATS the difference.
Wrong.
While photons are by definition quantum mechanical, in numbers they create macroscopic effects. Like vision in your eye. Like a sunburn. Like photovoltaic energy.
This is completely obvious.
And, Appell, it is not called net HEAT transfer. Thats a tautology. Heat is itself the net; the net transfer of energy.
Rhetoric, that’s not worth arguing about.
David Appell says, August 8, 2018 at 4:12 PM:
Yes. In numbers they create the radiative flux, the heat flux.
Norman likes the cut of phis jib. Of course, phi made the argument that there is an increase in resistance to heat flow, when the green plate is added. This should sound very familiar to both Norman and Snape. But, since that same argument came previously from someone whose jib they most certainly did NOT like the cut of, it was dismissed out of hand. Its funny how much climate trolls can be swayed by superficial things. Just another reason they should probably stop trolling.
Wow, DREMT, more new ways of trolling defined!
First agreeing with, now complimenting a poster is also included.
Who knew there were so many ways to be offended.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn
So you have read one physics book by Feynman and that makes you this total expert on physics but you reject textbook science in favor or your super limited understanding of the topic.
Do you have a direct quote to the Feynman? I think you are taking it out of context. Heat transfer by conduction (in nonmetals) takes place by molecular vibrations transferring energy to other molecules.
N,
Appealing to authority in the form of poorly chosen links which are at the very least misleading, generally irrelevant, and often incorrect in fact, does you no good, does it?
As to Feynman, and a direct quote, why should I bother? In a spirit of benevolence, if you can provide evidence that you have made a reasonable attempt to satisfy yourself whether I have paraphrased Feynman’s actual words to maintain their meaning, I will provide a reference – title, publisher, page number, etc.
Do your own research, before blabbing about what you “think”. Facts are facts, fantasy is fantasy.
As I said, if you believe Feynman to be wrong, some experimental support for your disagreement might help. You might not agree with the Feynman quote – “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
I do. Bad luck for you, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Cheers.
To reiterate.
There are some mentally deficient dullwitted delusional personalities who believe that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter.
They go so far as to claim that increasing the reduction results in a further rise in temperature, even if the heat source (the Sun) remains constant.
Of course, by claiming that more CO2 makes thermometers even hotter, they overlook the fact that the heat source has not changed, so the extra heat required is somehow produced by the CO2, in line with some unstated pseudoscientific principle.
Pointing out that increasing the amount of CO2 should therefore keep increasing the temperature, regardless of the fact that the heat source is steady, meets with ever more strident cries that climatological pseudoscience, (with all its gibberish based jargon), does not depend on normal physical laws,
An example of this is Gavin Schmidt continuously discovering new physics, preventing him from providing a useful description of his very expensive and completely useless graphic simulator. Of course, Schmidt is a mathematician of no great renown at all, claiming to be a scientist – even if it is of the climatological pseudoscientific variety!
The field of so-called climatology is littered with fools, frauds, and the mentally afflicted. The most pointless publication in the known universe might well be “The Benefits to Mankind of Climatology” – blank page followed by blank page, produced at an expense of billions!
No doubt all part of the rich tapestry of life. God definitely works in mysterious ways.
Cheers.
Dr. Roy Spencer says:
“Please stop the ‘no greenhouse effect’ stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad.”
Skeptical Arguments that Dont Hold Water:
http://tinyurl.com/ox3s4x7
1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)…
Svante, Spencer is referring to DWIR as the GHE. That’s how he defines the GHE. He seemingly uses a different definition than the IPCC. That’s why he can call himself a “lukewarmer”, instead of a Warmist.
That’s not what “lukewarmer” means — it means those who claim climate sensitivity is low.
Actually, if you seek pedantry, your definition would need to mention CO2, or at least the GHE.
The intelligent people already know that.
Ah, did one of them explain it to you?
“Spencer is referring to DWIR as the GHE.”
So is every other meteorologist and climatologist. Downward Infrared radiation warms the Earth. Greenhouse gasses absorb upward IR and emit roughly half of it downward. That is the greenhouse effect that’s been talked about for a hundred plus years.
Spencer differs from most climatologists because he believes a negative feedback will keep the Earth from warming the way the IPCC expects, not in his view of the way the Earth is warmed.
“I agree that the effective radiating temperature of the Earth in the infrared is determined by how much sunlight is absorbed by the Earth. But that doesnt mean the lower atmosphere cannot warm from adding more greenhouse gases, because at the same time they also cool the upper atmosphere]. While it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more should cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question.”
The simple fact that the atmosphere is able to warm and thus ends up considerably warmer than space is what causes the steady-state temperature of the surface to be higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there. It’s called insulation.
It is not the fact that the atmosphere is radiatively active that is the cause of this insulating effect. It is rather caused by the fact that the atmosphere is made up of matter, of ‘thermal mass, that 1) can be heated, and 2) can hold on to absorbed energy, enabling it to remain at an elevated temperature.
Kristian
Sorry your hypothesis is wrong. A while back Roy Spencer did a post on the cooling rate of Earth if there were no GHG (radiative warming) in the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not have a lot of thermal mass and will not keep the surface from cooling rapidly. His calculations showed that New York City would freeze during the night without GHE keeping it warmer.
You will have to provide some math and evidence for your hypothesis. Don’t be like JDHuffman with his unsupported declarations. Do some math and show that your idea is valid.
Non GHG atmosphere would not stop any surface IR from going straight to space and no IR would return to keep the temperature from dropping. Your insulating effect is not valid based upon Roy Spencer’s work on this issue.
Norman,
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/an-atmospheres-ir-activity-wont-make-it-warmer-and-so-cannot-be-the-cause-of-surface-warming-either/
Kristian,
Suppose you have two identical planets. The surfaces are dark, solid rock with emissivity ~ 1 for simplicity. They have no atmospheres.
Planet A is then covered with a few meters of something like CsI, which is transparent from ~ 0.3 – 50 um (ie both visible and thermal IR).
Planet B is then covered with a few meters of something like SiO2, which is transparent from ~ 0.3 – 3 um (ie visible but not thermal IR).
For the sake of discussion, lets make the two coverings with the same ‘thermal mass’. The top layers can both ‘be heated, and can hold on to absorbed energy’ (using your words).
Which planet will get warmer at the rocky surface?
http://www.ispoptics.com/admuploads/image/2_material_chart.jpg
Tim Folkerts, Earth is neither planet A, or planet B.
The IPCC already has plenty of unreal scenarios out there.
Face reality.
Tim,
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/an-atmospheres-ir-activity-wont-make-it-warmer-and-so-cannot-be-the-cause-of-surface-warming-either/
We should continue this at your site if you truly want to discuss your theory. Let me just provide a brief comment here. You say in that link:
because it [an atmosphere] acts like a layer of thermal INSULATION
Define what you mean by acts like.
* If you mean the atmosphere literally *is* a layer of insulation limiting the *conduction* of heat from a planetary surface to space, that is clearly wrong.
* Perhaps you mean the atmosphere is simply analogous to insulation. Insulation limits thermal conduction from warm house to cold winter air; an atmosphere limits thermal radiation from warm planet to cold space. Of course, this is now simply the standard explanation of the GHE in terms of radiation.
Tim, I dont think the pretending not to understand trick is going to work around here much longer. Its not even a long article. Please stop trolling.
No, it’s the trick of pretending *TO* know when you haven’t got a clue that doesn’d fly.
Neither of the two obvious interpretations of “acts like” will reach the desired conclusion in the linked post. So someone needs to explain clearly exactly in what way the atmosphere “acts like” insulation.
Someone did. Read the article. Then please stop trolling.
Tim,
Raymond T Pierrehumbert claims “Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.”
Maybe the man is a raving lunatic. What do you think?
Or, from NCAR –
“Air (a mixture of gases) and water are poor conductors of thermal energy. They are called insulators.”
You may call cooling heating, if you you wish. You may call insulators conductors, if you wish,. You may claim that decreasing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes it hotter.
Off you go now, Tim. Think of something else to redefine. It won’t help – still no CO2 heating. None. Not a bit.
Cheers.
Mike, I agree that the “Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.” line is misleading. There are better ways he could have made his point.
On the other hand, when quoted in context, the statement is easy to understand.
The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse
effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics
because a planet is not a closed system. It exchanges heat with
a high-temperature bath by absorbing radiation from the
photosphere of its star and with a cold bath by emitting IR
into the essentially zero- temperature reservoir of space. It
therefore reaches equilibrium at a temperature intermediate
between the two. The greenhouse effect shifts the planets
surface temperature toward the photospheric temperature by
reducing the rate at which the planet loses energy at a given
surface temperature. The way that works is really no different
from the way adding fiberglass insulation or low- emissivity
windows to your home increases its temperature without re-
quiring more energy input from the furnace. The tempera-
ture of your house is intermediate between the temperature
of the flame in your furnace and the temperature of the out-
doors, and adding insulation shifts it toward the former
by reducing the rate at which the house loses energy to the
outdoors. As Fourier already understood, when it comes to
relating temperature to the principles of energy balance, it
matters little whether the heat-loss mechanism is purely ra-
diative, as in the case of a planet, or a mix of radiation and
turbulent convection, as in the case of a houseor a green-
house. Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.
The clear meaning is that carbon dioxide is just planetary radiative insulation, analogous to fiberglass being residential conductive insulation. Either mechanism limits how well thermal energy can get from the warm areas to the cool surroundings.
The blockquote in my previous message got lost. I trust you can all figure out which paragraph is the quote from
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Tim,
You wrote –
“The clear meaning is that carbon dioxide is just planetary radiative insulation, analogous to fiberglass being residential conductive insulation. Either mechanism limits how well thermal energy can get from the warm areas to the cool surroundings.”
Indeed. As even the NSF, NASA, and Pierrehumbert realise, the Sun is considerably warmer than the surface of the Earth!
I suppose you might try to convince people that magical one way insulators exist, but they don’t. During the day, the atmosphere limits how well energy from the Sun gets to the Earth’s surface. At night, the gradient is reversed. You no doubt know that according to Pierrehumbert “The atmosphere is not a terribly good insulator, equivalent to only about one-seventh of an inch of polystyrene!”
By the way, you didn’t mention why NCAR was wrong when it stated categorically that air was an insulator. What do you think they really meant? That the air is actually not an insulator, or maybe only a minor insulator, or maybe sort of, like, almost, analogous to something that isn’t really an insulator according to Tim Folkerts?
Still no GHE. Not surprising, seeing how you can’t even describe such a mythical concept in any way that can be tested!
Cheers.
They would both warm to about same temperature.
Instead of planets, have 1 square km of the meters of transparent on top of solid rock [meters deep] separated by distance of 10 km and in a line of lunar equator. And just level lunar surface a bit and them on lunar surface.
In sunlight A and B would heat up to about 120 C.
Both would absorb a lot more energy then compared to natural lunar landscape- something like 10 times more energy.
Tim Folkerts says, August 8, 2018 at 4:46 PM:
By all means. Feel free. I welcome it. But we have already discussed it, haven’t we? Here on this blog. And as I remember, we didn’t really seem to come to an agreement …
gbaikie, your moon scenario is an interesting variation. However, I disagree with your conclusion.
Covering a section of the moon with a few meters of material transparent to both sunlight and thermal IR would indeed leave the surface about the same temperature — around 120 C @ noon as you say (assuming rather dark rocks and emissivity around 1). The same sunlight would get to the surface and the same thermal IR would leave the surface, so nothing much changes. (The thermal mass of the layer would even out the temperature swings a bit, but that is a minor effect).
Covering a section of the moon with a few meters of material transparent to sunlight but opaque thermal IR would be very different. The TOP of the extra layer would have to warm to around 120 C to dissipate all energy absorbed by the surface. Afterall, the TOP of the layer is where the thermal IR to space is emitted.
The BOTTOM of the extra layer would be quite a bit warmer than 120 C so that heat could get conducted through the top layer.
“Covering a section of the moon with a few meters of material transparent to sunlight but opaque thermal IR would be very different. The TOP of the extra layer would have to warm to around 120 C to dissipate all energy absorbed by the surface. Afterall, the TOP of the layer is where the thermal IR to space is emitted.
The BOTTOM of the extra layer would be quite a bit warmer than 120 C so that heat could get conducted through the top layer.”
I would think both meters thick of transparent material would be about the same.
Or both would be hot at top and hot as bottom.
And you think bottom would warmer one because it inhibited from radiating IR, but it would radiating IR at the top and other wouldn’t.
But you said bit warmer and it could be possible.
I just don’t think it would a lot warmer. But if it was bit warmer, it would heat dark solid rock more. So even a bit warmer would have significant effect.
Kristian says:
and 2) can hold on to absorbed energy, enabling it to remain at an elevated temperature.
Kristian, is this some magical substance out there in the universe??
All matter radiates. It cools unless the energy lost is replaced.
David Appell says, August 8, 2018 at 1:36 PM:
IOW, our atmosphere couldn’t cool if it couldn’t emit IR. But it COULD warm even if it couldn’t absorb IR.
Yeah. So what’s your point?
Kristian
Your statement “IOW, our atmosphere couldnt cool if it couldnt emit IR. But it COULD warm even if it couldnt absorb IR.”
This is not a correct statement. The atmosphere could cool exactly the same way it COULD warm even if if could not absorb IR. It will warm by conduction and cool by conduction.
If you go to convection, the air that rises must be replaced somewhere by air that is descending. The air that rises will add energy to the atmosphere, the air that is descending will remove energy from the atmosphere interacting with a colder surface.
I am not sure how you would think it could be different.
David Appell says, August 8, 2018 at 4:09 PM:
LOL!
Norman,
For a radiatively inactive atmosphere:
1. Convection establishes the adiabatic gradient based on the maximum surface temperature (at night the cooling by conduction is inefficient and meridian currents extend this gradient to the whole atmosphere).
A thin, strongly inverted, boundary layer forms at the base of the atmosphere.
2. By conduction, the maximum temperature extends to the entire atmosphere above the boundary layer.
Kristian says:
IOW, our atmosphere couldnt cool if it couldnt emit IR. But it COULD warm even if it couldnt ab.sorb IR.
Yeah. But the Earth’s atmosphere DOES ab.sorb IR – quite strongly at some frequencies.
David, please stop thick-ing.
It is nice to see the beginning of the end for AGW . I have been waiting for this so long. It looks like when we review history that this year will be looked at , as the year which was the beginning of the end for this theory.
I am not quite ready to celebrate but I think I will be in the not to distant future.
“…here is my prediction for climate going forward, this decade will be the decade of cooling.”
– Salvatore del Prete, 11/23/2010
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/andrew-dessler-debating-richard-lindzen/#comment-8875
DA, you’re really good at collecting links to the past. Do you also save all your comments that were WRONG?
Such as this one (below), where you are searching for your “missing” 150 Watts/m^2?
There is no “missing” 150 Watts/m^2, clown. You just don’t understand physics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-312730
Learn some physics, DA.
At 288 K, the Earth’s surface radiates an average of 390 W/m2. Yet only 240 W/m2 comes in from the Sun, and 240 W/m2 leaves the TOA.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?
You can’t subtract two different spectra.
Learn some physics, DA.
E1 – E2 = Enet
There, I just subtracted two “spectra.”
No, you performed another clown trick.
Different spectra (different frequencies) can NOT be added/subtracted arithmetically. You need to study physics, especially topics like Poynting vector.
Let’s see …
1) Different spectra ≠ different frequencies. Spectra can and often do have many of the same frequencies, just with different intensities.
2) The Poynting vector, commonly written S = E x H, is not strictly related different frequencies (since it works perfectly well for static fields).
3) E fields add. H fields add. Therefore S will indeed be the result of the net E & net H from the two oppositely directly radiations. You can find a solution to a standing wave here (http://web.mit.edu/viz/EM/visualizations/coursenotes/modules/guide13.pdf) showing the energy transfer is indeed zero when you add the E & H from two waves traveling in opposite directions.
Tim Folkerts, thanks for your entry into the clown competition.
Hint 1: Look at the spectra from 288K and 255K surfaces.
Hint 2: Radiative fluxes are not conserved.
Hint 3: Set phasors to stun.
Best of luck. The competition is fierce.
Tim,
Add 300 W/m2 from ice to 300W/m2 from a Leslie cube filled with water at 90 C.
How much hotter will the water get? I’ll give you a hint – you cannot arbitrarily add fluxes and expect a meaningful result. Only a deluded pseudoscientific cultist would believe so.
Cheers.
JDHuffman says:
Different spectra (different frequencies) can NOT be added/subtracted arithmetically.
It doesn’t look like you know what “spectra” means.
If you mean the energy of a particular wavelength emitted by an atom or molecule, then say so explicitly.
If you mean something else, then explain it, clearly.
BUT ENERGIES can always be added and subtracted. This is the 1st law of thermodynamics.
DA desperately seeks an “out”: “It doesnt look like you know what ‘spectra’ means. If you mean the energy of a particular wavelength emitted by an atom or molecule, then say so explicitly.”
Clown, the topic is your “390 Watts/m^2” and “240 Watts/m^2”. So, the “spectra” is clearly defined. You’re desperately trying to escape your own trap.
DA continues his obfuscation: “BUT ENERGIES can always be added and subtracted. This is the 1st law of thermodynamics.”
DA, the issue is “radiative fluxes”. Try to stay focused. You are confusing “flux” with “energy”. Energy can be treated arithmetically, but flux can not.
You need to study physics.
JDHuffman
What are you trying to say?
Here:
https://images.slideplayer.com/24/7290704/slides/slide_49.jpg
A spectrum has a value of energy Watts.
A flux is just how much of this energy passes through and area. The flow is in joules/second. What gives you the confidence that you understand physics and have rational thought process?
Why do you strongly believe you can’t add Watts/m^2. If you have one light on a certain joules will pass through a certain size each second. If you turn on another light (regardless of its spectrum) more joules will pass through a certain size each second.
I really can’t follow where your crazy ideas come from. You never link to a source and tell people to study physics. I do this often. I NEVER come across anything you claim is physics.
What is your source?
Grinvalds, the reason you don’t understand is you’re uneducated.
If you ever pass typing class, learn some physics.
g.e.r.a.n
The reality is you are so stupid that no one can get your posts. They are just hilarious clown material (I guess if you are into that).
I am actually considerably more intelligent than you. You are not only uneducated you are also incredibly stupid.
So in all your stupid posts you have neglected to link to a source of your knowledge.
How stupid is that?
If you had even a little bit of value to your posts it would help. You don’t. You have snide stupid comments. You have zero knowledge of any physics. You just look up a few terms and pretend you know the subject (like you did with Poynting Vector). You don’t have a clue about what you are pretending to know. You look something up and post it and pretend to be some type of expert. Not only are you a stupid poster but you are a phony as well.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316160
I’ve been curious who DREMT is. Clearly an idiot. Clearly a troll. Huffypuff of course fits the bill, but I wasn’t sure until this:
(Replying to Nate) “Its OK though, Im here to help people see through your tactics.”
Sound familiar?
Snape, are things really that bad that this is all you have to offer to the debate?
Makes my please stop trolling look profound.
Tim Folkerts
I like the question you posed. Kristian and phi seem to think that any sort of material, given a certain mass and temperature, will be equally efficient at “resisting” radiative heat transfer.
Really? Or is this just you building yet another straw man, Snape?
No strawman. Just some simple questions trying to understand what your hypothesis predicts.
***********************************
Planet A is covered with a few meters of something like CsI, which is transparent from ~ 0.3 – 50 um (ie both visible and thermal IR).
Planet B is then covered with a few meters of something like SiO2, which is transparent from ~ 0.3 – 3 um (ie visible but not thermal IR).
How would the temperatures of the rocky surfaces compare?
********************************
I feel your hypothesis has some major flaws, but we won’t get to the core of our misunderstandings without considering carefully constructed examples.
Tim, please stop pretending you havent already discussed this at length.
“please stop pretending”
Another Halp tell.
Its hard to know how to engage with that level of paranoia.
And as expected, Kristian won’t give an answer.
Why should I have to give an answer to your straw man?
Kristian
Straw man? A planet transfers heat to space via radiation. How then would a gas, transparent to IR, act as insulation?
Snape says, August 8, 2018 at 5:24 PM:
Yes. Read your claim above about my alleged opinion.
Still no useful description of the mythical GHE, is there?
Some think it is analogous to insulation, but not really insulation, otherwise there would be no need for GHE – insulation is a concept already described.
Some think that the fact that all matter (including gases) continuously and unceasingly emit light at frequencies proportional to temperature, is somehow amazing, and is really the GHE.
Some think that CO2, by virtue of preventing energy from the Sun reaching thermometers, makes thermometers hotter, and that inserting more CO2 between the heat source and the thermometer, makes the thermometer even hotter. Continuing this process until all energy from the Sun is prevented from reaching the thermometer results in the thermometer reaching a maximum temperature – maybe Gore’s millions of degrees!
All complete nonsense, of course.
Nobody has ever managed to make a thermometer hotter by placing CO2 between it and a heat source. In reality, the Earth’s atmosphere serves to reduce the extremes of temperature as measured on the airless Moon. The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years – look down, and you will see the surface is no longer molten. Liquid water abounds.
So sad, too bad. No CO2 heating – not even a tiny bit. Maybe the GHE believers need to pray harder – a miracle might help.
Cheers.
How many times have you posted this nonsense?
Sorry, I forgot about your Alzheimer’s.
M,
Have you some factual reason for disagreeing? No?
You can’t actually describe the GHE, can you?
No disprovable hypothesis either, as a result! Just a manic and deluded insistence that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
There is no point in asking you to explain how this miraculous outcome might be made to occur, because no explanation is possible. As with any cult, blind unquestioning obedience to the directions of the cult leaders of climatological scientism is required of adherents.
How stupid and ignorant would a follower of pseudoscience have to be, to believe that Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize, or that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist, or that climate is anything but the average of weather records (by definition)!
I won’t laugh at your religious convictions – but others might.
Carry on worshipping.
Cheers.
Geez!
Even more repetitive nonsense.
Somebody put this poor man out of his misery.
m,
Oh dear, oh dear.
Your bizarre attempts to impose your fantasies on reality fail miserably, as usual.
I’m not poor, and not miserable.
You, on the other hand, demonstrate the usual GHE standard level of stupidity and ignorance.
How’s that GHE explanation going? Figured out how CO2 makes thermometers hotter, yet?
Maybe another ad hom attack might divert attention away from reality. Or maybe not. What do you think?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
I have already answered you stupid question with facts and reality.
YOU: “No disprovable hypothesis either, as a result! Just a manic and deluded insistence that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
There is no point in asking you to explain how this miraculous outcome might be made to occur, because no explanation is possible. As with any cult, blind unquestioning obedience to the directions of the cult leaders of climatological scientism is required of adherents.”
HERE:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/sexy-miss-climate-competition-to-combat-climate-change-apathy/#comment-314485
Carbon Dioxide absorbs about 1 watt/m^2 of solar incoming energy. It emits 32 W/m^2 toward the thermometer at current levels. Less CO2 lowers this value meaning the thermometer receives less total energy.
It is answered. Why do you persist in pretending no one has explained it to you in detail with factual data.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316160
Gordon,
it tells you the average temperature, INCLUDING the 15C at the surface.
If UAH is measuring an average of -8c, it would be a simple matter of determining the related altitude and extrapolating to the surface at 6.5C/kilometer, if that was desired.
The average is about -9C as shown in the graph of TLT measurements by Roy Spencer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
But you’re on to something with extrapolating using 15C surface temps and the lapse rate. Let’s do the math.
If the av temp is 15C as the surface, and the UAH lower troposphere av temp is -9C, with a lapse rate of 6.5C per kilometer altitude…
Difference between -9C and 15C = 24C
divide by lapse rate 6.5
= 3.7 kilometers.
That’s the altitude at which UAH TLT measurements are centred.
QED.
UAH cannot isolate surface temps from the rest of the atmosphere with the satellite instruments they use.
Here is a visual of what swathe of the atmosphere is measured by the UAH lower troposphere product (left panel).
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/tlt-tmt-tls-weighting.png
Here is a profile supplied by Dr Spencer.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UT-weighting-function.png
And here is Dr Spencer on why UAH are unable to produce an accurate surface temp product.
“For those channels whose weighting functions intersect the surface, a portion of the total measured microwave thermal emission signal comes from the surface. AMSU channels 1, 2, and 15 are considered “window” channels because the atmosphere is essentially clear, so virtually all of the measured microwave radiation comes from the surface. While this sounds like a good way to measure surface temperature, it turns out that the microwave ’emissivity’ of the surface (it’s ability to emit microwave energy) is so variable that it is difficult to accurately measure surface temperatures using such measurements. The variable emissivity problem is the smallest for well-vegetated surfaces, and largest for snow-covered surfaces. While the microwave emissivity of the ocean surfaces around 50 GHz is more stable, it just happens to have a temperature dependence which almost exactly cancels out any sensitivity to surface temperature.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/
Note the title of that last link. I suggest you read it.
Very good job barry, though somewhat useless wrt the intended destination.
Robertson is not interested at all to learn let alone to understand what Roy Spencer tells us about UAH and satellite temperature measurements in general. He only wants to boast as the expert he has never been and will never be.
—
Let me please add that, as you certainly know, these 264 K i.e. -9 C are a very rough information, as it is the yearly average of the monthly spatio-temporal average for 1981-2010 over the whole Globe.
As the absolute temperatures differ for different latitudes, so will the measurements’ average height as well.
Using Roy Spencer’s climatology file, you obtain the following monthly 1981-2010 baselines for the three latitude bands 80N-82.5N, 5S-5N and 80S-82.5S (in K and in C):
1. Arctic
Jan 238.002 -35.15
Feb 237.961 -35.19
Mar 238.375 -34.78
Apr 241.643 -31.51
Mai 247.411 -25.74
Jun 252.924 -20.23
Jul 255.703 -17.45
Aug 253.652 -19.50
Sep 249.099 -24.05
Oct 243.774 -29.38
Nov 240.926 -32.22
Dec 239.259 -33.89
2. Tropics
Jan 273.451 0.30
Feb 273.502 0.35
Mar 273.585 0.44
Apr 273.768 0.62
Mai 273.828 0.68
Jun 273.395 0.25
Jul 272.917 -0.23
Aug 272.954 -0.20
Sep 273.045 -0.11
Oct 273.301 0.15
Nov 273.453 0.30
Dec 273.470 0.32
3. Antarctic
Jan 239.118 -34.03
Feb 235.790 -37.36
Mar 231.232 -41.92
Apr 228.021 -45.13
Mai 226.528 -46.62
Jun 226.123 -47.03
Jul 224.605 -48.54
Aug 224.040 -49.11
Sep 224.615 -48.53
Oct 227.017 -46.13
Nov 232.207 -40.94
Dec 237.371 -35.78
Btw it might be of interest to note that while UAH’s grid data only covers 82.5S-82.5N in revision 6.0, the 5.6 grid has shown valid data for the entire 90S-90N range.
Barry, Please note that your graph of the UAH weighting functions are for the old Version 5.6. The new Version 6 will likely be different, given the major changes in the processing. Also, those curves are the results of calculations using an assumed temperature profile, perhaps the US Standard Atmosphere, a model which would apply to temperate conditions at the latitude of the US.
Oooops! You are right! I couldn’t have been 6.0, as the Tisdale link is dated April 2014, i.e. about one year before 6.0 came out.
Thx.
E. Swanson (Bindidon),
The (minimal) difference is that the v6 profile is centred slightly higher in the troposphere than v5.
https://imgur.com/a/1IOzlXk
I got that image from the UAH version 6 revision paper, if you want to read up on it. This is the pre-print version, with the images collected at the bottom.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/APJAS-2016-UAH-Version-6-Global-Satellite-Temperature-Products-for-blog-post.pdf
The about -9C average of the absolute temps is from version 6.0 data.
Kristian wrote,
“The simple fact that the atmosphere is able to warm and thus ends up considerably warmer than space is what causes the steady-state temperature of the surface to be higher than if the atmosphere werent there. Its called insulation.”
****
If a planet had an atmosphere of, say, nitrogen, it would warm by conduction/convection and end up considerably warmer than space.
Would that translate to a warmer surface? Not much. (Maybe even colder)
–If a planet had an atmosphere of, say, nitrogen, it would warm by conduction/convection and end up considerably warmer than space.
Would that translate to a warmer surface? Not much. (Maybe even colder)–
A surface in sunlight could be colder, because atmosphere is warming parts of planet not in sunlight.
But with enough atmosphere it should increase the average temperature of the planet.
The moon has night time temperature of 100 K, and it would not be 100 K if there was 200 K air above it.
If had 300 K air on one side, 200 K air on other side will be denser and lower, so 300 K air falls/flows over it. Or should cause there to be wind.
Since water vapor can transport a lot more energy then nitrogen, a nitrogen only atmosphere should be more windy, due to heat not being able to mix as well.
Or think of greenhouse which encircles the equator of Moon- in sunlight have air around 400 K, as travel in greenhouse and reaching night side of greenhouse air cools and it will lose pressure, but a mile away air warmer and higher pressure- so moves to lower pressure. Depending how big this greenhouse was, one could get a lot of wind.
Even N2 and O2 have a small greenhouse effect — they act, for a moment during collisions — like a 4-molecule GHG.
Any planet with an atmosphere has a greenhouse effect.
Now DA is running from his own pseudoscience!
Run, DA, run.
Yup,
An atmosphere definitely needs to be IR-active in order for it to be thermodynamically connected to the surface, to make heat flow into, through and out of that atmosphere, even in a steady state.
But it is the atmospheric temperature being above that of space that is the ultimate reason why the surface temp ends up higher than if the atmosphere weren’t there.
The thermal radiation is merely a connecting TOOL, a carrier of temperature signals, not itself a cause of temperatures and temperature changes. It controls nothing, thermodynamically. It is itself controlled.
Kristian says:
But it is the atmospheric temperature being above that of space that is the ultimate reason why the surface temp ends up higher than if the atmosphere werent there.
But the GHE makes the surface warmer still — warmer than the Sun alone can account for.
DA’s latest entry: “But the GHE makes the surface warmer still warmer than the Sun alone can account for.
Twisted physics is a certain point-getter in the clown contest.
JDHuffman
Another unsupported declaration. Is that all you can offer? Your endless useless posts?
You claim David Appell is using “twisted physics”. What is twisted about it? It makes perfect sense in real world physics (textbooks and things like that).
You make a claim, demonstrate your vast knowledge of physics, lead us to your source. Have you ever supported any of your stupid declarations? Or do you just enjoy calling people “clown”?
Norman, you keep making claims that you can’t support. Then, you accuse others of what you are guilty of!
That makes you a clown.
(If you get a 9-year-old to show you how to use an AM radio, you will notice that radiative fluxes do NOT add.)
JDHuffman
You sure are a stupid human! Your posts really don’t have much purpose. I guess you like to slide a stupid childish remark in there now and then. Really stupid but you don’t have anything else of value to post.
YOU: “(If you get a 9-year-old to show you how to use an AM radio, you will notice that radiative fluxes do NOT add.)”
Such an incredibly stupid post. No reason to do it, I guess you think you are this hilarious clown. You really are neither funny or intelligent. You were the same stupid person when you posted as g.e.r.a.n.
Everyone knows you and JDHuffman are the same poster. JDHuffman is not more revealing than g.e.r.a.n was. Both stupid.
More typing practice for the Grinvalds clown. (Copying my words always makes you appear smart. You need that help.)
Norman, when the 9-year-old teaches you how to use an AM radio, also ask him about physics. He’ll likely know more than you ever will.
“Nobody even understood the first paper.”
Nope. And I read it. Not persuasive.
Im sure Tesla would want us to work things out for ourselves rather than simply accept his POV.
Please disregard the “maybe even colder”. (Changed my mind already)
S,
Another silly attempt at a gotcha?
If you are trying to imply that you know that the answer to your gotcha is “Maybe, or maybe not”, you will just look even more foolish than usual.
On the other hand! If you are really seeking knowledge, learn some physics, calculate an answer based on what you have learnt, and see whether your answer agrees with observed fact.
How hard can it be? In your case, the answer would be “Extremely!”
Good luck with your probably futile search for knowledge.
Cheers.
Mike
You seem obsessed with ice. Maybe you and Salvatore should hook up?
S,
You seem intent on appearing foolish and ignorant. Your dislike of facts won’t make them go away.
Making pointless and irrelevant comments in attempt to deny, divert, and confuse, might make you happy, but might not be effective at convincing others of the existence of a GHE which you cannot even describe.
To each his own – your belief in miracles is touching, but unlikely to bear fruit in the world of reality.
Have you managed to figure out whether gaseous nitrogen is warmer than outer space yet? Or even warmer than liquid nitrogen? Keep pondering – I’m sure you can figure it out, if you try really, really hard. Or maybe you could try for another gotcha, and “forget” to mention that the planet and its surrounding atmosphere are actually at the same temperature as outer space, and not heated by a local star!
Would that work, do you think?
Carry on, young Snape. You might get somewhere, eventually.
Cheers.
Mike
What? The planet in my example is heated by the sun. Sort of a given since we’re talking about heat transfer.
S,
Your planet is warmed by the Sun, the nitrogen is gaseous, and you still cannot figure out whether the nitrogen is warmer than 4 K or so?
The fact that even liquid nitrogen is warmer than 4 K, and gaseous nitrogen is warmer than liquid nitrogen, might logically point you to the logical answer. Or maybe not.
Rather like the difficulty that climatological pseudoscientific practitioners face accepting that, ceteris paribus, the warmest ice is still not as warm as the coldest water!
No wonder you can’t describe the GHE!
Cheers.
Regarding nitrogen – from the internet: ‘Liquid nitrogen freezers permit storage either in the vapor phase above the liquid at temperature between -140C and -180C, or submerged in the liquid at a temperature below -196C. Using vapor phase storage greatly reduces the possibility of leaky vials or ampules exploding during removal.’
As used in hospital laboratories and others everywhere!
Gbaikie
If no wind, I think the air would be the same temperature as the surface below, and the temperature of the surface would be only slightly warmer than no atmosphere at all.
With wind, I think the surface temperature would be more even from one side to the other, but the global average would be unchanged.
Regardless of wind or not, I think the surface would only warm in response to how much IR the atmosphere is able to absorb and radiate back downwards, and being nitrogen, that would be very little.
Snape,
Start your physical sense. Without GHGs, the bulk of the atmosphere would be hot and isothermal. It would reach a temperature close to the maximum surface temperature. The reason for this is the significant dissymmetry of efficiency between convection and conduction.
S,
Unfortunately for your deranged thinking, what you supposedly think bears no relationship to observed reality.
I can assure you that in the presence of direct sunlight, the surface has a higher temperature than the overlaying atmosphere. If you had even a basic knowledge of physics, you would understand why.
You appear particularly clueless – par for the course as far as climatological pseudoscientists are concerned. What you think affects reality not one whit.
Carry on with your attempts to bend Nature to your will. I believe Nature will triumph.
Maybe I’m wrong.
Cheers.
No wind is sort of like no traffic- which can mean so little traffic that it is not much of a problem.
A human generally is making wind [and not talking about farting] and in nature no wind is wind less than 1 mph and up to 5 mph a light breeze. And tornadoes and hurricanes are windy.
Running like the wind, may mean running around 15 mph, rather 5 mph or 40 mph.
But air transfers heat without any wind [0 mph wind]. But put hand over hot frying pan and there is not wind but much hotter directly over frying pan than to the side of it. But frying pan will have currents of air, it’s just not like a fan.
And Air transfers heat without any movement of air masses and the heat is going in all directions- and wind has some direction to it.
The hot frying is heated air traveling in hemispherical dome or heat travel like radiant energy and of course one also have radiant heat.
Or put flat glass over it, and radiant heat would thru it, and the movement air will go around glass.
Phi
Without GHG’s, the surface has no insulation, just like the moon.
Conduction and convection transfer heat AWAY from the surface. So how do you think this makes the surface hotter??
It makes the surface warmer by making the ATMOSPHERE warmer, you (…)!
The IR-active gases in the atmosphere could do nothing to the surface temp if the atmosphere weren’t warmer than space, if it couldn’t warm and stay that way. Its radiative properties do not help in this regard.
How hard is this?
But the atmosphere IS warmer than space.
Rank these choices, in terms of how much they limit heat flow (thermal IR in particular) away from the surface.
a) an IR transparent atmosphere at 0 K
b) an IR active atmosphere at 0 K
c) an IR transparent atmosphere at 250 K
d) an IR active atmosphere at 250 K
Tell us which one of these will actually have the greatest effect on surface temperatures.
Tell us if …
* only temperature matters.
* only being IR active matter.
* both temperature and being IR active matters.
Tim,
Rank these choices –
Michael Mann is deluded for believing he was awarded a Nobel Prize.
Gavin Schmidt is deluded for believing he is a world renowned climate scientist.
James Hansen is deluded for believing for believing storms can pluck boulders from below the seas, and rain them on unbelievers heads.
Which is the most bizarre delusion?
Tell us if –
Mann, Schmidt, or Hansen is the most hopelessly deluded of the three.
For bonus marks, explain why anybody should think you are any less deluded than Schmidt, Mann or Hansen.
Cheers.
Tim is performing again. He’s a strong competitor in the clown competition.
Upthread he was trying to prove that all spectra are equal: “Spectra can and often do have many of the same frequencies, just with different intensities.”
That’s like saying a Boeing 747 is the same as a tricycle, because they both have wheels!
Mike,
“Whataboutism” seem to be your favorite logical fallacy (although “strawman arguments” show up with similar frequency). Nothing you wrote in any way addresses any of my points.
Kristian made a scientific claim. I am asking him to clarify his claim by explaining what he would conclude in various specific conditions. You are welcome to address these issues too. Or you can keep posting irrelevant red herrings.
Tim mentions “logical fallacy”, “strawman”, and “red herring”. He is well versed in such techniques, as he tries to twist physics to suit his beliefs.
And, he forgot “deception”, which he used here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-315985
He was trying to use the special case of a standing wave to “prove” that radiative fluxes can be added/subtracted.
I can guess the people he actually deceived….
Meanwhile, JD has been running and running as far as he can from finding my missing Watts, that somehow disappear because fluxes don’t add.
His lack of an answer to this simple question, shows that fluxes of course do add.
Anonymous Nate, false accusations and mis-representations are somewhat passè.
The clown competition is tough, this round. I suggest you step up the effort.
Best of luck.
Tim,
You may ask Kristian anything you like. Kristian may choose to respond any way he wishes.
I may ask you anything I like. You may choose to respond in any way you wish.
Others readers are free to draw any conclusion they wish from any exchange, or lack thereof.
Neither you, nor anybody else, can describe the GHE in any useful way, because there is no such thing in reality.
Wriggle away. Avoid all you wish. Still no GHE to be seen!
Cheers.
Mike,
You can ignore descriptions of the GHE and instead keep substituting your own false description as if it were the actual GHE.
Many people have explained the GHE to you. Many webpages and textbooks go into more detail. Your inability to understand (and frankly, willful effort NOT to understand) is not our fault.
“Tell us if …
* only temperature matters.
* only being IR active matter.
* both temperature and being IR active matters.”
It seems to me the CO2 [IR active matter] increases average temperature.
It seems to me that if a body absorbs twice as much energy,
it is warmer than a body that absorbs 1/2 as much energy.
The moon absorbs very little energy- in sunlight moon surface is hot, but has a low average temperature.
Venus absorbs very little energy- but it’s rocky surface is hot and has very high average temperature. Venus reflects most of it’s sunlight in location of it’s atmosphere where there is somewhere around 1 atm of pressure and has surface air pressure 90 times as much as this. What reflecting most of the sunlight are clouds- the clouds have range in concentration of acid which is diluted with water- twice their mass as acid could be water.
The clouds condense and rain and involved chemical reaction and addition of water to the acid generates heat.
The clouds of Venus are considered to have a warming effect.
Since Venus does not absorb much of sunlight and it’s hot and with high average temperature, it does not appear follow the general idea that if body absorbs more energy it would be warmer.
And Venus is hotter and higher average temperature compared to what ideal thermal conductive blackbody body which suppose to [the model dictates] it absorb nearly 100% of sunlight reaching it.
Tim Folkerts says, August 9, 2018 at 6:23 AM:
Indeed. But NOT because of its radiative properties. So they’re simply riding on the back of the real cause.
Kristian
“It makes the surface warmer by making the ATMOSPHERE warmer, you ()!”
So moving energy AWAY from a surface makes the surface hotter than if that energy were not moved away in the first place????
S,
Another witless and pointless gotcha, is it?
If you don’t know the answer, why not just ask someone who knows more than you?
If you think you do know the answer, why pretend that you don’t?
Are you stupid and ignorant, or just stupid and ignorant?
Cheers.
Mike
As you well know (but are pretending otherwise), my question to Kristian is rhetorical, intending to point out the absurdity of his position, rather than to gain information.
S,
In other words, a gotcha.
A better course would be to provide verifiable facts in order that others might assess the validity of both points of view.
In relation to absurdity, Richard Feynman said –
“[Quantum mechanics] describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment.”
I agree with Feynman. You may have your opinion, but unless it agrees with experiment, I feel entitled to ignore it, or deride it as stupid and ignorant. The GHE appears to be one such opinion.
Avoid facts as much as you like – it makes no difference. Chaos and absurdity reign.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
And yet E. Swanson performs and experiment, which clearly shows that a colder plate can cause a hotter plate to increase in steady state temperature, and you reject it. You don’t even follow Feynman’s advice. So your opinion does not agree with experiment. You need to change this false position you think is reality. It goes against experiment.
N,
No, it doesn’t. Read what is actually occurring, then try and convince anyone rational the experiment shows that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.
This is what GHE adherents think, apparently, by claiming that putting more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer, therby reducing the amount of energy reaching the thermometer increases the temperature of the thermometer!
And of course, this is nonsensical. In reality, the less sunlight, the lower the temperature. CO2 impedes the transmission of energy, it doesn’t create more!
Only someone ignorant and stupid would interpret E Swanson’s experiment to claim anything novel and inexplicable is demonstrated.
Cheers.
Mike, I think you are misunderstanding how CO2 interacts differently with different wavelengths of light.
Mike Flynn says:
August 9, 2018 at 11:36 PM
N,
Read what is actually occurring, then try and convince anyone rational the experiment shows that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter.
This is what GHE adherents think, apparently…
________________________________________________________
@Mike Flynn
No, thats not what they think.
What they really think (better say what everyone KNOWS)is, that thermomter becomes hotter when reducing the amount of energy LEAVING the thermometer. Or when INCREASING the amount of energy reaching the thermometer.
Very easy to understand.
To put it a different way:
Space, at a temperature of only 3 K, provides 100% insulation against a surface’s conductive and convective heat loss. Even better than a Dewar flask.
Since this comment is an orphan, I want to make plain that I have no idea what conversation it is in reference to, and am not taking sides in said discussion.
However, on the subject, let’s consider a practical application of something intended to work in a vacuum.
Satellites do not have to worry about convective exchange. What they do have to worry about is getting too hot on the sunward side, and too cold on the anti-Sun side.
So, they are often wrapped in that gold mylar covering you often see. Besides reflecting incoming rays (to keep the sunward side from getting too hot), it impedes outgoing radiation (to keep the anti-sun side from getting too cold).
Sometimes, interior parts get too hot, because of the electrical power being dissipated to run instruments. To alleviate this, heat pipes – thin metal cylinders generally filled by a wicked fluid (wicked like a candle, not bad) – will be used to connect the inner parts to the outer parts. This channels heat from the inside to where it can be radiated away.
You can think of those heat pipes as filling the role of atmospheric convection on the Earth. The heat is drawn from the surface to the radiating layer of the atmosphere. It makes a big difference in the temperature of the surface.
Salvatore!
How is you prediction for this year’s cooling going?
I see that global average SSTs have been increasing for 12 days in a row while the NINO3.4 index is again on the rise.
El Nino anyone?
The IRI puts the chance of an El Nino this winter at 70%.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
DA, Joe Bastardi was talking about this winter’s possible El Niño, months ago.
Try to keep up.
Then, learn some physics.
Joe Bastardi !
Is that all you’ve got?
“Fox News and Fox Business Network frequently host Joe Bastardi to comment on climate change. But Bastardi, who is a weather forecaster, not a climate researcher, has made inaccurate claims about climate science on multiple occasions and is not seen by experts as a credible source of climate information.”
Hilarious!
Mike, if you want “hilarious”, you should compare Joe’s forecast record with that of your “climate researchers”. Joe would be so far ahead, it would be even beyond hilarious!
You’re dreaming.
And you are trolling. Please stop.
The overall trend is down and will continue.
I wonder why EL NINO is so important to AGW?. I know why it is another natural variable they can hi jack.
It’s not part of a systematic evolution. It’s just a random fluctuation. So, if it comes, all it can do is mask the underlying long term dynamics for a bit longer.
Sometimes, Salvatore, I think the good lord is playing games with us, keeping us in suspense for maximum effect when it all comes tumbling down. You and I both know a decline is queued up, but it’s like waiting for my wife to get dressed for an event. Just when you think it’s time, she pulls out another outfit to try on 😉
Bart I think this time the transition is for real. Let’s let it play out . I tend to get to enthusiastic but I can’t help it because I know how stupid AGW theory is. I am so anxious to see this theory go up in smoke and the only way that really happens is if we get a cooling trend sustained or abrupt or both.
Spoken like a true non-scientist.
Despite all your pretensions to understand physics and statistics your only feeble defence is to hope and pray cooling occurs.
What a sham!
Spoken like a true troll. Please stop.
Patience. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. The longer it is drawn out, the worse they will look when the corner turns.
It is very stupid. It is founded upon leaps of faith and logical inconsistencies – if it weren’t for logical fallacies, they’d have no logic at all.
They think “science” is about confirming pre-existing prejudices using selected data and sciency jargon, and they view quantity of effort as quality of results. It will all come crashing down someday, as it always has in the past.
Why do El Ninos keep getting warmer?
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2018/07/increasing-temperatures-of-enso-seasons.html
Why do my pens keep disappearing? Who knows? They will get warmer until they don’t. It’s like asking, why do the monsters under my bed keep getting louder? It is argumentum ad metum.
Plus, they haven’t been getting warmer. What matters is the integrated area under the blip, and that was larger in 1998 than in 2016.
The highest 12-month average for the “1998 blip” was 0.483 C.
The highest 12-month average for the “2016 blip” was 0.532 C.
So this comment about “integrated area” is clearly wrong.
No, the latter simply started at a higher level. You have to subtract that out to make an apples to apples comparison.
Look at the plot. Here they are with roughly the same zero reference:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2000/offset:0.2/plot/uah6/from:2014/to:2018/offset:-0.15
Now, look at the area:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2000/offset:0.2/integral/plot/uah6/from:2014/to:2018/offset:-0.15/integral
Bart, perhaps I misunderstood your comment. In one sense, this recent 2016 El Nino was “smaller” because” it rose less above the base-line. In another sense, it is “larger” because it has a larger total area under the curve.
Both are reasonable ways to express what happened. In either case, the trend is upward.
The 1998 El Nino started at a lower baseline. It is disingenuous to claim El Nino’s are getting bigger when, starting from the same baseline, the latest one is smaller.
The “pause” set in following the 1998 event. Global temperature anomaly has been stationary, bobbling about in a limited range, since then, except for around 2016 during the latest El Nino.
As El Nino is a transient event superimposed upon the underlying dynamics, it is disingenuous to claim temperatures have risen based upon its already dissipated influence.
As I have said AGW is over and done with. It has had it’s day.
You also said cooling started in 2002.
Yep, 2002 to maybe 2005. Somewhere thereabouts. That’s when the ~60 year cycle turned. It’s downward progression has been masked by temporary El Nino blips.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/ke92le.jpg
It probably is a manifestation of the AMO:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo
The recent big blip appears to be PDO related:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo
It is not unlike the blip in about 1940 that came crashing down, and presaged the 1940-1970 era of global cooling.
Let’s plot them both together with a 10-year rolling average (a smoothing technique)
https://tinyurl.com/ycw4maxr
And now with a 30-year rolling average
https://tinyurl.com/ydgn8jm6
Do you have a point?
I hoped you might explain what it means that sometimes they move in the same direction, sometimes not, and how the combination affects global temperature.
They are not the same sort of animal. IIRC, the AMO signal is actually just detrended North Atlantic temperature anomaly. The PDO is more a measure of the gradient in temperatures across the Northern Pacific based upon principle component analysis. Each one will be influenced by the physical characteristics and state of the respective ocean basins.
The AMO clearly recently peaked, and is very probably going to be in a cooling mode for the next few decades. Thus, globally, the Pacific sector is what is keeping temperatures from falling with it. The PDO measure doesn’t directly tell us what is going on there, but it is showing a pattern that may be recurring, based on its similarity in the past. And, that pattern suggests an incipient plunge is in the offing. When that happens, I expect we will revert to the long term ~60 year cycle in global temperature anomaly.
Sal
“I wonder why EL NINO is so important to AGW?. I know why it is another natural variable they can hi jack.”
Remember the “pause”? 75 la nina months, 31 el nino.
What goes around comes around.
The “pause” is based upon more than that. It is the turning point of the ~60 year cyclic phenomenon evident since the turn of the 20th century.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/ke92le.jpg
The ‘pause’ began in 1998. We should have seen a general decline in trend since then.
What we saw instead was skeptics shift the goalposts.
Now it starts in 2002, or 2005, or 2016, depending on what BS is being proffered.
60 years, huh? If temps from 2017 to 2026 are higher than temps 2007 to 2016, then that will be a pretty strong indication that this purported cycle (you can’t determine a ‘cycle’ when there’s only 1.5 cycles to base it on) isn’t driving global temps.
And which one are you picking, Brat? PDO? AMO? Or are you keeping that as vague as your predictions? If so, good strategy.
“We should have seen a general decline in trend since then.”
You seem unclear on the meaning of the word “pause”.
“If temps from 2017 to 2026 are higher than temps 2007 to 2016, then that will be a pretty strong indication that this purported cycle (you cant determine a cycle when theres only 1.5 cycles to base it on) isnt driving global temps.”
No, it just means that the ~60 year cycle is superimposed upon the long term trend. Both of these patterns were in evidence long before CO2 had increased significantly. Take them out, and there is very little left to attribute to CO2.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/wasioj.jpg
“Are you saying that you expect the long term temperature to continue rising with plateaus corresponding to the downturn of whatever unnamed cycle youre banking on?”
That is the most likely scenario, given the past.
“Youre the one predicting cooling, Bart. Are you taking that back now, or what?”
No. The long term trend is less than the cyclical max rate. Therefore, modest cooling is in the cards.
“Will you at some point identify which cycle you are talking about, or will you keep it vague so you dont have to risk being wrong?”
The ~60 year one shown in the plot at the link.
“And Ill repeat 1.5 cycles does not demonstrate that there is a cycle: nor or that this pattern will persist, or persist with any regularity.”
One cycle does not. But, when it hit the downturn right on time in about 2005, that was strong confirmation of its existence.
There is a long term trend plus this ~60 year component. The AGW panic was founded on the rise in the late 20th century that was a result of the long term trend adding to the upswing of the ~60 year cycle. Take that cycle out, and the long term warming is only modest.
But, that long term trend was set in motion well before CO2 could have caused it, so you have to remove that, too. When you take both the long term trend and the ~60 year cycle out, there is very little left to attribute to rising CO2.
You seem unclear on the meaning of the word “pause”.
Are you saying that you expect the long term temperature to continue rising with plateaus corresponding to the downturn of whatever unnamed cycle you’re banking on?
You’re the one predicting cooling, Bart. Are you taking that back now, or what?
Will you at some point identify which cycle you are talking about, or will you keep it vague so you don’t have to risk being wrong?
I’m looking for substance and finding vapour. Have you anything more concrete to offer?
And I’ll repeat – 1.5 ‘cycles’ does not demonstrate that there is a cycle: nor or that this pattern will persist, or persist with any regularity.
Hit the wrong reply button. See above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316582
Kristian
I read through your material you linked to.
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/an-atmospheres-ir-activity-wont-make-it-warmer-and-so-cannot-be-the-cause-of-surface-warming-either/
I disagree with you point 1) An atmosphere does not insulate the surface from the “heat sink” of space. If you had a halite block on top of a plate in outer space exposed to the Sun, the halite block would not act like an “insulator” to keep the plate surface warmer. A plate without the halite would actually get warmer since the halite will conduct energy away from the surface cooling it. When the plates are not in view of the Sun, the one with the halite will have stay warm a little longer because of the thermal capacity of the material and conduction from it to the surface of the plate.
I do not know where you are going with your claim: “The surface heat loss will simply always be lower at any given surface temperature with an atmosphere on top than without.”
Why? Without GHG present the surface will lose heat as if there were no atmosphere via radiant energy directly to space. The non GHG atmosphere will actually cool the surface when the Sun is shining on it by removing heat from it via conduction and convection.
Kristian
I do agree with your point 2) and 3). Nothing much to question with those point.
I do not agree with 4) and your insulating effect. What exactly is that and how does it work.
I disagree with Point 5) CO2 will cool parts of the atmosphere (mostly Stratosphere) but not Troposphere.
https://co2islife.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/spectralcoolingrates_zps27867ef4.png
Point 6) GHG will act to warm the atmosphere even without any other mechanism (latent heat, thermals). They will warm the atmosphere to the point that it is emitting what it absorbs. If the atmosphere starts much colder than the surface the GHG will absorb much more energy than they emit and warm the surrounding air.
Kristian
The math you perform is not correct. You are doing it incorrectly as I think you use the energy radiated from the surface minus the DWIR as the amount of radiant heat the atmosphere absorbs from the surface.
The problem is you can’t use heat the way you do. The DWIR is not just based on the amount of radiant energy the atmosphere absorbs from the surface, it is a combination of the surface radiant energy but also the thermals and latent heat.
If you do it correctly you get a much different result.
The global energy budget you linked to does not include how much energy the atmosphere receieves from the Earth surface. I will use this one (which includes it, the other numbers are comparable).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1024px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Radiant energy into the atmosphere. (values in W/m^2)
77.1 from Sun. 358.2 from Surface. Total radiant energy into atmosphere: 435.3
Radiant energy emitted by atmosphere. 169.9 by GHG 29.9 by clouds
Total 199.8 to space. 40.1 leaves via atmosphere window and is not part of the atmosphere energy budget. 340.3 emitted toward Earth’s surface. Total energy emitted by atmosphere is 540.1.
The amount of radiant energy added to the atmosphere is 435.3/540.1 so radiant energy is adding 80.6% of the energy to the atmosphere (not your 49% that you found with flawed and incomplete logical thought process). Latent heat adds 86.4 so 86.4/540.1 (x 100%) = 16% of the energy to the atmosphere. Thermals add the remaining at
18.4/540.1 = 3.4%
80.6 + 16 + 3.4 =100%
Radiant energy is by far the largest contributor of energy to the atmosphere.
Norm,
You make no sense. The amount of energy available at the TOA is 342 W/m2 per the Kiehl/Trenberth energy balance diagram. That’s all there is. There is no additional source of energy between the TOA and the earth’s surface. But what does the Trenberth energy balance diagram indicate as far as energy striking the earth’s surface? 492 W/m2. LMAO. Where did that extra energy come from?? You have a lot of explaining to do.
SkepticGoneWild
I have explained things to you in detail in the past. I can do so again.
Your points all deal with systems that do not have a constant amount of energy moving into them.
The Earth system is a powered system, it has energy constantly moving into it.
You can test it yourself. My words will never alter your established belief system.
It is experiments you can do. You just need a heating element that can be put in liquid.
First you take a cup of coffee with no insulation. Now put the heater in it and leave it until you reach a steady state temperature and record it. Now put the same amount of coffee in a Thermos. Put the heater in the liquid and get it to the same setting as the other test. Let is go until it reaches a steady state temperature and see if the final temperature is higher than the other one. The same amount of heat is added to both but the amount of heat that can exist is different in both cases. Do the test and prove me wrong or not. It is not a hard test to perform.
Norm,
The earth is not a powered system. The heat in the core is ignored by climate science. There is ONLY the sun heating the earth. The earth is completely passive.
This has nothing to do with a belief system. You are guilty of creating energy out of nothing. First Law. All your rambling makes no sense. You are deluding yourself.
This is what happens when people not educated in physics and thermodynamics attempt to play with stuff they know nothing of.
SkepticGoneWild
The Earth’s surface is powered by solar energy.
Actually I know a considerable amount of physics. I link to my sources, the claims I make are established science. I do not get it wrong.
I am not sure why you are playing a semantic game with the concept.
A car engine is passive, it needs an external source of energy to move its pistons, an electric motor is passive and does not generate its own power, it needs power from another source. The Earth’s surface is passive in that it does not produce its own power but the Sun is the source of the power like gasoline and air are the power source for a car engine. The Sun heating the surface makes the surface a powered object, it has power flowing to it from the Sun.
You play semantic games and tell me I don’t know physics. I know it better than you. But like all the skeptics who pretend they know things will not do simple experiments. When someone actually does an experiment (be it Roy or others) the skeptics jump all over it but they will not do their own. Do the coffee cup experiment and let me know the results.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316160
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
The strange thing about you is that you are trolling and telling people to stop.
Here:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling
What you are doing is trolling. What I am doing is debating an issue with another poster.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says: Please Stop Trolling!
Thats it, Norman, just keep ranting at the mirror.
Norman tries to compare heating a cup of coffee with heating an equal amount of coffee in a thermos. He believes that is somehow relevant to Earth’s climate.
The thermos is an INSULATOR. The heat transfer from the coffee is completely different in the two cases. So, Norman is trying the old “bait and switch” deception. He presents a situation in which the coffee, well insulated, gets hotter. Then, he “switches” to the atmosphere.
His problem is the atmosphere is NOT an insulator. It is a heat transfer medium.
Norman’s pseudoscience fails again.
Huffingman wrote something silly:
All insulators are “heat transfer mediums”, it’s just that they are made from materials which don’t transfer as much energy per unit time as other materials which also transfer energy. For example, glass is an insulator, compared to copper. Air is an excellent insulator when mixed with fiberglass, which impedes the convection of the air within.
E. Swanson, you seem to stay confused. The atmosphere is not glass, or fiberglass.
Focus.
Norman says:
“Radiant energy is by far the largest contributor of energy to the atmosphere.”
Duh! For the inner planets internal heat sources have a tiny effect on temperature so radiation is the only contribution that matters.
When it comes to gas giants there are significant internal heat sources that must be taken into account.See here:
[The link I entered was rejected by Dr. Roy’s filtering system so I ask you to Google “Catling, Tropopause” and click on the link from the University of Washington]
Mike Flynn
Way up you made this incorrect position on Feynman.
YOU: “Feynman claimed that all physical phenomena apart from gravity and nuclear processes could be explained in the following terms
(1) a photon goes from place to place; (2) an electron goes from place to place; and (3) an electron emits or absorbs a photon.”
I looked up the original material. I was certain you had it wrong and you certainly did (like you do most everything…you are not a very smart person at all).
What Feynman actually said: “Answer is yes; number is 3. There are only three basic actions needed to produce all of phenomena
associated with light and electrons.” He was talking strictly about phenomena dealing with light and electrons and you only need three basic actions to produce all known phenomena dealing with them.
From the book:
http://www.johnboccio.com/courses/QESMS_2017/Part_2.pdf
He is not saying things like pressure are based upon these three actions, nor heat nor many other phenomena. You do not know how to comprehend content. Get it right!
Mike Flynn
Page 47 of the link if you want to verify what I posted.
N,
At least you made a start. Read the whole book.
“The new view of the interaction of electrons and protons that is electromagnetic theory, but with everything quantum-mechanically correct, is called quantum electrodynamics. This fundamental theory of the interaction of light and matter, or electric field and charges, is our greatest success so far in physics. In this one theory we have the basic rules for all ordinary phenomena except for gravitation and nuclear processes. For example, out of quantum electro- dynamics come all known electrical, mechanical, and chemical laws: the laws for the collision of billiard balls, the motions of wires in magnetic fields, the specific heat of carbon monoxide, the color of neon signs, the density of salt, and the reactions of hydrogen and oxygen to make water are all consequences of this one law.”
So yes, all phenomena – including such things as pressure, heat, and so on – with the exception of gravity and probably nuclear processes – are included.
You need to read the sources for the book. I have provide one quote to assist. I am not sure whether a text search will find Feynman’s video and audio.
Keep at it, Norman. You might have a win one day. So far, bad luck for you – good luck for me.
Cheers.
A first class example of a little bit of knowledge being a bad thing.
A 1,294th class example of trolling. Please stop.
SkepticsGoneWild
“This is what happens when people not educated in physics and thermodynamics attempt to play with stuff they know nothing of.”
Why do you belittle Norman, when nearly everything he says is supported by physicists, chemists, meteorologists…..not to mention the host of this blog?
S,
Probably because Norman doesn’t give any reason to believe he is not stupid and ignorant.
His attempts to appeal to authority fall flat – either because of the persons upon whom he relies, for example Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann, or because he doesn’t understand what he is relying on – his misunderstanding of seemingly everyone from Tyndall to Einstein to Feynman et al.
The main problem is that Norman, like yourself, has the fanatical cultist’s conviction that somebody, somewhere, must have defined the GHE sufficiently to propose a testable GHE hypothesis.
Alas, no. Complete climatological pseudoscientific claptrap.
Cheers.
What a sore loser.
Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann will long be remembered as heroes in the climate wars.
And don’t forget Al Gore – what a prophet!
Schmidt, Mann, Gore the blind leading the blind.
Salvatore, Del, Prete the failed failing again.
Myki, the troll failing to stop. Please try.
90% of Normans posts are child-like ranting. How that has escaped your attention I have no idea.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “90% of Normans posts are child-like ranting. How that has escaped your attention I have no idea.”
Says the poster who knows nothing of physics and mostly posts “please stop trolling”
I would consider your stupid posts the really childlike posts.
Calling your stupid partner JDHUffman (an actual troll by the definition of the term) a troll is what you should do if you had intelligence.
Thank you, Norman, that was yet another good example of your child-like ranting (I have already linked several others through to here).
The first thing you need to be aware of is the logical fallacy tu quoque.
Then, you can consider that I am here partly to shine a light on, and partly to hold up a mirror to, the activities of the climate trolls that have completely taken over this blog (David Appell being the worst offender of all these professional trolls).
Its hardly surprising that you dont like what you see.
Now, please stop trolling.
Snape, clown Norman belittles himself. That’s why he’s a clown. He’s anti-science and physics illiterate. Even if he’s never studied physics, he should understand that a simple AM radio verifies that radiative fluxes do NOT add.
So, he belittles himself.
g.e.r.a.n
A simple radio can easily show fluxes do add! You can send a jamming signal that overwhelms the signal you want to listen to. You are adding energy to the same signal, the two fluxes are adding.
Once again. “Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.”
If you have multiple stations, each will produce an amount of power that moves through a given area. Each station, regardless of frequency, will add power (Watts) through an area. The more stations you have on the more power will flow through an area.
Clown Norman continues to display his ignorance of physics. Jamming a radio station involves ON-FREQUENCY transmissions. Radiative fluxes emitted by two different BB temperatures have different spectra, and can NOT be treated arithmetically.
His continued inability to understand makes him a clown.
But, he’s a funny clown!
g.e.r.a.n
No it is not “clown” material. Spectra are the entire band of emission. They are in the same units. Watts for radiant flux, Watts/m^2 for radiative flux. Both are energy units. The spectrum of one BB emission is the total amount of energy that BB will emit at all the various frequencies of EMR. The two spectrum are not different things. Both are energy (joules/second). You can directly add the energy per second and get more watts or more watts/m^2 passing through an area.
I think you do not comprehend the definition of a flux. You have your own definition that no one else knows and you just go with that.
The spectra can be treated arithmetically. They are not different material. They are the same. Your argument is like saying you can’t add the water in a glass to the pond. They are the same thing (energy) just of different amounts.
If you say that some surfaces cannot absorb some frequencies I would accept that, some parts of spectra will not absorb the same.
Visible light goes through glass while some frequencies of IR do not. Fresh snow reflects almost all visible light but absorbs nearly all IR. That is a very different topic than how much energy can flow through and area and if two fluxes will increase that amount.
All either irrelevant or wrong!
Learn some physics, Grinvalds.
(And, thanks for comparing me to your hero. That’s one way for you to try to look smart. Another way is to quote me directly. It all helps.)
The only reason they keep mentioning it is because they want you banned. How pathetic.
Norman has trouble with reality.
He refuses to understand the AM radio example.
He refused to understand the sealed igloo with interior of 30 m^2 area, emitting 300 Watts/m^2, would have 9000 Watts, INSIDE, if radiative flux added arithmetically.
And, of course, he refuses to study the hints I gave him.
He prefers his clown comedy.
g.e.r.a.n
The igloo does have 9000 watts of energy inside it from all the ice emitting 300 watts/m^2. It does not have a flux of 9000 w/m^2 but does have 9000 watts of energy. What are you smoking? You don’t even make sense. You make stupid declarations based upon physics that you never link to (just your made up version, I like the real stuff).
The thing about you is I do understand you radio point and explain why the fluxes do add. I constantly give you the definition of radiative fluxes. Are you unable to understand the combination of words in that definition.
You have more power flowing through an area when you have more stations on air. What is your malfunction of thought you can’t understand that.
Norman, it is you that does not understand. The fluxes in the air are NOT adding. Unless the fluxes are the same frequencies, they don’t even “see” each other.
And you are equally confused about the igloo. There are NOT 9000 Watts of energy inside. If an igloo had 9000 Watts, you would know it!
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman
The only way you can make your declarations is to use a different definition of fluxes.
I have repeatedly stated both accepted definitions when using the word in context of EMR.
HERE again:
“In radiometry, radiant flux or radiant power is the radiant energy emitted, reflected, transmitted or received, per unit time, and spectral flux or spectral power is the radiant flux per unit frequency or wavelength, depending on whether the spectrum is taken as a function of frequency or of wavelength. The SI unit of radiant flux is the watt (W), that is the joule per second (J/s) in SI base units, while that of spectral flux in frequency is the watt per hertz (W/Hz) and that of spectral flux in wavelength is the watt per metre (W/m)commonly the watt per nanometre (W/nm).”
Are you talking about spectral flux? You need to be specific on your use of the word flux.
I think this is the one you are trying to use, it does not support your declarations at all.
“Radiative flux, also known as radiative flux density or radiation flux, is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m2.”
I kind of hate to jump in here, because there are significant misunderstandings on both sides!
A sheet of ice at the right temperature could emit 300 W/m^2. This is fixed by the temperature and emissivity of the sheet of ice.
Inside an enclosed “igloo” with a uniform temperature and a total area of 30 m^2, every square meter would emit 300 W and every square meter would absorb 300 W. In total, there would be 9000 W being emitted from the entire surfaces and 9000 W being absorbed by the entire surfaces.
There would not be 9000 W “inside” the igloo. There also cannot be a total flux of 9000 W/m^2 anywhere. Fluxes do not add like that.
On the other hand, if you wanted to find the total energy arriving at a given square meter (call it “Surface 1”), you would add up (integrate) the fluxes from every other square meter. A distant square meter (call it “Surface 2”) will emit 300 W, but maybe only 10 W out of the total 300 W will actually land on Surface 1. A closer square meter (call it Surface 3) will emit 300 W, but maybe 50 W out of the total 300 W will actually land on surface 1. To find the total flux arriving at Surface 1, you add all contributions from all the other surfaces in all directions: 10 W + 50 W + … = 300 W.
BRIEF RECAP:
* Fluxes LEAVING a surface are determined by the temperature of the surface and the emissivity. These numbers do NOT add.
* Fluxes ARRIVING at a surface are found by adding the fluxes from all directions. These fluxes from different directions DO add.
Tim Folkerts, don’t ever “hate to jump in”. Your confusion is as funny as many of the others.
You got some things right, but you got some things wrong. So, that makes your comment useless, as far as a teaching aid.
But, the humor was there.
(If time allows today, I may end this “flux” nonsense. It’s been a blast, but it has gone on long enough. Stay tuned.)
And right on cue, JD jumps in with a post with no content, only his righteous indignation. If he had something to add, you would think think he would actually say it.
Tim Folkerts
Thanks for jumping in. I would accept you are correct that there are not 9000 watts (joules/sec) inside the igloo. One has to use the units correctly. The watts is an amount a surface is emitting or receiving it would not exist in space as it is a flow.
Would it be more accurate to state there are 9000 joules of energy in the igloo. Each emitted photon has energy and if you add all the energy up inside the igloo (ones that have been emitted buy not yet absorbed) would it be 9000 joules?
Tim Folkerts
I am thinking describing the energy in an igloo as watts would be like describing the amount of water in a tank as gallons/minute.
But I think using joules and gallons is appropriate. There would be a certain amount of energy inside the igloo in the form of EMR that has been emitted but not yet absorbed. Not sure if it would be 9000 joules or not. I am going to think on it to see if I can figure it out.
Norm,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/raddens.html
The energy density is on the order of 10^-5 J/m^2 at 270 K, so a minuscule amount of energy actually within the volume of the “igloo”
Tim Folkerts, the “jumping-in clown”, adds attempted sarcasm to his comedy routine:
“If he had something to add, you would think think he would actually say it.”
Tim, jump on this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316276
Tim Folkerts
Thanks again for you very knowledgeable posts. You will steer a willing poster in the correct direction.
I have not got the logic to work yet, I must be doing something wrong.
I can see why the photon density would have to be so very small. The energy if moving very fast and a higher density would be a tremendous amount of energy in the time frame of one second.
Using your link I get 0.4018 x 10^-5 Joules/m^3 at 270 K. The energy is moving at the speed of light which is 299,792,458 meters/second.
You will get several million cubic meters worth of energy passing through a square meter of space. If you multiply the two directly you get a much too high value so there must be something else to consider. You would get 1,204 joules in one second or 1204 watts. It should only be 300 watts so I am not using the correct logic.
Norman, this was Tims argument which first made you accept that there wouldnt be 9000 watts of energy inside the igloo, in its entirety:
Tim simply stated that there would not be 9000 watts within the igloo.
Thats it.
Norman, with no understanding of physics, now demonstrates his lack of knowledge about math.
He multiplies X by 4/c. Then multiples the product by c. Then wonders why he ended up with 4X!
But, at least he can type….
Gross vs. net…
g.e.r.a.n
The difference between me and you is I will study the material and learn it, making mistakes along the way, I am not ashamed of making mistakes as long as I learn from them. This was an area that is new to me and someone like Tim Folkerts pointed it out to me. Things your will not do.
You are far to arrogant and smug to be able to learn anything and from you last post you seem to think making mistakes and learning are terrible. That is why you remain stupid, your super ego is too large for you to learn when you are wrong. You would rather meander around a topic for several threads then have even the slightest possibility that you are wrong about the topic. You do it all the time regardless of posters.
But Norman, JD Huffman DID tell you that there wouldnt be 9000 W within the igloo. Instead of listening to him you just launched into another child-like rant. It literally happens in the subthread directly below this one.
Grinvalds, there’s no need to get mad at me because you don’t understand physics. (And now algebra.)
You probably just hate reality.
Snake,
Norm did not even understand my statement, so it was pointless to even continue the discussion with him. The science went way over his head.
JDHuffman
Yes the igloo does have 9000 watts of energy inside. Again it is not 9000 watts/m^2. It is 9000 watts/30 m^2. There is 9000 watts moving within the igloo. If the ice was very cold and only emitting 200 watts/m^2 so you only had 6000 watts in the igloo you would know the difference between the two values. I really do not know what your brand of bizarre physics is. I don’t even think Postma or PSI come up with your fantasies. Where does this strange physics come from? Support your claims with valid science.
I support all my points with established science. I link often to sources of the science. You offer nothing but your own made up reality. One time I would like to see a source for you declarations. I won’t hold my breath waiting.
Why would you think the igloo does not have 9000 watts? Because you give an unsupported claim that is won’t?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316160
Norman, did you ever give me a contact at your place of “work”? My friend is still wanting a do-nothing job.
Norman – The only physically meaningful quantity is joules. If there are no losses and temperatures are equal everywhere within the igloo, net wattage is zero – the walls emit 9000 watts, but they immediately soak up 9000 watts as well. If you put on IR goggles, everywhere you looked would look the same. You could not discern the wall.
JDHuffman
With your radio example. I hope you realize that a tuner is a device that allows only one frequency through to the amplifying circuits. It will filter out all but the selected energy (the other energy is still there at the same time, just tune to a different frequency and you can pick up another station).
An analogous situation would be to have a filter that only allows blue light through it. You turn on blue light and you can see the effect. You turn on a red or green light and the energy does not get through the filter. It is still there and adding to the total radiative flux. If you took a radiant energy measuring device on the other side of the filter, each light would contribute energy. Each flux would add, you have more total energy.
Radiative flux is not spectral flux. It is the total energy passing through a given area. I am not sure why this is hard for you to understand but it seems as if you can’t get it. No you are the only one that is wrong. You can convince yourself that others are flawed. You are wrong about that. You are the one who needs to study physics, learn material and be able to comprehend words. Most of all quit with the making up your own physics. Are you competing with Gordon Robertson to see who can come up with the most made up physics on this blog?
Norman, you keep making my point for me!
A radio tuner is more evidence that fluxes do NOT add.
Thanks!
JDHuffman
No I do not make your point. How do you logically get that a tuner is evidence fluxes don’t add? You can turn on more lights and determine instantly that fluxes DO ADD. I am not sure what your points are at all. You seem like you have none. Just repeat over and over.
Norman, try to use your head. Apply your “turning on more lights” scenario with radio stations. Tune to an AM station. Then, turn on another AM frequency. Did your radio volume increase?
Thanks for making my point for me, again.
Norman, clowns believe radiative fluxes can be added/subtracted arithmetically. So, here’s some fun for you.
Radiative fluxes consist of different photons. But, for simplicity, suppose you have a flux of only one photon. You also have a second flux with only one photon. Here are the data on each:
Photon 1 has energy 0.0843 eV, direction (3, 3,-2), and phase 0 degrees.
Photon 2 has energy 0.1240 eV, direction (5, -1, 4), and phase 45 degrees.
Find the sum of the two radiative fluxes, using only simple arithmetic.
(Directions based on same coordinate system.)
The flux for the missing 150 W/m2 you can’t find is all radial.
Nonradial components sum to zero, by spherical symmetry.
So then — where is the missing 150 W/m2?
There is no “missing” 150 Watts/m^2!
Are you a new entrant in the clown competition, DavidA? Or just a passerby that does not understand the issue being discussed?
Avoiding the question.
Oh, you must be Appell? You’ve changed your screen name.
Sorry DA, but you can only enter the clown competition once.
Again you have only insults when an intelligent response is required.
Par for the course.
DA, you don’t rate an intelligent response.
And, that’s not an insult.
It’s just reality.
Learn some physics.
Where is the missing 150 W/m2?
You have no idea whatsoever….
Professional climate troll David Appell, it seems all you are required to do is ask the same question over and over again, despite the numerous times it has been answered during arguments you conclusively lost. That seems easy enough. Where do I sign up?
DA, there is NO “missing” 150 Watts/m^2. That’s just some of the pseudoscience slop you’ve swallowed over the years.
Learn some physics.
David, please answer my question.
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David, do you find it irritating when people keep repeatedly asking you the same question?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
David?
EMT, Dr. Roy isn’t paying you enough.
You deserve a raise!
Im really hoping to get into it professionally. Hopefully David will answer my question, or needless to say I will have to follow him relentlessly wherever he comments constantly asking the same question over and over again until the end of time.
JD, radiative flux is power through a specified area (watts per square meter). You give energy, but neither the time (required to calculate power) nor the area, so your question is meaningless as stated.
Tim, thanks for making my point.
You can’t add/subtract flux arithmetically, even if you used the standard of one second, for time. Your desperate effort to escape reality reminds me of DA and Norman.
Learn some physics.
No, JD, *you* can’t add fluxes! You don’t even know how to describe a flux properly with correct physical dimensions. Once you figure out what a flux actually is, then maybe you will figure out how specify a flux and how to add fluxes arriving at a given surface.
Tim, your inability to add the simple fluxes proves my point, as do the AM radio station and igloo examples.
Hopefully you’ve learned some physics.
JD, you did not provide any “fluxes” to add! A flux of photons requires specification not only of the number and direction of the photons, but a time frame and an area.
Any inability to add the “fluxes” you gave is because they are not even fluxes!
Pretzel, you may use “A” for the area, and you don’t need time, as you may consider everything instantaneous.
If you can’t add two photons, you can’t add fluxes.
That means you will have to spin and twist, pretzel-style.
Or, you could learn some physics. Your choice.
JD, radiative flux is power through a specified area (watts per square meter). You give energy, but neither the time (required to calculate power) nor the area, so your question is meaningless as stated.
Only Nixon Could Go to China, and Only Trump Could Go to Space
“Since the dawn of recorded history, mankind has gazed up at the night sky and pondered: “What if one day the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton, so we could finally elect Donald Trump and he could form the United States Space Force?” ”
https://pjmedia.com/trending/only-nixon-could-go-to-china-and-only-trump-could-go-to-space/
Sure, let’s weaponize space.
What a tremendously short-sighted view.
Yes, instead we should sit back and do nothing while others weaponize space.
What do you think is more likely to make them stop? Asking them nicely? Or, telling them if they do it, we will do it, too?
Who else is weaponizing space?
Wow…
https://thediplomat.com/2017/01/how-china-is-weaponizing-outer-space/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-space-wars-russia-china-conflict-antisatellite-directed-energy-weapons-lasers-cia-fbi-a8211181.html
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/a15884747/no-treaty-will-stop-space-weapons/
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/opinions/race-to-militarize-space-pedreira/index.html
More to the point, who else is planning a ‘space force’?
And doesn’t the airforce already cover this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command
What does Trump have in mind? Something like this?
https://tinyurl.com/y8yofvee
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-brunswick-new-jersey-nasa-package-trump-note-sparks-alarm/
Suspicious Package Dropped From The Sky Causes Alarm.
–“The weather researchers were apologetic for any concerns they had raised by the hand written note on the device,” police said in a statement.
NASA told WNBC-TV the package, which fell on Tuesday, is part of six balloons that were launched to measure ozone. It says a summer student employee wrote the note in a “misguided attempt to be lighthearted,” and that the student has been removed from the project.–
Linked from:
http://nasawatch.com/
Pity, they have to say student removed from the project- as it indicate that we live in world of mindless bureaucrats. Though I suppose it is a necessary reminder.
“No, the latter simply started at a higher level. ”
So you’re saying global temperatures were lower before the start of the 1998 El Nino than they were at the start of the 2016 El Nino?
You avoided the question, as you always do.
Oh dear, hated argument-loser David Appell. You posted in the wrong place!
Norman, FFS stop feeding the troll.
You too, David. Maybe it will go away.
barry, please stop trolling.
barry
When the troll went by g.e.r.a.n I did choose to ignore the posts. It did not help. The troll invaded all my posts regardless of who I was responding to or over what. Couldn’t shake it. The troll drives the thread into the thousands of posts.
I cant recall David ever posting under that name, but yes he does tend to do exactly as you describe, Norman. Though I wouldnt say he drives the thread into the thousands of posts single-handedly. There seem to be a whole bunch of them. Once a certain subject is breached, they are off! They just dont stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
So what motivated to post and persist in your current line?
If you were unbiased you would tell JDHuffman to stop trolling. Why is it that you will not do this?
I am not sure about your biased selection of who you determine is trolling.
You do realize that JDHuffman used to post as g.e.r.a.n in the past. Same person.
Wakey, wakey, Norman.
Norman is becoming as obsessed with me as he is with his hero, ge.r.an.
I’m obviously doing something right.
Hey Norman, You haven’t worked the simple problem I gave you.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316276
JD,
You havent answered the simple question I gave you. Where are the missing Watts?
You will find your missing Watts when you find your missing brain.
As I expected, no answer. Well, ok, a 4th grader answer.
Fine, JD. Then stop make assertions that you cannot defend.
Im obviously doing something right.
JDHuffman
If I read your directions correctly, the photons are not moving in the same direction. They will never pass through the same region of space.
Your thought experiment does not work by reducing fluxes to individual photons moving away from each other.
A flux is a macroscopic flow of energy. It is in Watts/m^2. (radiative flux).
The IR, from an emitted object, will become an isotropic flux. The photons from the object will cover all the directions (not just one).
The photons of another object will also cover all the directions. If you have two emitting objects next to each other, there will be more photons in all the areas of space, there will be more watts/m^2.
I have one that will help you see my point. If you have one ice sheet radiating 300 W/m^2 then a very nearby area will have nearly 300 W/m^2 radiative flux flowing through this area. Now put an ice sheet directly opposite the first (have them fairly close). You will have 600 W/m^2 flowing through the area instead of just 300 W/m^2. The flux added.
The way you can test it is with plates in a vacuum like E. Swanson performed. If you just have the 300 W/m^2 ice sheet in the setup (the surrounding walls should be cooled much much colder to minimize their effect on what you are looking for) and put a plate (that absorbs well), the plate will get around 227 K. If you put another ice sheet on the other side of the plate, the plate will absorb an additional 300 Watts/m^2 of energy and reach a temperature of 270 K. The 43 K temperature rise will prove that the fluxes are adding.
Yes Norman, you stumbled onto just ONE of the reasons why fluxes do NOT add, arithmetically. The photons are NOT all moving in the same direction.
Now, make the direction of both photons the same, (1,1,1). So, for clarity:
Photon 1 has energy 0.0843 eV, direction (1, 1, 1), and phase 0 degrees.
Photon 2 has energy 0.1240 eV, direction (1, 1, 1), and phase 45 degrees.
Now add the two “arithmetically”.
(And, your ice adding to 600 Watts/m^2 is nonsense, as you will learn.)
JDHuffman
I am thinking by phase angle you are talking about polarization.
If the photons would both strike an object in space that could absorb the energy, the energy would add to the object. The “flux” would add directly. The object would increase in a few eV over its previous state.
I think you should consider doing the experiment with the ice. I think it would prove me correct on this point.
No Grinvalds, polarization is NOT the same as phase. You’re wrong.
You’re wrong about ice adding to 600 Watts/m^2. You’re wrong about Swanson’s experiment. You’re wrong about fluxes adding.
You can’t even add two photons. That should tell you something.
Norman, I believe you may be intentionally trying to mislead. 600 W/m^2 corresponds to a BB temperature of 320.75 K or 47.6 C. If it is your intention to mislead, please stop trolling. If it is simply ignorance, then carry on, corrected.
” a little beyond the most basic physics”
No, not really. Reference frames are in physics 1. Rigid body motion is second semester physics.
The troll invaded all my posts regardless of who I was responding to or over what. Couldnt shake it.
And you think responding to it is a good solution?
You can shake it instantly. Try it. You’ll like it.
In fairness to barry, he seems to be actually capable of not responding to someone. Amazingly rare on this blog.
To all igloo enthusiasts.
Assuming the interior surfaces radiate at 300 W/m2, and the igloo contains air, how many W/m2 does the air radiate? Is the air temperature the same as the interior surface temperature of the igloo?
Now replace the air with CO2. Does the temperature change? Why is the GHE refusing to cooperate?
What a pack of fools – mired in climatological pseudoscience. Obsessed with arithmetic, endlessly averaging weather records in a pointless endeavour to divine the future! Furiously adding and subtracting “fluxes” at the behest of a ragtag collection of fumbling bumblers.
All in an endeavour to support a religious concept, the GHE, which they cannot even describe – it’s religion, you know! Non-believers will be burnt at the stake for daring to challenge the mysterious and sacred GHE.
What a load of rubbish! Good for a laugh, and used to be good for drawing the public purse. These days, not so much.
Cheers.
“Now replace the air with CO2. Does the temperature change?”
This is not analogous to the situation at hand because there is no heat source, and no sink across a vacuum.
But, does the temperature change? Yes it does, ever so slightly. Because the heat capacity of CO2 at constant volume is about 28.5 J/K/mol, and for “air” is about 29 J/K/mol.
Bart, you make an ASSumption that just makes you an ASS.
The correct replacing or air with CO2 involves adjustments for heat capacity. Your assuming otherwise just is a feeble attempt to deny reality.
But it is not too late to enter the clown competition.
Bart,
No it doesn’t. No more than the CO2 in a frozen can of soda is any warmer than the other contents.
No miraculous heating properties. No GHE (which you can’t actually describe anyway, can you?).
Carry on defending the indefensible – as I said, it’s good for a laugh, if nothing else.
Cheers.
You did not define the exercise clearly enough. If you swapped the CO2 at constant temperature, you would not change the overall temperature, but you would change the overall energy content.
I assumed you would add it with constant energy, in which case the temperature would, indeed, change.
Nope. You still can not distinguish between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
You can’t think for yourself. Your brain is “tidally locked” to pseudoscience!
“Nate, that was an appeal to authority, something you have falsely accused me of.”
You were appealing to an authority figure, a famous person, who maybe right or wrong.
Im appealing to basic known science. The fact that it is taught at all universities as a foundation for all technical fields means it is basic knowledge.
If I say to you 13 > 5, are you going to deny it, and say Im appealing to authority?
No, cuz its basic knowledge taught in schools.
“for rotational motion about the center of mass noting that we are
considering the special case that
alpha(cm) = 0 because the object is not rotating about the
center of mass.”
If you look at the context, and you understand how to set up statics problems, you will understand that he only is concerned about rotation about the axis thru his cm and into the page, when he states this.
He is not concerned with rotation about z axis because it is not involved in solving the problem.
Getting that requires physics knowledge, JD.
Ball4, page 21-11 they say “We begin our calculation of the torques about the center of mass…” the diagrams that follow are showing torques around an axis INTO THE PAGE quite clearly.
Kristian claims: “Problem is, the motion isn’t purely translational. If it were, you wouldn’t be able to stand on the surface of the Moon and see the stars revolve above your head.”
No Kristian, the motion IS purely translational. The reason you would see the stars revolve is because you would be ORBITING.
Learn about orbital motion, especially “rotating on its own axis”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
Mike, I thought Dr. Spenser has done a good job describing the greenhouse effect. Have you read them?
C,
If he had actually done what you “think”, your question might be valid.
Vague assertions that a GHE exists, without defining it in even vaguely scientific terms, don’t count – to scientists, anyway.
You can’t actually quote a useful description off the mythical GHE, authored by Dr Spencer or anybody else, can you?
Pointless implied appeal to authority doesn’t alleviate your apparent ignorance and stupidity, does it?
Try again. Fail again . . .and again . . . and again . . .
Cheers,
I earlier posted one of the times Dr. Spencer explained the greenhouse effect:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316136
And here we go again! I almost feel sorry for barry and bindidon and some of the others. There are people here absolutely desperate to discuss something else but trolls like CraigT, David Appell, Tim Folkerts, Ball4, Nate, Norman, Snape, Svante, and more besides (seem to be more and more each day) just cannot stop their bizarre compulsion to always defend the GHE. If only they would just…stop trolling about it.
In one of today’s post Dr. Spencer said “About the only climate-related statements I might characterize as unsupported scientific claims would be, ‘the climate has cooled in recent decades’, or ‘there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect’.”
I find it odd that Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team considers it trolling to stress that Dr. Spencer agrees the greenhouse effect is a real thing but doesn’t say a word to the people insulting others for not accepting (as the doctor said) “unsupported scientific claims.”
Well, you must be a bit slow on the up-take.
Because Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team considers all arguments based on logically fallacious reasoning, such as the appeal to authority, to be examples of trolling.
C,
You can’t describe the Greenhouse Effect can you? Trying to explain something that you can’t describe is about as stupid as trying to propose a testable hypothesis to explain something you can’t describe!
Off with you, laddie! Dr Spencer is quite capable of having a stab at defining the GHE in scientific terms if he wishes. Maybe he doesn’t care, because he has better things to do. Trying to devise a method of accurately measuring surface temperatures under continuously varying conditions, and difficult circumstances might consume about as much time as he wants to give.
Scientists often collect information relating to a phenomena, look at it, and wonder why.
There are other explanations for thermometers showing increases in temperature over in time. I wouldn’t blame a scientist for examining alternate explanations before ascribing an observed phenomena to something that cannot be defined yet.
Cheers.
– The planet has a temperature, and therefore it radiates energy in a characteristic manner.
– At nominal Earthly temperatures, IR absorbing gases block a substantial portion of radiation in the densest region of the spectrum from egress to cold space.
– For equilibrium to exist, there must be as much energy leaving the planet as there is coming in. By blocking a portion of outgoing energy flow, these IR absorbing gases can produce an imbalance between inflow and outflow, leading to an accumulation until such a time that a temperature rise produces greater outflow in the frequency band outside the region of blockage, reestablishing equilibrium at a higher temperature.
– Note that I said can not must, because if there are alternative avenues for egress of that surplus energy, Nature will take advantage of them, and the temperature does not have to rise significantly to reestablish equilibrium.
Bart says: “The planet has a temperature, and therefore it radiates energy in a characteristic manner.”
Bart, you should have stopped there.
Instead, you went on to make a pseudoscience jerk of yourself.
There is help.
Learn some physics.
Says the guy who thinks the Moon doesn’t spin. Yeah, that’s devastating.
Who, me?
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
Bart,
Nature chooses to respectfully disagree with you.
The Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, it seems. In spite of the vast radiogenic internal heat production, even.
No equilibrium to be seen. No temperature rise in response to cooling.
Cheers.
Very interesting, N Tesla. Just goes to show, even a brilliant guy like Tesla makes mistakes when he ventures outside his realm of competence.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316579
N Tesla
The mistake Tesla made in his paper is based upon an incorrect assumption of how gravity works. He believed gravity acts like a spoke of a wheel and holds the moon in place preventing it from rotating as it keeps the same face to the Earth.
The reality is gravity does not impart a tractor beam on an object.
If an object is spinning or not spinning gravity will not affect this motion. It is a downward force and will not hold the Moon in place.
International Space Station has to have an induced rotation to keep the same “face” to the Earth.
If Tesla did actual testing he would have seen he was incorrect. He could have taken an orange and painted a face on one side. He would not be able to move it around an melon in the center without rotating it.
Our pseudoscientist (g.e.r.a.n now back as JDHuffman) was convinced a toy train on a track was proof that the Moon did not rotate. He believed the same false notion of gravity that infected Tesla’s thinking, that is somehow acts like a tether holding the Moon in place.
I challenged this poster to walk around a table, keeping the same face to the table, and not rotate his feet and his axis. He is not tethered to the table and no spoke is preventing him from rotating, he must rotate to face the table. g.e.r.a.n never did perform this simple experiment. I would have suggested it to Tesla if I was around at that time. Just a misunderstanding of Gravity.
His main error is that he uses flawed reasoning from thought experiments as evidence:
” If the gravitational string, as it were, would snap, the satellite would go off in a tangent without the slightest swerving or rotation, for there is no moment about the axis and, consequently, no tendency whatever to spinning motion.”
That is false. It would continue rotating. To fail to do so would violate conservation of energy.
If it were true, we could create a perpetual motion machine by firing projectiles and catching them with a pivoting arm attached to an electrical generator. The generator would extract both the translational energy of the projectile, and the rotational energy of the extended mass. The former could be fed back to the firing mechanism to continue firing projectiles, and the latter would be surplus extractable for other work.
Then, in further response to some critics at the time, there was this one:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
Here is Grinvalds with his made-up physics, again!
Norman, it appears your hero got it right. The toy train is actually a pretty good model to explain the motion of the Moon. The train would be unable to rotate on its axis. The train track would supply the forcing needed for the orbit. That’s why you would need to “turn your feet” as you moved around a table. Orbital motion requires gravity, or a suitable force as a substitute.
The Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis. Tesla and your hero got it right. You are WRONG, again!
When, and if, you decide to study some physics, be sure to learn about orbital motion.
Bart claims: “That is false. It would continue rotating. To fail to do so would violate conservation of energy.”
Bart, before you shoot yourself in the foot again, you should try some physics.
What is the angular momentum of the Moon due to orbital motion?
What is the angular momentum of the Moon due to rotation about its axis?
Angular momentum of the Moon due to orbital motion is
H1 = M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2))
M = mass
mu = gravitational parameter
a = semi-major axis
e = orbit eccentricity
Angular momentum due to rotation about its axis is
H2 = J*omega
J = moment of inertia about spin axis
omega = angular rate
If you think Tesla was right, and that if gravity were switched off, the Moon would proceed at constant velocity with no spin, then you have to ask yourself, what would that constant velocity be?
The velocity of the near side of the Moon is R1*omega, where R1 is the distance to the near side. The velocity of the far side is R2*omega, where R2 is the distance to the far side.
Obviously, the velocity of the far side is greater than that of the near side. What magic is going to occur to instantaneously speed up the near side, and slow down the far side, so that they both proceed at the same velocity, i.e., so that there is no spin?
PS:
H1 = M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2)) = 2.8e34 Nms
H2 = J*omega = 2.3e29 Nms
Angular momentum due to orbital motion is about 120,000x greater than that due to spin.
Total angular momentum is the sum of the two. This quantity must be preserved given zero force or torque. Hence, if gravity is switched off, the center of mass will proceed with velocity H1/(M*R), where R is the distance at the time it is switched off, and with spin rate H2/J.
Bart says: “omega = angular rate
What do you plan to use for omega?
The period of rotation is about 27.3 days.
Bart, your confusion about this simple issue is amazing.
1) Omega is the angular speed of the Moon about its axis. The 27.3 days is the orbital rotation. You have to separate the two. Omega is ZERO, as the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
2) You calculation of the orbital momentum is seriously messed up. I don’t know where you got that formula, but it’s WRONG. In this simple example, you don’t need eccentricity. I suspect you found that calculation on some website, and copy/pasted. You probably can’t even find the glaring mistakes.
3) Your mention that the far side of the Moon is moving faster then the near side is not relevant. That calculation is based on the distance from Earth. Orbital motion is translational, so both sides are traveling the same speed.
Learn some physics.
1) Omega is 2*pi/27.3 radians/day. It only happens to approximately equal the orbital angular rate because of tidal locking.
2) The eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit is 0.055. This is a standard formula in orbital mechanics.
3) Orbital motion is curved. That’s how it forms an ellipse. If orbital motion were purely translational (i.e., moving in straight lines), there wouldn’t be an orbit.
1) No Bart, omega is the angular speed of the Moon about its axis. You are STILL confusing orbital motion with axial rotation.
2) In this simple exercise we san assume perfect circular orbits, unless you are trying to build layers of confusion to hide behind.
3) The result of orbital motion is a curve, due to gravity. But, the orbiting motion is translational. That’s why the toy train is such a good model–simple, yet accurate.
Learn some physics, anyone can type.
1) That’s just stupid
2) What for? The orbit is elliptical.
3) “The result of orbital motion is a curve, due to gravity”. After that, you contradict yourself. If it’s curved, its not purely translational, if it’s purely translational, it’s not curved.
1) No, it’s not stupid. It’s just your inability to understand. The rorational angular momentum of the Moon is given by L = Iw. Moon’s angular speed is ZERO. Consequently, the resulting angular momentum is also ZERO.
2) (I’ve already addressed this.)
3) No contraction. The travel is translational, just as the train is locked to the track. Gravity (or the train track) provides the curvature.
Learn some physics.
1) Now, you’re doubling down on stupid
2) Inadequately…
3) The train is rotating on an axis normal to the track.
I think we’re done. You established my original point several posts ago.
No problem, Bart. You’re free to flee at anytime.
There’s nothing funnier than someone that believes they understand physics, yet also believes a train, held in place by the track, can rotate on its axis.
Great entertainment!
And Bart, you also got the equation for calculating the orbital angular momentum wrong.
H1 = M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2))
I have no idea where you copied that from, but hopefully you can get your money back….
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman says: “I have no idea”
Well, you got that right.
“The velocity of the near side of the Moon is R1*omega, where R1 is the distance to the near side. The velocity of the far side is R2*omega, where R2 is the distance to the far side.
Obviously, the velocity of the far side is greater than that of the near side. What magic is going to occur to instantaneously speed up the near side, and slow down the far side, so that they both proceed at the same velocity, i.e., so that there is no spin?”
Bart’s got you by your rotating balls, with this argument, Ger*an.
How so? The difference between the velocity of the near side of the moon compared to the far side would be negligible.
“would be negligible”. No it is exactly what it needs to be to make the moon rotate once per orbit. Which is [R(far)-R(near)]*omega.
If standing on Earth and looking up at stars, you see this:
https://i.gifer.com/Fnlf.gif
So you must conclude that either you are rotating or the stars are rotating. More precise: you are rotating in the star’s frame of reference.
What do you see if on the moon looking up at the stars?
https://i.gifer.com/Fnlf.gif
Just slowed down by 29 x. Yes/No?
So you must conclude that you (and moon) are rotating in the star’s frame of reference.
Perhaps the very first article is simpler to understand.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
Key point:
The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.
Further clarified in the second:
I have stated in my article that the moon rotates about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, which is not strictly true, but it does not vitiate the conclusions I have drawn. It is well known, of course, that the two bodies revolve around a common center of gravity, which is at a distance of a little over 2,899 miles from the earths center.
Bart comes up with his silly nonsense that one side of the Moon is traveling faster than the other side, and the other clown, Nate, swallowed it down in one big gulp!
They have no concept of things like relative speed. If they were in a car traveling down the road, and a car was following at exactly the same speed. They would be convinced that the other car was standing still!
You just can’t help stupid.
N Tesla –
“It is well known, of course, that the two bodies revolve around a common center of gravity…”
Actually, this is a convention, not a scientific fact. Referencing the motion to the barycenter allows one to decouple relative from absolute motion in the equations.
Moreover, it is only the centers of mass which do so. The overall extended bodies do not.
JDHuffman –
“They have no concept of things like relative speed. If they were in a car traveling down the road, and a car was following at exactly the same speed. They would be convinced that the other car was standing still!”
Actually, this is your fallacy. You look at the Moon, and see it is not rotating (much) with respect to you, and conclude that it is not rotating. But, you are rotating on the surface of the Earth.
Bart, whether the Earth is rotating has NO relation to the Moon rotating on its axis.
The Moon does NOT rotate on its axis. It is not a question for where you are observing from. The Moon is NOT rotating on its axis.
Now, more of your humorous nonsense….
“The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.”
That’s completely wrong, the moon rotates about its own internal axis and revolves about the earth on another external (to the moon) axis. You (and anger, aka ger.an aka JD) have confused rotating (about an internal axis) and revolving (about an external axis.) The original writer got it right:
“the two bodies revolve around a common center of gravity”
If you read more of Tesla’s original writings on the subject, then you will understand Tesla was also confused at times about these basic terms used by astronomers. Tesla was not an astronomer nor is JD. It shows.
Moreover, the orbital rate is not even constant. The orbital angular velocity of the Moon varies by over +/- 10% from min to max, due to the eccentricity of the orbit. Yet, the spin rate is nearly constant.
Yes, relative to observers on the earth – can see some 8 degrees more or less of the moon at times proving moon is rotating little faster, little slower vs.earth about an internal axis due to geometry. JD and associated sock-puppets need to learn astronomy. (They) won’t. Rest assured of that.
“Bart comes up with his silly nonsense that one side of the Moon is traveling faster than the other side”
What’s silly about it? Just a well known fact about rotation that v = r omega. You disagree?
You should have learned this in physics 1, JD.
Ball4 shows up to join the clown show. He definitely has his own style–fake expertise, incoherent rambling, imaginary experiments, and links to irrelevant pseudoscience.
What great entertainment!
Nicola, lets not defer to your authority here, and look at the evidence ourselves.
https://i.gifer.com/Fnlf.gif
If you agree that this is what you see from the moon’s North pole, than you must conclude that the moon is rotating relative to the stars.
Yes, the moon is rotating relative to the stars. It rotates about an axis passing through the earth-moon barcenter.
The clowns are unable to differentiate between “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
Add to that the fact that they cannot think for themselves, and you’ve got some great comedy.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
Referring to the librations of longitude, I do not see that they have any bearing on this question. In astronomical treatises the axial rotation of the moon is accepted as a material fact and it is thought that its angular velocity is constant while that of the orbital movement is not, this resulting in an apparent oscillation revealing more of its surface to our view. To a degree this may be true, but I hold that the mere change of orbital velocity, as will be evident from what has been stated before could not produce these phenomena, for no matter how fast or slow the gyration, the position of the body relative to the center of attraction remains the same.
The real cause of these axial displacements is the changing distance of the moon from the earth owing to which the tangential components of velocity of its parts are varied. In apogee, when the planet recedes, the radial component of velocity decreases while the tangential increases but, as the decrement of the former is the same for all parts, this is more pronounced in the regions facing the earth than in those turned away from it, the consequence being an axial displacement exposing more of the eastern side. In perigee, on the contrary, the radial component increases and the effect is just the opposite with the result that more of the western side is seen.
The moon actually swings on the axis passing thru its center of gravity on which it is supported like a ball on a string. The forces involved in these pendular movements are incomparably smaller than those required to effect changes in orbital velocity. If we estimate the radius of gyration of the satellite at 600 miles and its mean distance from the earth at 240,000 miles, then the energy necessary to rotate it once in a month would be only ( 600 / 240,000 )2 = 1 / 160,000 of the kinetic energy of the orbital movement.
N Tesla now sez: “Yes, the moon is rotating relative to the stars.”
Now N Tesla has it right, thank you for correcting yourself. Try to educate JD on that, you won’t succeed.
“It rotates about an axis passing through the earth-moon barcenter.”
No, you had it right the first time, that’s revolves. I revolve around cg of barcenters too sort of like the moon revolves around a barycenter all the while rotating on its axis.
“In astronomical treatises the axial rotation of the moon is accepted as a material fact”
Agreed, thank you Tesla, the moon also revolves around a barycenter as Tesla wrote, now try to get JD to study some astronomy. Oh, and the moon is not supported by a string, is not on Atlas’ back, or connected to Earth by spokes so some of your diagrams need correcting.
JD take note: a circular track can have a train locomotive revolving around an external central axis thru the track circle center all the while rotating on an internal axis once per track revolution. But I realize this reasoning is far beyond JD’s comprehension. Stick to playing with toy trains JD, and keep entertaining us with astronomy & physics blunders, and all those inherent technical terms you fracture so often.
Ball4, all you have done so far is quote mine, misrepresent arguments and quibble over the difference between the words rotate and revolve. You have also comprehensively demonstrated that you have not read any of the articles linked to. Thanks, but I will not be taking seriously any further commentary from yourself.
All I’ve done so far in this thread is correct N Tesla and JD’s arguments & explain the difference between the words rotate and revolve. I have also comprehensively demonstrated that I have read Tesla’s linked original articles. Thanks for the opportunity; I will enjoy seriously any further entertainment from JD and associated sock-puppets, please continue all your blundering into astronomy on a climate blog ala the blog’s two-time loser ger.an.
Ball4 is a complete phony. He will say anything. He has no respect for science.
Ever see a race car on a circular track lose traction? What happens? It goes into a spin. CCW if driving around the track CCW.
Why? Because the race car was spinning on its axis before it lost traction. And it continues that motion when it loses friction with the track surface. Simple physics.
Ever watch the Olympic hammer throw? The hammer consists of a chain with a steel ball on the end. The athlete spins and releases the “hammer”. What happens? You can look at video of the last summer games if you don’t know. When released, the ball and chain spin. In the same direction as the athlete was spinning. Why? Because the ball was spinning on its own axis before it was released. Again, Simple physics.
SkepticGoneWild says: “Because the race car was spinning on its axis before it lost traction. And it continues that motion when it loses friction with the track surface.”
No, the direction of spin is determined by the difference in frictional forces between the front and rear tires. That’s why a car, on a straight path on ice, can go into a spin if the brakes are applied quickly.
SkepticGoneWild says: “Because the ball was spinning on its own axis before it was released.”
No, the ball was spinning around the thrower. If it were released, without the tether, all it’s motion would be translational. To understand this better, calculate all angular momentums before and after release.
JD,
It’s obvious you never took an ounce of physics. Newton’s laws of motion.
I thought you had enough of embarrassing yourself months ago with this nonsense. Guess not
SkepticGoneWild, I see you are unable to calculate angular momentums (AM) just as Bart was unable.
It’s not that hard.
(Hint: “r” is not the same in both calculations.
Often people that do not understand physics are able to understand the basics, from wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum
N Tesla says, August 14, 2018 at 1:34 PM:
Nope. It orbits about an axis passing through the Earth-Moon barycentre. It rotates about an axis passing through the Moon’s own barycentre. Just like the Earth does. It orbits about the axis passing through the Earth-Sun barycentre, and it rotates about the axis passing through its own barycentre.
It seems you have a hard time distinguishing between these two kinds of axes …
Kristian, it seems you are another one focused only on language at the expense of missing the point. Tesla used the words rotate and revolve interchangeably. Incorrect as this may be, the meaning of his words is always easily understood through the context in which they are used. For example:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
The truth is, the so-called axial rotation of the moon is a phenomenon deceptive alike to the eye and mind and devoid of physical meaning. It has nothing in common with real mass revolution characterized by effects positive and unmistakable. Volumes have been written on the subject and many erroneous arguments advanced in support of the notion. Thus, it is reasoned, that if the planet did not turn on its axis it would expose the whole surface to terrestrial view; as only one-half is visible, it must revolve. The first statement is true but the logic of the second is defective, for it admits of only one alternative. The conclusion is not justified as the same appearance can also be produced in another way. The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.
There have been no responses so far to even suggest that the articles have been read, let alone understood. To bring up libration, or the hammer throw, as if these arguments have not been addressed within the papers, only shows that the papers have not been read. But to suggest that Tesla is unaware of the difference between the moons own axis and the axis passing through the earth-moon barycenter shows the least understanding yet.
Read the papers, then comment, if you must.
“There have been no responses so far to even suggest that the articles have been read, let alone understood.”
Oh, I read them. Mostly nonsense based not on experiment, but on what the author thinks would happen in his own head. In his head, orbit velocity speeds up at apogee, but slows down at perigee. He must have been standing on his head, because that is the opposite of what happens.
The apparent libration of the Moon has an orbit eccentricity component, but it is also due to the fact that the spin axis is offset from the orbit plane by about 7 deg, and that direction periodically precesses over many years. And, there is characteristic wobble due to disturbance torques from the Earth and Sun. The precession and wobble are wholly characteristics of spin dynamics. You would not get them if the object were not spinning.
It’s just a whole mess of stupid. Tesla, if this is really his documented effort, may have been gifted in understanding electrical concepts, but he was out of his bailiwick here.
JDHuffman –
“I see you are unable to calculate angular momentums”
You appear to think everything is a point mass, and there is no inertia from distributed mass.
Bart claims: “You appear to think everything is a point mass, and there is no inertia from distributed mass.”
Bart, rather then trying to cast out false accusations, why not answer the challenge I gave you.
What are the two angular momentums you claim for the Moon. (No need for the actual calculations, just show the equations for each.)
We’ve done this:
H1 = M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2))
M = mass
mu = gravitational parameter
a = semi-major axis
e = orbit eccentricity
Angular momentum due to rotation about its axis is
H2 = J*omega
J = moment of inertia about spin axis
omega = angular rate
“It orbits about an axis passing through the Earth-Moon barycentre. It rotates about an axis passing through the Moons own barycentre. Just like the Earth does.”
Indeed.
When it comes to the Earth, people dont see to have a problem with seeing that orbiting around the sun and rotation around its axis are two independent motions. Because they are at such different angular speeds.
Orbiting is exclusively about position of the objects cm in space relative to the center of its orbit.
While rotation around its axis is exclusively about the objects ORIENTATION (angle) with respect to a reference frame ie the stars. Which stars are directly over a point on Earth, say the Congo, is telling us its orientation.
We know the Earth is rotating by looking up and seeing the stars going around, and we can determine the angular speed ~ 1rev/24h.
We know the Moon is rotating by looking from its surface up at the stars and seeing them going around and we can determine the angular speed ~ 1rev/27 days.
Its orbiting of the Earth is an independent motion, a translation through space.
Yes, and I told you the first equation is wrong. Where did you copy that from? Maybe that’s your problem.
And, no, omega is not zero, because these are quantities that flow from Newton’s laws. Newton’s laws hold only in inertial space, which is to say, with relation to the stars.
If, standing on the Moon, you see different fields of stars over time, then you are rotating with respect to inertial space, and that is the quantity we use to calculate momentum.
Note also that the Moon is not spinning within the orbit plane. The spin axis is about 7 degrees off of that. So, it would be as if you took your toy train and tilted it 7 degrees from the track, keeping the tilt angle constant with respect to the room as the train went around the track.
You would need to separate the undercarriage from the train car, with the car sitting on top of slanted spindle, with enough clearance to avoid bumping into the undercarriage as the train car rotated around to keep a fixed orientation, to manage that.
So, these momenta do not add directly, and you would actually have to consider a vector quantity. The total momentum magnitude would be
H = sqrt((H1+H2*cos(7))^2 + (H2*sin(7))^2)
When i asked my wife what she thought about this issue, she agreed with the non rotators..initially.
Then she played around with a coffee mug. She held it by the handle and made it orbit around her other fist in a horizontal plane.
She saw that holding the cup in the most natural way the handle’s orientation was always toward her, fixed, as it went around.
In order to mimic the moons orbit she had to quite purposely manipulate the handle to always point it at her fist. She saw that the handle rotated all the way around this process. The cup had to rotate!
And this was an entirely independent motion, not natural.
Bart, when you have to run from your own words, that should tell you something.
Again, where did you get that bogus equation?
“H1 = M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2))”
(One mistake at a time. We can come back for your other mistakes later.)
It’s a standard formula. Whining about it won’t help you. Momentum is the square root of the gravity parameter times the semi-latus rectum. It is the product of the radius squared times the angular rate.
p = semi-latus rectum
a = semi-major axis
e = eccentricity
nu= true anomaly
nudot= true anomaly rate
r = orbit radius
p = a*(1-e^2)
r = p/(1+e*cos(nu))
nudot = sqrt(mu/p^3)*(1+e*cos(nu))^2
H = nudot*r^2 = sqrt(mu*p) = sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2))
I mad one little goof there. In orbital mechanics, the quantities generally are specific quantities, since gravitational acceleration is independent of mass.
H = sqrt(mu*p)
is specific angular momentum. It has units of e.g., m^2/sec. To get the actual angular momentum, one has to multiply by mass
H = M*sqrt(mu*p)
That gives units of kg-m^2/sec which is Nms, the standard unit of angular momentum.
Bart, now you are offering yet another equation. You won’t admit your first one was bogus. You won’t stand by it. You try to add more layers of confusion to cover your inadequacy.
Your desperation is amusing, but you still aren’t facing reality.
Where did you get that bogus equation?
Well, that’s a bizarre rant.
It’s standard orbital mechanics, JD. If you don’t know any orbital mechanics, maybe you shouldn’t be expressing such confidence in your conclusions.
No Bart, it’s REALITY.
You are running from your own words. You won’t address your bogus equation.
H1 = M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2))
Then, you put out another equation, that you tried to correct, but just had to try to teach, as if you knew what you were talking about.
You are hopelessly confused, and you’ve done it to yourself.
REALITY just bit you in the butt!
I told you, it is mass times orbit angular rate times radius squared. I didn’t correct anything. I just multiplied the specific quantity by mass to get the absolute quantity.
I’m sorry that confused you, but you aren’t helping yourself any by displaying your confusion so profusely.
Bart is still scrambling: “I told you, it is mass times orbit angular rate times radius squared.”
Bart, you never said anything like that here. You just BELIEVE you did. It’s like Norman on his keyboard. His “reality” is whatever he types. Your “reality” is whatever you believe.
I hope you won’t mind if I remind you of this, from time to time….
@ August 15, 2018 at 1:06 PM, I said:
“It is the product of the radius squared times the angular rate.”
Then, @ August 15, 2018 at 1:10 PM, I pointed out this was specific angular momentum, and you have to multiply by mass to get the absolute quantity.
It’s all right up there. Take a look.
JD, offering no ‘correct’ equations, tries to bluff his way through.
Meanwhile he proves he’s an ignoramus once again.
“3) Your mention that the far side of the Moon is moving faster then the near side is not relevant. That calculation is based on the distance from Earth. Orbital motion is translational, so both sides are traveling the same speed.”
False, in the case of the tidally locked moon, clearly the near side at Rnear, is traveling around a smaller circle in the same amount of time as far side, which is travelling around a larger circle.
Speed near side: 2piRnear/27d
Speed far side: 2piRfar/27d
It’s all the same equation, JD.
H1 = M*nudot*r^2 = M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2))
Then, you have
H2 = J*omega
Then, H2 is 7 degrees off of H1, so total angular momentum becomes
H = sqrt((H1+H2*cos(7))^2 + (H2*sin(7))^2)
No Bart, that is not how reality works. You do not get to piece together words from different comments, trying to claim something else.
But, I’ll let it slide if you can give me the two simple equations for the two angular momentums you claim the Moon has. No distractions, no “red herrings”, no hand-waving, just basic truth. Assume circular orbit, and both in same plane. No need to plug in values, just equations will do.
Equation for orbital angular momentum = ?
Equation for axial angular momentum = ?
This is your chance to partially redeem yourself. Can you do it?
“… give me the two simple equations for the two angular momentums you claim the Moon has.”
See right above this comment.
“Assume circular orbit, and both in same plane.”
No. That is not what is there. If it were, it would make no difference, but the actual situation provides clear indicators that you are wrong.
The orbit is eccentric. The orbit rate thereby varies significantly. But, the Moon’s rotation rate does not.
The spin axis is inclined to the orbit plane, so it cannot be spinning in precise synchronicity with the orbit.
Well Bart, I gave you a chance to partially redeem yourself, but you just couldn’t get there.
Your equation,
H1 = M*nudot*r^2 = M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2))
is STILL wrong.
Hint: Check units.
And you couldn’t avoid another trick. I said you could assume same plane and circular orbit, but you tried to imply I didn’t know otherwise. You have no clue, yet you pretend to teach.
You’re a clown.
M*nudot*r^2 is
kg * sec^-1 *m^2 = kg*m^2/sec = Nms
M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2)) is
kg * sqrt(m^3/sec^2 * m) = kg*m^2/sec = Nms
Units work out, JD.
It’s no trick. This is the actual, real-world situation. If your theory breaks down in the real world, then it isn’t valid.
Okay, that makes sense now. That’s why I asked where you got that equation. It was hard to tell where your confusion was coming from.
And now, I see your trick. By using that equation, you are disguising the fact that you are using the same “omega” for both.
Of course, you could prove me wrong by showing all your calculations for your two equations:
H1 = M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2)) = 2.8e34 Nms
H2 = J*omega = 2.3e29 Nms
“By using that equation, you are disguising the fact that you are using the same “omega” for both.”
I thought you claimed omega was zero…
The angular speed of the Moon about its axis is zero. You’ve used its orbital angular speed for both calculations.
Tricky, but you got caught!
” You’ve used its orbital angular speed for both calculations.”
No, not really. Because of tidal locking, omega happens to be equal to 2*pi/P, where P is the orbit period. But, P = 2*pi/sqrt(mu/a^3), which means omega = sqrt(mu/a^3). So, you could say
H1 = M*omega*(a*(1-e^2)^0.25)^2
But, a*(1-e^2)^0.25 isn’t the orbit radius, which is time varying. It’s not even the average orbit radius, which is about a*(1+0.5*e^2).
You see, your train track analogy, even if you had it right, which you don’t, goes off the rails here. There is no constraining “track” keeping this “train” rotating with it. All there is, is a weak torque from the gravity gradient which has, over eons of time, acted to synchronize the rotation rate with the orbit rate as best it could.
But, they’re not precisely synchronous, and generally unequal except at two particular spots on the orbit. And, even then, the orbit normal and the spin axis are misaligned by about 7 deg.
But, all of this is just showing inconsistencies with your conception. Your conception is wrong simply because, from any spot on the Moon away from the poles, your view of the stars is changing. That means the Moon is rotating with respect to the stars. And, rotation with respect to the stars means it is storing spin momentum according to Newton’s laws.
Kristian says: “…and it [Moon] rotates about the axis passing through its own barycentre.”
Kristian, you did not respond when N Tesla corrected you. So, I’m hoping you got it. N Tesla was right, you were wrong.
A lot of typing there Bart. It almost looks like a smokescreen….
Just show the values you used in your equations:
H1 = M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2)) = 2.8e34 Nms
What were the values you used to obtain μ, a, e?
H2 = J*omega = 2.3e29 Nms
What were your values for J and ω?
N Tesla 1:34pm: “Yes, the moon is rotating relative to the stars.”
JD 5:40pm: “N Tesla was right.”
QED. JD now agrees with N Tesla: “Yes, the moon is rotating relative to the stars.”
Now watch JD flee from JD’s own written words by continuing to confuse these 2 words: rotate and revolve.
Further Tesla actually & correctly wrote 2:25pm: “In astronomical treatises the axial rotation of the moon is accepted as a material fact” which JD would know had JD had actually read the linked documents actually authored by Tesla, a non-astronomer.
H1 = M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2))
M = 7.3e22 kg
mu = 3.986e14 m^3/sec^2
a = 384e6 m
e = 0.055
M*sqrt(mu*a*(1-e^2)) = 2.8e34 Nms
H2 = J*omega
J = 8.66e34 kg-m^2
omega = 2.65e-6 rad/sec
J*omega = 2.3e29
Info obtainable from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Bart, thanks for the figures.
I was able to verify that both equations use the same value for “omega”. But, there may be another mistake, also.
Too late tonight, more tomorrow.
There’s no mistake. These are the mathematics of how we made it to the Moon. These are the mathematics that tell us why the Moon is receding from the Earth.
These are the mathematics that have been employed designing the satellites that may well be carrying the signal you are receiving to read this, and probes that have gone to the very edge of the solar system and beyond.
You aren’t up against a bunch of palookas speculating about the climate, that they can only observe and not perform closed loop experiments upon to prove their hypotheses. This is stuff that has been proven, again and again and again, in actual stuff that we’ve made and launched into space.
Please stop this. You are just making all skeptics look foolish, and that isn’t helping anyone.
Bart, you are correct but JD makes very few if any informed, critical commenters look foolish. It is JD and associated sock-puppets that look foolish. There are other skeptics making way more unhelpful trouble for atm. science than JD’s obviously completely wrong antics wholly unsupported by proper experiment or observation.
JD’s unfounded comments are solely for entertainment purposes & JD is not going to change; well except for JD’s forced change of screen names.
Bart, if you think that the argument over the axial rotation of the moon has any bearing on the subjects you just mentioned, then you dont understand the argument over the axial rotation of the moon. All the mathematics to get man to the moon work just fine either way. There is something way more fundamental that you are simply not seeing.
“All the mathematics to get man to the moon work just fine either way.”
Not so NT, if the basic theory mathematics were set up in the way JD advocates, then the actual LEM landing point would have been far from the mathematically predicted landing point.
Fortunately, NASA scientists knew the moon rotates on its axis & revolves about the earth and by the correct amount based on proper observation. NASA theoretical aim was realized in practice thus NASA knew astronomy was not Tesla’s strong suit.
Bart, after untangling the calculations I was able to verify that you’ve used the same value of “omega” for both orbital and axial angular momentums. That’s the major mistake. The other mistake I suspect is somehow due to the first mistake, so is not worth spending time on.
It should be obvious that the Moon does NOT have the same angular velocity as its orbit speed, even if you believe the Moon rotates on its own axis.
Do the math!
Also, I enjoyed your pompous babbling. I was chuckling by about the third sentence “These are the mathematics that tell us why the Moon is receding from the Earth.”
No, it is the measurements from bouncing radar signals off reflectors left on the Moon.
The surface reflectors allow a more precise measurement of the moon’s recession JD; the mathematics tell us why Bart is correct.
Ball4 states: “the mathematics tell us why Bart is correct.”
No B4, the math tells us Bart is wrong.
You’re just too ill-informed, illiterate, and ignorant to figure it out.
“Bart, after untangling the calculations I was able to verify that youve used the same value of omega for both orbital and axial angular momentums. Thats the major mistake. The other mistake I suspect is somehow due to the first mistake, so is not worth spending time on.
We are supposed to be impressed that JD was able to put numbers into an equation. That is what he calls ‘untangling’
All for what purpose? What do these numerical results for angular momentum mean to you, JD?
Whether the moon is rotating or not is not a numerical issue, it is more fundamental than that. It is
Again, if you think the near side and far side of the Moon are travelling at the same speed, then it is hopeless that you will ever understand by looking at numerics.
“It should be obvious that the Moon does NOT have the same angular velocity as its orbit speed, even if you believe the Moon rotates on its own axis”
orbit speed and angular velocity have different units, so cant be the same.
But orbital angular velocity and rotational angular velocity are the same-that is what tidal locking does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
The particles that make up the moon move in concentric circles, or ellipses if you rather, with respect to the axis of rotation located at the Earth-moon barycenter. Any rotation on the moons axis itself, in either direction, would mean that the particles that make up the moon would be travelling in parallel circles, instead. Thats your fundamental issue for you, or at least its one way of expressing it. There is only one way the moon can move whereby the particles move in concentric circles, yet there is an unlimited number of ways the moon can move whereby the particles move in parallel circles, corresponding to differing degrees of axial rotation, in either direction. Logically, and physically, the motion of the particles in concentric circles must equal zero. It is a whole succession of zeroes, zeroes within zeroes, circles within circles. Zero axial rotation, only revolution about the axis of the Earth-moon barycenter.
“The particles that make up the moon move in concentric circles, or ellipses if you rather, with respect to the axis of rotation located at the Earth-moon barycenter.”
NT statement shows confusion (as in Tesla’s original writings) in not understanding basic astronomy since the moon moves in ellipses wrt its axis of revolution located at the Earth-moon barycenter. The moon revolves about that external axis and rotates about its internal axis in such a way that the period of rotation is equal to the period of revolution (orbit). Which is why they call it synchronous rotation of an object about its primary.
This is basic astronomy but by inspection of comments is far beyond the comprehension of JD (the toy locomotive engineer) and associated sock puppets.
The “Spinners” are in a really tough position. If they stick with their assumption that both the Moon’s orbital and axial rotation speeds are equal, then they have to explain the physical realities. The Moon orbits CCW. So, if it also rotates CCW on its axis, at 90 degrees of orbit, it must also rotate 90 degree CW, so that neither rotation can be observed.
They have the Moon rotating in two opposite directions at the same time!
N Tesla @ August 15, 2018 at 9:27 PM
“All the mathematics to get man to the moon work just fine either way.”
No. These are the mathematics that got men to the Moon, because their spacecraft obeyed these same laws. To stabilize their vehicles, they had to know how the thruster firing would affect their motion. That uses Newton’s laws, which are based on rotations with respect to the inertial frame of the stars.
“There is something way more fundamental that you are simply not seeing.”
No. That’s on your end.
JDHuffman @ August 16, 2018 at 6:10 AM
“I was able to verify that you’ve used the same value of “omega” for both orbital and axial angular momentums.”
Close, but not the same. That is because of the oblong shape of the Moon, not because they intrinsically must be close.
Saturn’s Phoebe and Jupiter’s Himalia and Elara are moons that are not tidally locked. They do not rotate synchronously with their orbits.
“No, it is the measurements from bouncing radar signals off reflectors left on the Moon.”
No, that is a measurement of the effect. But, it is fully predictable from the mathematics. It happens for a reason.
N Tesla @ August 16, 2018 at 8:42 AM
They move in cycloids.
JD is by inspection the confused commenter (as usual & as was Tesla at times) writing the Moon is rotating in two opposite directions at the same time!
The moon rotates and revolves (orbits) at the same time. Different axes. Synchronous rotation.
JDHuffman @ August 16, 2018 at 11:50 AM
“The Moon orbits CCW. So, if it also rotates CCW on its axis, at 90 degrees of orbit, it must also rotate 90 degree CW, so that neither rotation can be observed.”
Mmm… no.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/from-a-million-miles-away-nasa-camera-shows-moon-crossing-face-of-earth
Nicola,
“The particles that make up the moon move in concentric circles, or ellipses if you rather, with respect to the axis of rotation located at the Earth-moon barycenter. ”
Indeed so.
And that means they have different speeds. The outer points going faster than the Moon’s center and the inner points going slower than the center.
Thus relative to the moons center, the outer and inner portions are always moving in opposite directions. They are circling the center. Ie rotating around it.
If Earths gravity were suddenly cut, like a string, the moon would fly off in a straight line. Is there any reason to think the inner points would now suddenly speed up to catch up to the speed of the outer points?
Of course they won’t, then the rotation will continue, as it should by conservation of angular momentum.
Rotation has measurable effect-centrifugal force. So if we sat on the Moons Pole, the surface of water in a bucket would have a slight curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t77m4YXCcJU
Here is a good video explaining tidal locking of the Moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jUpX7J7ySo
JD “So, if it also rotates CCW on its axis, at 90 degrees of orbit, it must also rotate 90 degree CW, so that neither rotation can be observed.”
No dufus, stepping in poop again.
Just play with a coffee mug. Keep the handle always to the center while moving mug in a CCW circle. You will see the handle must rotate CCW around the mug.
“Just play with a coffee mug. Keep the handle always to the center while moving mug in a CCW circle. You will see the handle must rotate CCW around the mug.”
JD (JustDumb) won’t do these type of simple observational experiments. They violate his safe space. (science free zone)
So once again, we see that clowns are unable to think for themselves. They present youtube videos to support their failed pseudoscience. And often, don’t even realize their videos debunk their pseudoscience!
“…true rotational motion cannot be defined as the relative rotation of the body with respect to the immediately surrounding bodies.”
Very entertaining.
“…true rotational motion cannot be defined as the relative rotation of the body with respect to the immediately surrounding bodies.”
Correct. For physical relevance, it must be defined with respect to inertial space.
“For physical relevance, it must be defined with respect to inertial space.”
Nope. Orbiting and rotating on its own axis appear the same, with respect to inertial space.
That’s just ONE of the things confusing you….
Nope. It presents different faces to the stars, therefore it is rotating with respect to inertial space.
If you agree that the Moon presents different faces to the stars, then we’re done. You have then conceded that it is rotating with respect to them. They are equivalent descriptions.
Nope. You still can not distinguish between “orbiting” and “rotating on its axis”.
You can’t think for yourself. Your brain is “tidally locked” to pseudoscience!
Nope. You are the one lumping them together. They are not the same.
JD never understands when he’s lost an argument. He just keeps thrashing about, slinging insults.
Is the argument over yet? I dont really mind what anybody wants to conclude I just wanted to share those old papers. Im happy with the way I see it.
Yes N Tesla, when they start the mis-representations, as Bart did here, “You are the one lumping them together”, that means they know they have lost.
No misrepresentation, JD lost by erroneously “lumping them together” in JD’s own completely wrong words from which JD now flees:
“The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.”
Fun to watch. Hilarious actually.
And now Ball4 chimes in with his gross misrepresentation.
Perfect timing.
“The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.”
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#/media/File:Earth-Moon.PNG
Nicola,
“Is the argument over yet? ”
Well, if you don’t respond to and address the points people make, then the argument is not really an argument.
I must apologize, but I do not find the conditions here, or in particular the activities of some of the commenters, conducive to proper debate, which is why I have refrained from too much comment. I thank Bart for his correction on the movement of the moons particles when not travelling in concentric circles or ellipses, but it does not effect the argument being made there. In all other cases I find that the points being raised are repetitions, and thus there is no point proceeding.
All I will add, out of frustration with some of the continuing misrepresentations of the original authors arguments, is that these words:
The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.
They are in fact the original authors words, to be found in this article:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
And in that same article you will find also these following words, which again demonstrate that the author was well aware of the concept of synchronous rotation, and was arguing against it:
It is well known since the discovery of Galileo that the moon, in travelling thru space, always turns the same face towards the earth. This is explained by stating that while passing once around its mother-planet the lunar globe performs just one revolution on its axis. The spinning motion of a heavenly body must necessarily undergo modifications in the course of time, being either retarded by resistances internal or external, or accelerated owing to shrinkage and other causes. An unalterable rotational velocity thru all phases of planetary evolution is manifestly impossible. What wonder, then, that at this very instant of its long existence our satellite should revolve exactly so, and not faster or slower. But many astronomers have accepted as a physical fact that such rotation takes place. It does not, but only appears so; it is an illusion, a most surprising one, too.
N Tesla, there is a group here that detests science. They will attack anyone that does not agree with them, as you have seen. They use insults, false accusations, misrepresentations, and worse.
Your comments are valuable, but not everyone that appreciates them will comment.
JDHuffman, it does appear so, and that is a real shame.
“They use insults, false accusations, misrepresentations, and worse”
LMAO. Pot calling the kettle black.
“It does not, but only appears so; it is an illusion, a most surprising one, too.”
It appears to be rotating about its center of mass because it is. Otherwise the moon would be undergoing pure translation, which its not. (Chasless Theorem)
This nonsense was discussed ad nauseam in Spencer’s January 2018 temperature report. Go back and read it.
N Tesla @ August 17, 2018 at 3:48 AM
“What wonder, then, that at this very instant of its long existence our satellite should revolve exactly so, and not faster or slower.”
It’s not a wonder at all. It is a well known and understood phenomenon called tidal locking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
It happens because of the Moon’s slightly oblong shape. As I mentioned before, this is not universal. Saturns Phoebe and Jupiters Himalia and Elara are moons that are not tidally locked. They do not rotate synchronously with their orbits.
Here is a good youtube video on tidal locking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jUpX7J7ySo
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
Virtually all satellites route in like manner and the probability, that the acceleration or retardation of their axial motions if they ever existed should come to a stop precisely at a definite angular velocity, is infinitesimal while it is almost absolutely certain that all movement of this kind would ultimately cease.
The logic of Teslas comment from that article is inescapable. If we consider the tidal locking mechanism to act like a brake on axial rotation, slowing the rate of a moons axial rotation over time, then why would this braking stop at an axial rotation of once per orbit? Why would it not, eventually, remove all axial rotation? It must tend to zero.
If you do not consider our moons motion to possess zero axial rotation, then what motion of a moon would you consider to possess zero axial rotation? Then, find an example of a moon displaying that motion!
“…the probability, that the acceleration or retardation of their axial motions if they ever existed should come to a stop precisely at a definite angular velocity, is infinitesimal…”
No, it isn’t. It’s a sure thing. This is well understood. It is tidal locking.
“Virtually all satellites route in like manner…”
No, they don’t. I pointed out Phoebe, Himalia, and Elara. If there’s an exception, then there’s no rule.
Furthermore, the Earth is a satellite of the Sun. It’s not tidally locked (yet). Nor are any of the other planets.
“…what motion of a moon would you consider to possess zero axial rotation?”
One for which, from any point standing on the moon looking out, one would see the same field of stars at all times.
“Then, find an example of a moon displaying that motion!”
That’s just it. It is a very special circumstance. It’s like trying to find molecules of air in your immediate surroundings that are perfectly still. There are billions upon billions of them, but the odds of finding one not moving are essentially zero.
We do have artificial satellites that do this, though. For example, when taking pictures of the stars, the Hubble space telescope is kept perfectly still. Its onboard gyroscopes read zero.
If we had a sensitive enough gyroscope, and put it on the Moon, it would read out the spin rate of the Moon.
“Why would it not, eventually, remove all axial rotation?”
You really need to read and watch the links I gave you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jUpX7J7ySo
It is like a pendulum. Gravity pulls the long axis one way, then the other. Eventually, it settles with the pendulum pointing at the Earth.
But, the direction to the Earth is rotating in space with the orbit angle, so the rotation is synchronized to the orbit rate.
If we consider the tidal locking mechanism to act as a brake on axial rotation over time, then that braking must eventually remove all axial rotation. What is a more logical conclusion, is that what you consider to constitute motion lacking in axial rotation, is not actually that; and that the tidally-locked moons, including ours, are the way they are because all axial rotation has been removed!
“The logic of Teslas comment from that article is inescapable. If we consider the tidal locking mechanism to act like a brake on axial rotation, slowing the rate of a moons axial rotation over time, then why would this braking stop at an axial rotation of once per orbit?”
His logic is flawed. The braking happens because the tidal bulge on the moon is always oriented toward Earth. If the moon is not synchronously rotating, then bulge moves around on the moon, just as it does on Earth.
This movement of the bulge dissipates energy, and causes the braking. Only when the bulge stops moving does the braking cease. That occurs when the same face of the moon always points to Earth. The bulge is now fixed, and no more energy is dissipated.
Geniuses make mistakes. Einstein never fully accepted quantum mechanics, and believed black holes were impossible.
N Tesla @ August 17, 2018 at 12:35 PM
Tidal locking is like a brake on a car being hauled on a flat bed truck. The brake may stop the car rolling on the truck, but the truck is still rolling, and the car is still moving.
Tidal locking results in zero rate with respect to the Earth, but the Earth is changing in direction relative to orbit position, so the Moon is still rotating with respect to the stars.
Bart, Nate, SGW, Ball4, and other mindless “rotators”, here is reality:
https://postimg.cc/image/5j3uzozzf/
JD, As usual, you get everything backwards.
There is nothing synchronous in the right image. The arrow is not rotating at all.
The left image is the one that matches the moon’s orbit. It is well known that is synchronous.
Dictionary.com
synchronous rotation
Word Origin
See more synonyms for synchronous rotation on Thesaurus.com
noun Astronomy.
rotation of a satellite in which the period of rotation is equal to the period of orbit around its primary, leaving the same face always pointing toward the primary:
The moon is in synchronous rotation about the earth.
JD,
O M G. The image on the right is exhibiting pure translational motion per the definition. LMAO. All the arrow is doing is changing position as it’s center of mass translates along the orbital path. The arrow does not rotate at all.
Translational motion defined:
“Motion of a rigid body in such a way that any line which is imagined rigidly attached to the body remains parallel to its original direction.”
“If a body is moved from one position to another, and if the lines joining the initial and final points of each of the points of the body are a set of parallel straight lines of length ℓ, so that the orientation of the body in space is unaltered, the displacement is called a translation parallel to the direction of the lines, through a distance ℓ.” [Wikipedia]
“A translation moves every point of a figure or a space by the same amount in a given direction.” [Wikipedia]
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration” [http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm]
Have you no shame? You continually make a fool of yourself.
Yes SGW, shameless JD continues as usual to make an embarrassing fool of JD drawing a rotating on its internal axis arrow by simple inspection and writing the arrow is non-rotating. Quite an entertaining act. JD is totally unscientific, never does any actual experiments.
Fun to watch the antics of JD and associates i.e. sock puppets.
JD,
You have everything backwards in your graphic.
The image on the left corresponds exactly to Figure 5.1.5 in the following lecture notes:
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
“Thus, we have the property that the motion of a rigid body can be decomposed into a translation of an arbitrary point within the body, followed by a rigid rotation of the body about this point.”
This is also known as Chasles’s Theorem, which I have referenced before:
http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/modules/chapter20.pdf
See Appendix 20A.
So the object on the left can be described as a translation of the arrow’s center of mass along a CCW orbital path, plus a rotation of the arrow about its center of mass.
Of course, in the top left graphic, the motion is “translational”. That’s why the arrow was used as the indicator. The right graphic requires the arrow to be rotating CW, to make up for the CCW orbit.
Clowns just don’t understand orbital motion. They willingly swallow anything put out by “institutionalized science”, without question. They just believe what they are taught. They can’t think for themselves.
The Moon ‘story” begins with the nonsense that the Moon was once rotating on its axis. Where is the proof?
Then, how does the “story” explain all the violations of know physics?
That’s why the Moon is so interesting. It has “institutionalized science”, and the clowns, rotating on their axes!
JD “They willingly swallow anything put out by “institutionalized science”
JD also drives through red lights. He doesnt believe in institutionalized traffic laws.
He needs to be institutionalized.
Just purely out of interest, who here is able to visualise that if (and I understand that everyone challenges this if) we accept, for the sake of argument, that the motion of the arrow on the left represents pure orbital motion (with zero axial rotation); that the motion of the arrow on the right shows the same orbital motion, plus axial rotation of the arrow clockwise once per counter-clockwise orbit? And who can visualise that the bottom arrow, shows again the same orbital motion, plus axial rotation of the arrow counter-clockwise once per counter-clockwise orbit?
Again, I am not asking for repetitions of arguments about why the motion on the left can not be pure orbital motion (with zero axial rotation), just interested in who can visualise the motions described. All should be able to do this, whichever side of the argument you are on.
And he argues with himself. Another sign of severe mental illness.
“there is a group here that detests science.”
“They willingly swallow anything put out by ‘institutionalized science’, without question.”
Poor Nate, he has to have everything explained to him.
N Tesla @ August 18, 2018 at 10:52 AM
It’s all relative motion. Yes, you can say that the Moon is not rotating with respect to coordinates fixed with the orbit.
But, that coordinate system is rotating with respect to the stars, so the Moon is rotating with respect to the stars.
Does it matter, then, what reference we choose? Yes, it does. Because the coordinate frame fixed with the stars is an inertial frame, and Newton’s laws hold only in an inertia frame.
We can then use Newton’s laws to determine the dynamics. From those laws, we can formulate Euler’s equations for the rotational dynamics of the Moon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_equations_(rigid_body_dynamics)
With these, we can predict precisely where any spot on the Moon will be at a given time. That allows us, e.g., to guide a landing vehicle to the proper spot of interest.
N Tesla,
You confuse the issue by using imprecise terminology and not defining your terms.
To be consistent, you should be using the terminology and methodology to describe kinematic general plane rigid body motion, where the motion can be can be decomposed into a translation of an arbitrary point within the body, followed by a rigid rotation of the body about this point. In this case it is easier to use the centroid or center of mass as the “arbitrary point”.
What the hell is “pure orbital motion”? An orbit is just a path, usually elliptical or circular. Define your terms! If you use the term “rotation”, define the axis of rotation. All three graphics exhibit orbital motion.
JD can’t define his terms because he cannot understand the simple concepts of translation and rotation, since he’s never taken any physics or kinematics. It’s pointless to discuss anything with him.
If you want to correctly analyze the motion of these arrows, what you need to do is assign a coordinate system, put points “A” and “B” at the beginning and end of the arrows, define its center of mass, and perform a real analysis like the one shown in Appendix 20A of the following MIT course notes:
http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/modules/chapter20.pdf
We don’t need to imagine weird visualizations. There is a systematic accepted methodology used to describe general kinematic rigid body motion. It’s plane as day, with no arguments required. You just follow the procedure.
That is not what I asked, Bart.
I am definitely not seeing any evidence that either Bart or SkepticGoneWild can visualise the motions as described. As I said, by pure orbital motion I simply mean only orbital motion, zero axial rotation.
The clowns are trying to back away, while trying to make it look as if they’re not backing away!
They’re trying to twist and spin definitions as they make up their usual false accusations.
The situation is just really simple, as the graphics indicate. There are only two motions, “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”. The Moon orbits but does NOT rotate on its own axis.
N Tesla @ August 18, 2018 at 12:43 PM
You asked:
“who here is able to visualise that … the motion of the arrow on the left represents pure orbital motion (with zero axial rotation); that the motion of the arrow on the right shows the same orbital motion, plus axial rotation of the arrow clockwise once per counter-clockwise orbit?”
Yes, you can visualize it that way. As I said, all the motion is relative.
But, the preferred way to visualize it is with respect to an inertial reference, because it is there that you can quantify the motion using Newton’s laws.
With respect to the inertial frame, the top left graphic shows an arrow that is rotating ccw. The top right graphic shows an arrow that is fixed in place.
The bottom one shows what looks like a dipole pattern for an electric or magnetic field – I don’t know what this one is doing in there.
Bart, you just demonstrated that you can not visualise the motions as described.
I will repeat my earlier questions:
Just purely out of interest, who here is able to visualise that if (and I understand that everyone challenges this if) we accept, for the sake of argument, that the motion of the arrow on the left represents pure orbital motion (with zero axial rotation); that the motion of the arrow on the right shows the same orbital motion, plus axial rotation of the arrow clockwise once per counter-clockwise orbit? And who can visualise that the bottom arrow, shows again the same orbital motion, plus axial rotation of the arrow counter-clockwise once per counter-clockwise orbit?
Again, I am not asking for repetitions of arguments about why the motion on the left can not be pure orbital motion (with zero axial rotation), just interested in who can visualise the motions described. All should be able to do this, whichever side of the argument you are on.
Here are the arrows:
http://oi66.tinypic.com/1499wqu.jpg
Which one is changing? Which one is not?
N Telsa,
Please use accepted kinematic terms. “Pure orbital motion” is just something you made up. Your description of this motion is actually called “pure translation”.
If a rigid object’s center of mass is translating along a circular orbit, but there is no rotation of the object around its center of mass, that is what’s known as pure translation, and can be sometimes referred to as “curvilinear” translation, which is what the object on the right experiences.
I would not be surprised if N Tesla and JD are the same person. They display the same intelligence.
Harsh words are counterproductive.
JD and NT are simply locked into a single way of viewing things.
In fact, both views are valid. The Moon nominally does not rotate with respect to an orbital frame of reference. The Moon is rotating with respect to an inertially fixed frame of reference.
It is the latter that has physical significance, however.
Right back near the start of this discussion, I suggested that it seemed as though nobody had read the three Tesla papers, or that if they had, they had not understood them. Bart, your description of the motion of the bottom arrow, demonstrates a lack of understanding of his most fundamental point, made in the very first paper. You cannot seem to understand that the motion of the top left arrow, if taken to be motion with zero rotation of the arrow on its own axis (just for the sake of argument), then that same orbital motion is occurring in the bottom picture, whilst the arrow also rotates once counter-clockwise on its axis. That is what the bottom picture shows.
“You cannot seem to understand that the motion of the top left arrow, if taken to be motion with zero rotation of the arrow on its own axis …”
Why take it to be so? You can as easily take it to be counterclockwise motion with respect to the fixed page.
These are both valid descriptions. If you describe it either way, and tell me the reference, I can reconstruct the picture just from that information.
They are equivalent kinematically. But, one is preferred from the perspective of modeling the physics with dynamical equations.
Why take it to be so? As I said, for the sake of argument, and to demonstrate that you understand the motions as described! You have demonstrated that you do not. SkepticGoneWild is finding every excuse not to try to understand the motions as described, so it seems as though he cannot understand them either. Understanding Teslas arguments requires spatial cognizance. If you cannot understand the motions as described, you will never understand those arguments.
Just to show you JD’s inconsistency, in his bottom graphic, the arrow in the 1:30 o’clock position points directly left, then at the 12:00 noon position, it points directly down. JD claims the arrow is rotating CCW on its axis.
However, in his graphic on the top left, we see the arrow in the 12:00 noon position pointing left as well, and then in the 9:00 o’clock position, it points down as well, but JD says the arrow does not rotate CCW on its axis.
Go figure.
SkepticGoneWild, you have just now demonstrated your own failure to understand the described motions!
SGW proves he can not understand the simple graphics, yet he claims to understand orbital dynamics!
I guess I could draw him a picture….
“Why take it to be so? As I said, for the sake of argument, and to demonstrate that you understand the motions as described!”
OK then, I will counter in kind.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that in the top left picture, you have the arrow rotating counter-clockwise at orbit rate about an axis normal to the orbit.
Assume also that in the bottom picture, you have the arrow rotating counter-clockwise at twice the orbit rate about an axis normal to the orbit.
What makes your description more valid than mine?
I will repeat my questions again, this time using the language suggested by SkepticGoneWild:
Just purely out of interest, who here is able to visualise that if (and I understand that everyone challenges this if) we accept, for the sake of argument, that the motion of the arrow on the left represents purely translational motion (with zero axial rotation); that the motion of the arrow on the right shows the same translational motion, plus axial rotation of the arrow clockwise once per counter-clockwise orbit? And who can visualise that the bottom arrow, shows again the same translational motion, plus axial rotation of the arrow counter-clockwise once per counter-clockwise orbit?
Again, I am not asking for repetitions of arguments about why the motion on the left can not be purely translational motion (with zero axial rotation), just interested in who can visualise the motions described. All should be able to do this, whichever side of the argument you are on.
I have to go. Things to do.
The answer is: nothing. Nothing makes your description more valid than mine. Nor mine your’s.
The only difference is that you are referencing your rotation angle to a line drawn tangent to the orbit, while I am referencing mine to axes fixed on the page.
That means that my coordinate axes are inertially fixed, while yours are rotating. And, that means that Newton’s laws can be directly applied to my description, whereas yours requires they be modified for a rotating frame of reference.
In the well established principles of kinematic motion, if a rigid body on an orbital path does not experience a rotation about its center of mass, then by definition, it is exhibiting pure translational motion.
In JD’s stupid graphic on the right (which is not even an animation), the graphic show’s the arrow experiencing pure translational motion. The other two graphics BY DEFINITION, show a center of mass translating along the orbital path, with the arrow rotating about its center of mass in the CCW direction.
You two clowns would fail any kinematics course you might take.
You both just failed a test of simple spatial cognizance, and demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of Teslas first paper. Nothing more needs to be said.
As Bart flees, he attempts some more of his pseudoscience nonsense: “That means that my coordinate axes are inertially fixed, while yours are rotating. And, that means that Newton’s laws can be directly applied to my description, whereas yours requires they be modified for a rotating frame of reference.”
NO Bart. What is means is that you STILL do not understand orbital motions.
With JD’s graphic, you have to analyze the motion based on a fixed cartesian coordinate system with the Y axis pointing up (north-south direction) and the x axis pointing east-west.
With that in mind JD’s claims of motion are COMPLETELY in error. And if you, N Telsa, agree with his analysis, you are completely in error according to the rigid definitions and principles of kinematic rigid body motion.
I understand the concept of alternative reference frames, rotating reference frames. I’ve taken University dynamics and kinematics.
N Tesla does not appear to grasp those concepts.
SGW claims: “I understand the concept of alternative reference frames, rotating reference frames. I’ve taken University dynamics and kinematics.”
SGW, you definitely should demand a refund.
JD shrieks, “nothing more needs to be said!”. And then he rambles on and on.
I suggest you take your moaning and howling to NASA. I’m sure they get crackpots calling all the time.
N Tesla said that. Same diff.
Oh, it’s bigger than just NASA. Most colleges and universities are guilty also.
And I suppose Bigfoot is real too…..
Nicola,
“then that same orbital motion is occurring in the bottom picture, whilst the arrow also rotates once counter-clockwise on its axis. That is what the bottom picture shows.”
The only way to visualize that, and to visualize the arrow in the right image as rotating clockwise, is to imagine using a camera that is rotating at the speed of the orbit, so that the moon (arrow) always remains at the top.
Then, yes we would see things as you guys want us to see them. We would see the arrow rotating CW in image at right. We would see the arrow with fixed orientation in the image on the left. And we would see the arrow rotating CCW in the bottom picture.
But there would be side effects. We would see the stars circling CW. And we would see the moon NOT orbiting but stationary.
As Bart points that is called a rotating reference frame. It is not an inertial frame.
Here’s the thing. Ask your grandma if the arrow on the right is rotating (my metaphor for use your common sense). Would she do something complicated like going into a rotating reference frame to look at it? I think not. She would just look at it and say it is not rotating clockwise.
In this case common sense and science agree. As SGW showed, by the standard description of motion, the arrow on the right is translating and not rotating. The arrow on the left is translating and rotating CCW once per orbit (This is synchronous orbit). The arrow on the bottom is rotating CCW twice per orbit.
No, that is not the only way to visualise it. You should be able to visualise those motions just by looking at the diagram. I will take it that this is your admission that you also cannot.
I was just asking out of curiosity, and now I know. Nobody even understood the first paper.
“Oh, its bigger than just NASA. Most colleges and universities are guilty also.”
Ha! it would be fun to have JD teach his version of kinematics to Aerospace Engineering students, and then see how their space program does.
Most likely something like this.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ineptuser/6043032587
Well, maybe best done only as a simulation.
“You should be able to visualise those motions just by looking at the diagram.”
This reminds me of the emperor has no clothes.
Honestly just looking at the right image, I see no rotation of the arrow. It is bleeding obvious.
Ask your grandma, and report back.
Yes, thank you, you are unable to visualise the motions. That is clear.
N Telsa and JD are the same person.
They responded to me with a similar comment within 2 minutes of each other with exclamation points to their post.
N Tesla makes stupid statements that proves, just like JD, that he does not understand the concept of kinematic rigid body motion. He used the term “pure orbital motion”, which is meaningless.
Back in January, we had two clowns pedaling their moon non-rotation pseudoscience. And now we have two clowns pedaling the same BS. Same person.
The Moon is NOT rotating on its axis. Bart, SGW, Nate, Kristian, and others, are unable to see because of the masks over their eyes.
For those interested, study orbital motion. Understand why it is clearly illustrated by a toy train on a circular track.
For more advanced study, look into Newton’s calculus solutions for an orbiting body. Such solutions merely presented the mathematical verification for Galileo’s work, some years earlier.
Equipped with a thorough knowledge of all the above, question such beliefs that the Moon was once rotating on it axis. (Especially since there are many other moons also NOT rotating on their axes.)
Finally, always respect the Scientific Method. When your beliefs are shown to be wrong, change your beliefs rather than trying to rewrite the established laws of physics. And, as a first step in following the Scientific Method, always consider Occam’s razor.
SGW, you are as wrong about people being the same as you are about orbital motion.
But, you are definitely funny.
I posted multiple documents from various universities that prove JD’s ideas are a load of horse manure.
He is clueless. The procedure and methodology for accurately describing the plane motion of a rigid body is well known to those with degrees in science and physics.
Yet he tries to pander to and victimize those who may be less informed.
“Yes, thank you, you are unable to visualise the motions. That is clear.”
And that means what?
I also don’t hear dead people over radio waves, like Tesla did.
SGW, finding links to things you don’t understand, but believing that they support your twisted pseudoscience, just makes you even funnier.
Give it up JD/Tesla. People see right through your BS.
And that, people, is how you expose a fraud, with a dose of truth.
They are left stuttering and bumbling in their ignorance.
JD
“For more advanced study, look into Newtons calculus solutions for an orbiting body. Such solutions merely presented the mathematical verification for Galileos work, some years earlier.”
Ha, ha, ha.
Galileo did motion. He did not do planetary orbits. That was Kepler.
Just stick to insults and attempts at humor.
“For those interested, study orbital motion. Understand why it is clearly illustrated by a toy train on a circular track.”
For our example, we’ll use a single engine toy train on a circular track of a fixed radius R, starting at the 12 noon position in a CCW direction and ending at the 9:00 o’clock position (1/4 orbit)
The analysis will be per accepted kinematic principles, using the Appendix 20A of the following MIT course notes as a reference:
http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/modules/chapter20.pdf
We will draw a vector through the center of mass (m) of the train pointing in the direction of travel.
As stated in the course notes, the general motion of any rigid body can be described as a translation of the center of mass and a rotation about the center of mass.
The center of mass of the train is simply translating CCW along the orbital path (a quarter circle). What happens to the vector pointing through the center of mass? At the 12:00 noon position, the vector is pointing to the left, or due east. At the train’s 9:00 o’clock position, the vector is now pointing down, or due south. The vector that intersects the center of mass and points in the direction of travel has rotated 90 degrees CCW about the center of mass.
So the train rotates 90 degrees CCW about its center of mass as it performs 1/4 orbit in the CCW direction.
SGW still can not understand the difference between ‘orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”. It’s been explained to him about a dozen times, but he still can’t get it. Dumb as a rock!
And poor Nate believes Galileo did not contribute to later work by Newton. Nate likely never heard the story about the Tower of Pisa. And, he won’t understand the relevancy. Dumb as a rock!
Who knew rocks could be so funny?
JustDumb proves his ignorance in the principles of kinematic motion, unable to follow the MIT course notes. His only recourse is to plug his ears and shriek his failed mantra over and over as if repetition will make it come true.
Quite entertaining. Although all these beat-downs must be taking a toll on his fragile ego.
SkepticGoneWild says, August 18, 2018 at 5:01 PM:
Also, according to this person, the theory of evolution by natural selection is – of course – nothing but “pseudoscience”.
SkepticGoneWild says, August 18, 2018 at 6:07 PM:
That was obvious from the get-go:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316495
Kristian, were you able to visualise the motions in that diagram, as earlier described?
Yes. No problem. Are you able to visualise that, for the Moon, there is one orbital axis and one rotational axis and that these two are not the same; that the former passes through the Eart-Moon barycentre, while the latter passes through the Moon’s own barycentre? Just like the Earth orbits the Sun-Earth barycentre and rotates around its own barycentre.
In both cases, two separate motions, two separate axes.
Then congratulations, you are the first. I have already demonstrated that Tesla was well aware of the difference between the moons own axis and the axis passing through the Earth-moon barycenter, and of course the depression difference between orbital motion and axial rotation. This should have been clear from my comments at August 17, 2018 at 3:48 AM, and at August 15, 2018 at 9:26 AM.
Here are the links to the three papers, for ease of reference:
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-0
As I said before, I do not mind what conclusions people wish to draw. All I ask is that the papers are read and understood. So far there have been numerous misrepresentations, and basic misunderstandings about what is shown, and to correct these has been the only reason for my involvement in this unpleasantness.
Tesla:
Conclusion, you are either unable to visualise it, or not willing to … Which one is it?
There are two alternatives here. What makes yours real and ours merely an illusion?
Kristian, this is a simple question of reading comprehension. Tesla is not unaware of the concept of the moon rotating on its axis, once per revolution about the Earth-moon barycenter. He is arguing that it does not rotate on its axis. Again, here is a quote from the first paper:
It is well known since the discovery of Galileo that the moon, in travelling thru space, always turns the same face towards the earth. This is explained by stating that while passing once around its mother-planet the lunar globe performs just one revolution on its axis. The spinning motion of a heavenly body must necessarily undergo modifications in the course of time, being either retarded by resistances internal or external, or accelerated owing to shrinkage and other causes. An unalterable rotational velocity thru all phases of planetary evolution is manifestly impossible. What wonder, then, that at this very instant of its long existence our satellite should revolve exactly so, and not faster or slower. But many astronomers have accepted as a physical fact that such rotation takes place. It does not, but only appears so; it is an illusion, a most surprising one, too.
In answer to your questions, I personally am both willing and able to visualise the motions as you see them. On reading the articles, you will become aware that Tesla was as well. As to your final question; well, is that not the entire point of this argument, to find which is real and which is the illusion? Do you expect me to repeat every argument so far advanced, or copy for you every single word from the papers?
Kristian, no matter how you try to twist and spin, the Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis.
“What wonder, then, that at this very instant of its long existence our satellite should revolve exactly so, and not faster or slower.”
This was clearly explained to you, why this happens, tidal locking. It is logical, it can be explained mathematically, and it agrees with known physics.
But you CHOOSE to ignore these facts and have no rebuttal to them.
“But many astronomers have accepted as a physical fact that such rotation takes place. It does not, but only appears so; it is an illusion, a most surprising one, too.”
This is pure assertion. There is no logical argument being made here. Therefore it carries no weight with anyone here.
Posting and reposting the opinion of an authority figure, and expecting it to change opinions is pointless (But it is a Halp tactic).
I am growing tired of this. Nate, first of all, I repeated that quote only to demonstrate that Tesla understood the concept of synchronous rotation, no other reason! Secondly, your final point about the assertion lacking logical support is nonsense. That sentence is at the end of the very introduction, of the very first paper. The arguments follow! Thirdly, there is no appeal to authority taking place. I dont expect anybody to be swayed either way by Teslas authority, all I ask is that the papers be read and understood. So far there is no evidence of this.
The clowns, Bart, Ball4, Nate, SGW, Kristian, and others, are still not getting it.
Start: The little toy train exemplifies orbital motion. If you do not understand that, return to start.
You can NOT use the orbital angular speed for both orbital and axial angular momentums, as Bart tried in his calculations. If you believe you can use the same energy twice, return to start.
There is NO evidence that the Moon ever rotated on its axis. It is a “belief”, not science. If you believe the Moon once rotated on it axis, return to start.
“Total locking” is pseudoscience. If you believe that gravity can produce a torque, or counter-torque, return to start.
To N. Tesla: Nate is famous for making up false accusations.
N Tesla says, August 19, 2018 at 7:36 AM:
Hehe. Now you’re just deliberately evading. Which very much suggests you know you don’t really have a case.
Again:
What makes your representation of a reality where two distinct types of celestial motion (orbital and rotational) are tied to the very same referential axis, the Earth-Moon one, thus forcing you to visualise an inertial frame of reference when it comes to the orbital motion and, at the same time, a rotational frame of reference when it comes to the rotational motion, physically ‘real’, while our representation of a reality where the two distinct types of motion are also tied to two distinct referential axes, the Earth-Moon one on the one hand, the Moon’s own on the other, letting us use an inertial frame of reference in the case of both motions, is somehow just an ‘illusion’?
You need to be able to explain this clearly using standard physical principles, otherwise it would appear you’re only making stuff up as you go along, to suit your own preferences.
Because you do realise that choosing the right frame of reference is an all-important first step when it comes to problem-solving in physics/mechanics. You can’t just arbitrarily pick whichever you like best. Your choices have to be consistent and logically coherent.
For instance, if we were to use an orbiting reference frame when assessing the orbiting motion of the Moon, say if we were to try and observe it from the Moon itself rather than from the Earth or, better, from an altogether external, inertial vantage point, like the stars, then it would appear to us as if the Earth was the one orbiting the Moon and not the other way around, once every lunar day. Just like standing on the surface of the Earth gives you the visual and cognitive impression that the Sun actually revolves around the Earth rather than the other way around. Even though we know it isn’t. I hope you’re not an adherent to the geocentric model …
Kristian, perhaps this will help:
The moon does rotate, not on its own [axis], but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.
In other words, the moon revolves (orbits) about the Earth-moon barycenter, but does not rotate on its own axis. To put it another, more simple way, all motion of the moon is purely translational.
Now, that last statement is either true or false, regardless of reference frames. The motion the moon undergoes is either purely translational, or it isnt. To see and understand Teslas arguments as to why the motion is purely translational, read the papers.
JDHuffman says, August 19, 2018 at 8:43 AM:
No, it doesn’t. It exemplifies TWO motions in one, a translational one AND a rotational one. The fact that the train always has the same side facing the centre point of the track exemplifies tidal locking. As soon as they end up synchronised along one quasi-circular track, you seem utterly incapable of visualising the TWO distinct types of motion being exemplified here as actual separate physical phenomena. This whole issue obviously confounds you deeply. But that’s ok. Physicists around the world have got it covered, so you don’t have to …
N Tesla says, August 19, 2018 at 9:39 AM:
Now you’re only repeating yourself. So we’re back to you either not being able to visualise the alternative explanation (two distinct motions, two separate axes, two inertial frames of reference), or not willing to. Which one is it?
N Tesla says, August 19, 2018 at 9:39 AM:
What makes you think I haven’t read the papers? Problem is, the motion isn’t purely translational. If it were, you wouldn’t be able to stand on the surface of the Moon and see the stars revolve above your head.
So, sorry, on this, Tesla was wrong.
We’re done here.
Kristian, it only appears that we are back again to your false dichotomy, whilst you ignore (or perhaps, just fail to understand) the true dichotomy: that the moon either exhibits purely translational motion, or it does not, regardless of reference frame.
Sorry Kristian, but the toy train DOES exemplify orbital motion. There are NOT two independent motions. The toy train is NOT rotating on its own axis, only orbiting.
If you believe the toy train is orbiting on its axis, they you do not understand “orbiting on it own axis”, either.
Sorry, in a hurry this morning. Last sentence should read:
If you believe the toy train is rotating on its axis, then you do not understand rotating on it own axis, either.
Kristian, the answer to your question at 10:01 am is: what you then go on to write after the question mark.
Kristian claims: “Problem is, the motion isn’t purely translational. If it were, you wouldn’t be able to stand on the surface of the Moon and see the stars revolve above your head.”
No Kristian, the motion IS purely translational. The reason you would see the stars revolve is because you would be ORBITING.
Learn about orbital motion, especially “rotating on its own axis”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
JDHuffman @ August 19, 2018 at 8:43 AM
“If you believe you can use the same energy twice, return to start.”
We do not count the same energy twice. The velocity of a point on the body displaced from the center of mass is the velocity of the center of mass plus the velocity of the point relative to the center of mass. Both velocities must be counted to get total energy.
By choosing the origin of the coordinate system to be the center of mass, coupling terms cancel out, and we are left with two distinct terms. There is the motion of the center of mass, which begets the term
E1 = 1/2 * m *v_cm^2
where m is the mass and v_cm is the velocity of the center of mass with respect to inertial space. Then, there is the motion of the individual elements of the extended body relative to the center of mass, which is captured by the inertia dependent term
E2 = 1/2 * J * omega^2
where J is the moment of inertia about the spin axis, and omega is the spin rate with respect to inertial space, which is approximately equal to the orbit rate due to tidal locking.
“There is NO evidence that the Moon ever rotated on its axis.”
If the stars are changing from the point of view of a point on the Moon, then the Moon is rotating with respect to the stars.
N Tesla @ August 19, 2018 at 9:39 AM
“The moon does rotate, not on its own [axis], but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one.”
This reveals a lack of knowledge about the actual configuration.
The Moon’s rotation axis is displaced 6.68 degrees from the normal to the ecliptic, which is displaced 5.14 degrees from the normal to the Earth-Moon orbit plane, leaving a 1.54 degree displacement between the spin axis and the Earth-Moon orbital plane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#/media/File:Earth-Moon.PNG
JustDumb has a toy brain to go with his toy train.
This clown is the only person I’ve met that declares a vector is rotating when it always points north. And then when the vector on the train actually DOES rotate 90 degrees, he says there is no rotation. Even a 5th grader could figure this one out.
He must be a riot to ride in a car with. You tell him to turn left at the next street and he goes straight. You tell him to go straight down the road and he turns and crashes into the field.
LMAO. What a loser.
Bart, you are using the orbital speed for the axial rotation speed. You are still confused, and your attempt at math is just making it worse for you.
One of your problems appears to be in processing logic. I stated that there was NO evidence that the Moon had ever rotated on its axis. Here’s your totally illogical response:
“If the stars are changing from the point of view of a point on the Moon, then the Moon is rotating with respect to the stars.”
Clowns are funny.
More humor from SGW, who STILL cannot understand the simple graphic.
How’s the hunt for Bigfoot going, JustDumb? What’s next on the agenda? Finding Nibiru (Planet X)??
JDHuffman @ August 19, 2018 at 12:15 PM
“Bart, you are using the orbital speed for the axial rotation speed.”
That is enforced, to some degree, by tidal locking. But, the two rates are not precisely the same, and are not precisely aligned with one another.
Not all orbiting bodies are tidally locked.
“Here’s your totally illogical response:”
It is completely logical. If the stars are changing relative to it, then it is rotating relative to them. It’s a tautology. Saying the one is saying the other.
Bart rambles: “That is enforced, to some degree, by tidal locking.”
No clown, you were fooled again by “institutionalized pseudoscience”. Study gravitational effect on orbiting spheres, orbital motion, and rotating on an axis. You’ve got a lot to learn.
Bart claims seeing the stars move is evidence that the Moon once rotated on its axis: “It is completely logical.
No clown, it is NOT logical.
Learn some physics, or remain a clown. Your choice.
” Study gravitational effect on orbiting spheres…”
The Moon is not a sphere, or even a spheroid. It is a triaxial ellipsoid.
“Bart claims seeing the stars move is evidence that the Moon once rotated on its axis…”
No, Bart claims it is rotating on its axis. It is a trivial tautology. If the stars are moving, it is rotating relative to them.
Bart prefers his tangled pseudoscience to reality.
That’s his problem, not mine.
Ok, so what have we learned?
We learned that JD and Ger*an have a lot in common. They both love toy trains, using the word pseudoscience, and are lunatics. Hmmm.
We learned that N Tesla is not willing or able make his own logical arguments, but instead posts and reposts the scribblings of a supposed authority figure, insisting people havent read (we have!) nor ‘understood’ these ‘works’ Halp used to do the very same thing with Postma’s ‘works’. Hmmm.
Meanwhile, neither of them are willing or able to rebut the logical arguments people make.
They simply keep insulting the intelligence of posters, (and ordinary physics, NASA and most universities), while asserting their unwavering faith in their belief that the Moon does not rotate.
More imaginary nonsense from Nate.
Here’s reality:
The clowns, Bart, Ball4, Nate, SGW, Kristian, and others, are still not getting it.
Start: The little toy train exemplifies orbital motion. If you do not understand that, return to start.
You can NOT use the orbital angular speed for both orbital and axial angular momentums, as Bart tried in his calculations. If you believe you can use the same energy twice, return to start.
There is NO evidence that the Moon ever rotated on its axis. It is a “belief”, not science. If you believe the Moon once rotated on it axis, return to start.
“Total locking” is pseudoscience. If you believe that gravity can produce a torque, or counter-torque, return to start.
“Start: The little toy train exemplifies orbital motion. If you do not understand that, return to start.”
There are no tracks in space, so useless example. Tracks exert torque on train cars, while neither empty space, nor gravity do.
“You can NOT use the orbital angular speed for both orbital and axial angular momentums, as Bart tried in his calculations. If you believe you can use the same energy twice, return to start.”
JD’s confusion knows no bounds. Angular speed, momenta, and energy are different things. Makes up new physics here.
“There is NO evidence that the Moon ever rotated on its axis. It is a belief, not science. If you believe the Moon once rotated on it axis, return to start.”
Assertion without evidence.
“Total locking is pseudoscience. If you believe that gravity can produce a torque, or counter-torque, return to start.”
More assertion without evidence. JD casts aside known science like he’s taking a dump.
For casual readers trying to decide who in this tread is living in reality and who in an alternate reality, consider this.
Only person here, JD, insisted that NASA and most universities don’t understand planetary motion, but he does.
Thats all you really need to know.
Nate:
“Tracks exert torque on train cars, while neither empty space, nor gravity do.”
That’s not quite correct. Gravity generally falls off as the reciprocal of radius squared. As a result, the tug of gravity close in is larger than that farther out. When one has an oblong shape, with non-uniform principle axis inertia, this results in net torque when a principle axis is not aligned in a radial direction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity-gradient_stabilization
This is the torque that leads to tidal locking. In a minimum energy configuration, the minor axis of inertia is directed along the radial line, and the spin is about the major axis of inertia.
So, when you have the inertia distribution of a triaxial ellipsoid in a gravitationally induced orbit, it is vaguely like the train example, if one had one of those toy trains that doesn’t actually run on a track, but within a wide channel where it is free to rotate a bit. And, if the track were perhaps grooved so that there was a propensity to rotate with the curve of the track, but not an absolute constraint to do so.
Nate, everything you stated at 9:49 AM above, falls into the category you mentioned:
“Assertion without evidence.”
And, I’m not the “only” person that recognizes the pseudoscience being spewed out by NASA and most universities. It’s more than just the Moon issue.
Bart,
Yes I’m aware of the tidal locking torque, which is very tiny, requiring millions of years to change the moon’s angular velocity. And after synchronization the torque is (near) zero.
Whereas we know from rigid body dynamics that a planet or a train car, travelling in a straight line with no angular velocity will not turn (reorient) without a significant torque.
JD “recognizes the pseudoscience being spewed out by NASA and most universities. It’s more than just the Moon issue.”
Case closed.
Bart, SkepticGoneWild and Nate, how is it coming with those visualisations? Are you yet able to view the diagram and see the motions as described earlier? That would be the first step.
Simple yes or no answers will suffice, I do not need to see yet more repetitions of previous arguments.
JD – when you land a man on the Moon, call us. Until then, perhaps if you donned a sandwich board proclaiming your ideas to random passers by in Central Park, you might get some attention, or at least a few sympathy coins.
N Tesla – yes. Everyone gets the visualization. It is trivial. Do you understand why it is not the only possible visualization?
Bart, your comment of August 18, 2018 at 1:25 PM has not disappeared. It proves that you were not able to visualise the motions as described. You are now claiming you can. Even stranger, you are claiming that everybody can!
In answer to your question, yes, of course.
Then, why is your visualization the valid one, and the others not?
SkepticGoneWild, Nate, are you going to also pretend that what you were unable to do earlier is trivial, and that of course you are now able to do it?
Direct quotes from “institutionalized pseudoscience”, that the clowns have swallowed:
“The tidal forces between the Earth and the Moon slowed the Moon’s rotation until it became locked with its orbit around the Earth.”
Impossible.
“The Moon therefore always keeps the same side of its surface facing the Earth.”
Yes, the Moon always keep the same side facing Earth because it IS NOT ROTATING ON ITS OWN AXIS!
NT – Avoiding the question?
I will repeat my comment at August 18, 2018 at 2:27 PM with some clarifying remarks.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that in the top left picture, you have the arrow rotating counter-clockwise at orbit rate with respect to the page about an axis normal to the orbit.
Assume also that in the bottom picture, you have the arrow rotating counter-clockwise with respect to the page at twice the orbit rate about an axis normal to the orbit.
What makes your description more valid than mine?
JD –
“Impossible.”
Yet, there is a fleet of gravity gradient stabilized satellites in Earth orbit which use this very principle.
“Yes, the Moon always keep the same side facing Earth because it…”
… rotates with a mean angular rate equal to the orbit rate.
What makes your statement more valid than mine?
Yes, Bart, I am avoiding the question. Unless your intent is to restart this discussion from the very beginning, I see no reason for you to ask it.
Come on, NT. This is the very core of the conundrum. Why is your description more valid than mine?
You could answer:
– Because it just is!
– Because that’s the way, uh-huh, uh-huh, I like it!
– Because – oh, look! A squirrel!
Bart, if you insist on repetition of arguments, the most straightforward is the motion of all the particles of the moon in concentric ellipses about the Earth-moon barycenter. If there were axial rotation, the paths of the particles would criss-cross at some point along the orbit path.
Bart: “Yet, there is a fleet of gravity gradient stabilized satellites in Earth orbit which use this very principle.”
FALSE!
Bart: “… rotates with a mean angular rate equal to the orbit rate.”
No Bart, you are seeing the orbit rate and imaging the “rotating on its axis” rate. You don’t have the ability to think logically.
Look guys, its very simple. if you are arguing about basic physics, and in order to defend your position you claim that NASA and most universities have it wrong, then you’ve lost the argument.
Nate, that was an appeal to authority, something you have falsely accused me of.
“If there were axial rotation, the paths of the particles would criss-cross at some point along the orbit path.”
Not when the center of rotation is displaced from the orbit origin. Then, it is when you are not rotating with respect to the stars that the paths criss-cross.
You are still confusing rotation relative to the orbit to rotation relative to the stars.
Maybe this would help (or not, probably, but what the hey…)
http://stuffnobodycaresabout.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Batman-Sammy-Davis-Jr.jpg
A) Are Batman and Robin walking up the wall? Or, B) are they walking across the studio floor with the camera rotated 90 degrees?
The answer is B, they are walking across the studio floor. But, they could conceptually as easily be walking up the wall. It all depends on the reference, and the angle of the camera.
Nicola,
Without a rotating camera, there is no rotation of the arrow in the right image, only in your imagination.
You did not answer me.
“And that means what? I also dont hear dead people over radio waves, like Tesla did.”
Thanks for your response, Nate. You again confirm that you are not able to visualise the motions as described, from looking at the diagram. Keep studying it, until you can. That is the first step.
JD –
“FALSE!”
No, true. You can google gravity gradient stabilized spacecraft and find specific examples.
One with which I have some tangential association used the gravity gradient to stabilize during what they called “safe” operation, when the normal controls had experienced an anomaly, and they needed to rely upon an assured natural dynamic to keep the solar arrays pointing at the Sun to provide power. The principle is widely used.
Nate, that was an appeal to authority, something you have falsely accused me of.
You were appealing to an authority figure, an individual famous person, who maybe right or wrong. In fact he is wrong.
Im appealing to basic known science, not told to me by one person. The fact that it is taught at all universities as a foundation for all technical fields means it is basic knowledge.
If I say to you 13 > 5, are you going to deny it, and say Im appealing to authority?
No, its basic knowledge taught in schools.
Now I find once again that this discussion has devolved into the ridiculous.
“You again confirm that you are not able to visualise the motions as described, from looking at the diagram. ”
And it is a red-herring since you have not stated what it means.
Another Halp specialty.
That is a straightforward falsehood Nate.
Where did you ever say what it is supposed to prove, Halp?
If you see rotation that is clearly not there, and others dont see it, that only proves your insanity.
NT – and you have once again confirmed that you cannot visualize the motion relative to the inertial frame.
You seem to think rotation is an absolute concept. It isn’t. If you have one object rotating clockwise with respect to another, then you can as easily say the latter is rotating counter-clockwise with respect to the former.
Kinematically, the descriptions are identical.
“Because oh, look! A squirrel!”
Bart. The above is JD/N Telsa’s reasoning for all their declarations. They just scream their declarations without evidence or backup.
They shriek “Learn some physics!”, yet when presented with multiple kinematic reference material from major universities, their only answer is “Look! A squirrel!”.
Even their own references they cite contradict their pseudoscience. They do not understand translation, orbit, or rotation. They do not understand the long accepted methodology to describe kinematic rigid body motion.
They are the same person, but share half a brain.
No Bart, it’s FALSE because the Moon is essentially a homogeneous sphere to Earth’s gravitational field. So, you’re just desperately grasping at straws.
Here’s another illustration that you can deny: The Earth has both motions–orbiting and rotating on its own axis. So, if the Earth stopped in orbit, the rotating on its axis would not. But, if the Moon stopped in orbit, there would be no rotation on axis, because there is NO rotation on axis.
Keep denying reality.
BTW, Nate, you are appealing to authority. There is nothing wrong with rejecting authority as confirmatory, because authorities are often wrong.
In this case, when the authorities have shown such skill as landing a man on the Moon, it’s a tough row to hoe. But, nevertheless, it is a relatively weak argument, and you are only stiffening their recalcitrance (if that is possible) by appealing to it.
JD –
“…because the Moon is essentially a homogeneous sphere to Earths gravitational field.”
A) It is not a sphere. A sphere is a 2-dimensional shell. At best, it could be said to approximate a spheroid, which is a volume bounded by a sphere.
B) It is not a spheroid. It does not have uniform inertia distribution. It is a triaxial ellipsoid.
“But, if the Moon stopped in orbit, there would be no rotation on axis…”
False. The outer rim of the Moon is moving faster than the inner, as it must to trace out concentric circles in the orbit. If the orbit stopped, those rates continue in a straight line, and if one side is moving faster than the other, then there is a rotation.
“It’s not a wonder at all. It is a well known and understood phenomenon called tidal locking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking”
What is this comment (plus several others of yours), Bart, other than appealing to known science. That it is all that I’m doing. And you are not helping.
The probability that basic physics, as taught in all universities, has been proven wrong by a proven idiot (or anyone else) on a blog is near 0.
Lets face it, when an argument relies on such a low probability event occurring, that is a losing argument.
Bart, you’re running out of ways to deny reality. You keep repeating the same distractions.
Maybe you could do some more searches to find some new material. Maybe this nonsense will help you:
It’s no big deal now, but in the ancient past, shortly after its formation, the Moon was spinning rapidly. This meant that the part of the Moon bulged towards us was changing constantly, like water tides on Earth.
These bulges acted like handles that the Earth’s gravity could grab onto, and torque it back into place. Over time, the Earth’s gravity slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever.
That’s some great pseudoscience. But, it might be a little hard for clowns to explain the last sentence–“slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever“.
Clowns in denial sure are funny.
Nate –
No, I am appealing to an actual mechanism that is explained in the article, not to a person.
If we are to decide things by appeal to authority, then he’s got Nicola Tesla on his side, a recognized super-genius and pioneer in electrical systems.
I agree with you that they’re not going to upend basic physics, but this is a little beyond the most basic physics, and they are not going to be persuaded until they understand the principles, at least to some degree.
JD –
“…slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever…”
… relative to the orbit frame of reference. I’ve told you again and again, the Moon is, indeed, nominally not rotating relative to the orbit frame. But, it is rotating with respect to inertial space, and inertial space is special, because that’s where Newton’s laws hold.
BTW, Bart, bringing up Eulers eqns, is not useful for people like JD or Halp who have not had (or didnt absorb) freshman physics.
Nor am I appealing to a person. Uggghhh
Bart, way upthread, you provided calculations that showed the Moon was “rotating on its axis” at the same as its orbital rate. But, the pseudoscience says otherwise: “…slowed down the rotation speed of the Moon until it stopped, forever…”
It is funny when you clowns get tangled in your own pseudoscience.
As SGW likes me to say: “Learn some physics.”
a little beyond the most basic physics
No, not really. Reference frames are in first semester physics. Rigid body motion is second semester physics.
JD, “But, if the Moon stopped in orbit, there would be no rotation on axis, because there is NO rotation on axis.”
As various people have shown:
“in the case of the tidally locked moon, clearly the near side at Rnear, is traveling around a smaller circle in the same amount of time as far side, which is travelling around a larger circle.
Speed near side: 2piRnear/27d
Speed far side: 2piRfar/27d is faster”
Agree?
Then,
“Thus relative to the moons center, the outer and inner portions are always moving in opposite directions. They are circling the center. Ie rotating around it.
If Earths gravity were suddenly cut, like a string, the moon would fly off in a straight line. Is there any reason to think the inner points would now suddenly speed up to catch up to the speed of the outer points?
Of course they wont, then the rotation will continue, as it should by conservation of angular momentum.”
Nate –
– Euler’s equations are a tangible thing, not just the word of some person. If they were wise, they would look into how they are derived and ask questions.
– “Rigid body motion is second semester physics.”
There is actually more than rigid body motion involved here. Gravity gradient torque is like a frictionless pendulum torque. On its own, it would not sync up the rotation rates, just as a frictionless pendulum would simply oscillate back and forth forever. There must be dissipation of energy to reach the minimum energy state. Tidal deformations provide the necessary dissipation.
JD –
Yes, it is rotating on its axis relative to the stars. It is not rotating significantly with respect to the orbit. Why is this so difficult for you?
Guys, it’s been fun.
Possibly clown Bart is trying to back up a little: “It is not rotating significantly with respect to the orbit.”
Dang, I would hate to see Bart quit clowning. He was so funny.
Oh well, there’s still Nate, Ball4, Kristian, SGW, and several others. Fortunately, there is an ample supply of clowns….
Nate, I have no idea who Halp is; but both Kristian, and now Bart, say that they can visualise the motions as earlier described, in that diagram. If you cannot, there is no need to describe those that can, as insane. If you are struggling, there are some simple experiments outlined in the first paper, which may help.
SkepticGoneWild, how about you?
Where did you ever say what it is the significance of the ‘visualization’, Tesla/Halp?
What the others mean is what I said: when in a different reference frame (a rotating one) one can see things as you guys do.
And that shows, simply, that reference frames matter.
JD –
‘Possibly clown Bart is trying to back up a little: “It is not rotating significantly with respect to the orbit.'”
Final parting words: No, it’s the same thing I’ve been telling you again and again. The orbit rate is not perfectly sync’d with the rotation rate because the orbit rate changes due to eccentricity, and the spin axis is not precisely aligned to the orbit normal.
Those are two big problems with your viewpoint which you have avoided addressing, but of which I have to keep reminding you. Any other gotchas you think you might have, you are mistaken.
No Nate, others have spoken for themselves, you do not speak for them. It has nothing to do with a rotating reference frame. It is a test of basic spacial cognizance. Study the diagram, and try to visualise the motions, based on acceptance, for the sake of argument, that the motion of the top left arrow is purely translational. Then, assume that represents the same orbital motion that is occurring in all three diagrams. With that in mind, visualise the top right arrow as rotating clock-wise once, in addition to the orbital motion, and the bottom arrow as rotating once counter-clockwise.
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-tidal.html
JD 2:03pm quite obviously mistakes the page author’s actual meaning that the moon stopped showing us other faces long ago, not stopped turning. JD is completely wrong, once again. JD fails even on an appeal to authority. Total JD failure, nothing new, it’s fun to watch. Very entertaining.
Here’s what the page really means which somehow JD managed not to cut and paste from JD’s own source:
“If you could look at the moon orbiting the Earth from above, you’d see that it orbits once on its axis exactly as long as it takes to orbit once around our planet. It’s always turning, showing us exactly the same face.”
Here’s how the page author could improve writing:
“If you could look at the moon orbiting the Earth from above, you’d see that the moon rotates once on its axis exactly as long as it takes to revolve or orbit once around our planet. The moon is always turning, showing us exactly the same face.”
With respect to the toy train on a track, the outside edge of the toy train has a greater tangential velocity than the inside edge.
If the train suddenly disengaged from the track, what would happen?
Let’s remember the aspects of translation:
“Note, all points in a rigid body subjected to translation move
with the same velocity and acceleration”[https://tinyurl.com/y7tgh98l]
Well, bummer. That means the object is rotating about its axis. So it would continue to rotate on its axis in a frictionless environment.
It must be tiring for JD/N Tesla to get beat-down all the time. Entertaining, though.
SkepticGoneWild, from your definition of translation: is that the same orbital velocities, or the same angular velocities?
“Study the diagram, and try to visualise the motions, based on acceptance, for the sake of argument, that the motion of the top left arrow is purely translational.”
Ok, I can do that.
But that is an argument based on a false premise. As noted by several people, that arrow’s motion does not agree with the standard definition of translation of a rigid body.
Are you proposing that everyone everywhere change the definition of translation to suit your needs for this situation?
Nate, I will take it that you are still unable to visualise the motions as described.
N Tesla/JD,
First of all, it was not my definition. I’m not doing your homework for you.
And secondly, quit with your dumbass attempts at “gotchas”. I stated tangential velocities. If you don’t know the difference between a tangential velocity and angular velocity, go read a book.
Bart: “Those are two big problems with your viewpoint which you have avoided addressing,”.
No Bart, I haven’t avoided addressing anything. You are the one that has avoided addressing the fact that your own calculations use the same values for both orbital and axial rotation. You would see the Moon rotating on its own axis from Earth, if that were true. In fact, you would be able to see all sides of the Moon in about 27 days.
You have also avoided addressing the fact that orbital motion is translational. Orbiting does NOT produce rotating on its own axis. All clowns get this confused. They HAVE to, to believe the Moon is rotating on its own axis.
If the discussion rises above the level of the playground, I may continue.
Allow me to address super-clown Ball4 (at 4:20PM, above) in only the language he will understand:
Ball4 quite obviously mistakes the wrong source for my quote. Ball4 can then continue as if I have misquoted something. Ball4 has no other tactics except obfuscation and misrepresentation. Ball4 treasuries Ball4’s anonymity so Ball4 can attempt further such tactics.
Although Ball4 remains shallow, unoriginal, and ineffective, Ball4 is nevertheless funny.
SGW “teaches”: “If you don’t know the difference between a tangential velocity and angular velocity, go read a book.”
SGW, you should have taken your own advice, before making a fool of yourself, again.
In tangential motion, both sides, and every particle of the whole, would have the exact same tangential velocity. You are still believing orbiting is the same as rotating on its axis. Or maybe you just don’t know what a “tangent” is?
No Halp/Tesla. I can visualize it. What you are wanting to do is define orientation of an object relative to its direction of motion.
That does not match standard definition or orientation, which is defined relative to space, the z-axis of your coordinate system for example.
Just to be clear, rising above the level of the playground would involve no further placing of words in other mouths.
“Ball4 can then continue as if I have misquoted something.”
JD 5:06pm fails yet again no misquote JD, you quoted the author exactly. It is JD’s obvious misinterpretation of the author that is howlingly funny. More please. Keep your knee slapping funny embarrassment going.
JD ignores, obfuscates, changes his own source meaning when the source writes JD is wrong about the moon “NOT ROTATING ON ITS OWN AXIS!” because as JD’s quoted author writes the moon “is always turning”. Again, JD failed to clip:
“If you could look at the moon orbiting the Earth from above, you’d see that it orbits once on its axis exactly as long as it takes to orbit once around our planet. It’s always turning, showing us exactly the same face.”
N. Tesla, you can’t expect these clowns to behave professionally. The more you prove them wrong, the more they resort to base tactics. You just have to regard their declining behaviors as a sign of victory.
JD shrieks, In tangential motion, both sides, and every particle of the whole, would have the exact same tangential velocity!
Tangential velocity is proportional to the radius, dummy. Just like the front side of the moon and back side of the moon have different radii from the orbital axis, and different tangential velocities, the same with the train.
An orbit is just a path the orbiting body follows. Rotation when used to describe general rigid body motion, is the rotation of the rigid body about its own axis (or center of mass/centroid).
Im just stating the facts, Halp/Tesla. If that offends you, go play elsewhere.
If the arrow in the left image is not rotating, then that is because its orientation is fixed. But it is clearly NOT fixed relative to the coordinate system. It is fixed relative to the direction of motion.
So you are defining orientation relative to direction of motion. Again, that is not standard and makes analyzing motion more complicated then necessary.
SGW: “Tangential velocity is proportional to the radius”
No SGW, both sides of the Moon would have the same tangential velocity. You are referencing to the Earth. The reference is to Moon’s center of mass, which is moving translationally.
“The reference is to Moon’s center of mass, which is moving translationally.”
No. You have to reference to the coordinate system with axes through the center of orbit. That is the reference system. I have provided multiple references from various universities in regards to kinematic motion, and the reference system is clear.
The moon obviously is not on a circular orbit, but for the sake of simplification, let’s assume it is, as is the case for the toy train. In order to calculate the tangential velocity, you have to know the radius to the backside of the moon, or to the outside edge of the toy train, otherwise please explain how you calculate the tangential velocity.
Once again you are going to be left flat-footed exclaiming, “look, a squirrel!”
SGW, you are going to have to clear your head and start all over. You’re still NOT getting it.
Consider that you can look down on the Earth and Moon. The Moon is orbiting CCW around the Earth. The Moon is at the 90° position (right side of Earth). At that exact moment, the tangential velocity vectors on each side of the Moon would be pointing “north”. In your current (wrong) thinking, the vectors would have different magnitudes. You are trying to measure tangential velocity relative to Earth. That is wrong!
“Consider that you can look down on the Earth and Moon. The Moon is orbiting CCW around the Earth. The Moon is at the 90 position (right side of Earth). At that exact moment, the tangential velocity vectors on each side of the Moon would be pointing north. In your current (wrong) thinking, the vectors would have different magnitudes. ”
All makes sense, JD, until the last sentence.
If they have the same velocity magnitude, ie speed, JD, then speed = distance/time must be wrong, or one of the following must be wrong.
The far side travels a distance 2pi(a+R) and near side travels 2pi(a-R), where a is orbit radius and R is moon radius. Yes?
They both travel those distances in the same time, the orbital period, T.
Which of these basic facts is wrong, and why, JD?
Nate, as usual, you’re not making progress. You are trying to find “red herrings” to counter each point I make.
If you use the Earth for your reference, then you can make the case that the far side of the Moon is traveling faster than the near side. But, if you use a reference on the other side of the Moon, then the original near side is traveling faster than the original far side.
You’re just looking for ways to confuse the issue. The tangential velocity vectors are exactly equal, in direction and magnitude, because they are referenced to the tangential motion. Tangential motion is what you get with orbiting.
Now, you get to try to confuse the issue some more.
But, you will never get around the simple, clearly observable, fact that the Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis, as it orbits around Earth.
You are still wrong JD; understand why from your own source:
“If you could look at the moon orbiting the Earth from above, you’d see that it orbits once on its axis exactly as long as it takes to orbit once around our planet. It’s always turning, showing us exactly the same face.”
“If you use the Earth for your reference, then you can make the case that the far side of the Moon is traveling faster than the near side.”
OK. And also from the observers POV, as you setup the problem, looking down on the Moon orbiting CCW. SGW was correct.
“But, if you use a reference on the other side of the Moon, then the original near side is traveling faster than the original far side.”
Gobbledegook. Try again.
“The tangential velocity vectors are exactly equal, in direction and magnitude, because they are referenced to the tangential motion. Tangential motion is what you get with orbiting.”
Also makes no sense.
Nate realizes: “Also makes no sense.”
Yes Nate, that’s why you need to learn some physics.
No, its because you are not being clear what you are trying to say.
Nate, if you really wanted to understand, there would be evidence of such. Instead, you make false accusations, and throw out red herrings.
If you want to understand, ask one, and only one, question at a time, with no diversions, subterfuges, distractions, or attempted “gotchas”.
JustDumb,
If the left and right sides of the train are moving at different velocities, then the train is turning, which is why the tangential velocities were calculated in reference to the center of orbit. Another proof that your graphic on the left is NOT translational motion, besides the rotating vector. And your answer continues to be: “because, look! A squirrel!”
SGW expounds: “If the left and right sides of the train are moving at different velocities, then the train is turning, which is why the tangential velocities were calculated in reference to the center of orbit.
INCORRECT! The tangential velocities on both sides are equal in direction and magnitude, same as for the Moon’s center of mass.
SGW continues in confusion: “Another proof that your graphic on the left is NOT translational motion, besides the rotating vector.”
INCORRECT! The graphic illustrates orbiting only, which is translational motion. The arrow is NOT rotating on its own axis.
Again, study “orbiting”, “translational motion”, “tangents”, and “rotation on its own axis”. You’ve got a lot of work to do.
OK, JD, one question at a time.
From the observers POV (in her frame of reference), as you setup the problem, looking down on the Moon orbiting CCW, are the speeds of the near and far side of the moon different?
Nate asks: “…are the speeds of the near and far side of the moon different?”
The tangential vectors on both sides have the same magnitude and direction.
At the “east” point (directly to the right of Earth) the magnitude would be 2πR/T, the direction would be “north”.
Everything JustDumb says is stupid, but this shows his complete ignorance:
“Orbital motion is translational, so both sides are traveling the same speed.”
An orbit is simply a path, you idiot. Orbiting is simply the movement of the rigid body along the orbital path. The term “Orbiting” does not tell you anything regarding whether the orbit is purely translational or not. YOU are the clown who does not understand “orbiting”. An object orbiting can be in a pure translation mode of orbit, or its center of mass will translate along the orbital path, while the object rotates about its own axis (multiple document references provided that explain this)
Brown University: “Translational Motion: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position.”
How can this clown be SO stupid? In his top left graphic. The line though the body DOES NOT REMAIN PARALLEL! LMAO. Hello! McFly! We are dealing with a total retard.
I already know JustDumb’s response: “The left graphic shows pure translation, because…..Look! A squirrel!!”
SkepticGoneWild, please explain how any of the definitions of translation you collected are in any way applicable in the specific case of orbital motion. The only one which might have had some bearing, mentioning the velocity and acceleration of the particles, did not even specify the type of velocity in question.
Your last one talks about lines in the body. In what way are the lines in the moon orientated? Do you visualise straight lines, circles? What are you actually talking about?
First, SGW appears to finally be making some progress: “An object orbiting can be in a pure translation mode of orbit, or its center of mass will translate along the orbital path, while the object rotates about its own axis.”
Exactly SGW, there are two different motions being discussed–“orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis”.
The Moon, and the left top graphic, are “orbiting” only. Neither is “rotating on its axis”.
But then SGW gets tangled up again: “In his top left graphic. The line though the body DOES NOT REMAIN PARALLEL!”
No SGW, you just don’t have the educational background to visualize correctly. The arrow in the top left graphic represents a vector from the Moon’s center of mass. If you imagined two more vectors from the sides of the Moon, they would all remain parallel to each other.
(Were you able to get a refund on your “university” education yet? You could use some of your comments here to show how uneducated you are.)
“The tangential vectors on both sides have the same magnitude and direction.”
Wrong answer,JD.
You already agreed that they are DIFFERENT relative to Earth. Now you say they are the same, relative to an observer, parked above, looking down on the Earth?
No wonder you are so confused about the Moon rotating.
Each side of this argument has its own conception of what orbital motion (purely translational, zero axial rotation) actually is. The only problem is that the conception of orbital motion of one side (that of SkepticGoneWild, Nate, the others, and mainstream science), by their own admission, can barely ever be witnessed anywhere in the known Universe! It has to be artificially induced in satellites.
Yet, to them, this makes perfect sense.
Poor Nate, unable to support his false beliefs with facts, has to resort to false accusations:
“You already agreed that they are DIFFERENT relative to Earth. Now you say they are the same, relative to an observer, parked above, looking down on the Earth?”
Nate, I sincerely tried to help you. I answered your question. I’m willing to help you understand, but you refuse to learn. You want to stay in your comfort zone, avoiding reality.
You go into the penalty box, again!
Even after all this discussion, I am still struck with the mental image of the commenter Norman, from way upthread, back in the day, as he said, approaching Nikola Tesla with an orange with a face painted on it, and a melon, and calmly informing him that he made a simple misunderstanding about gravity. I genuinely wish it could have happened. I can only imagine the response.
JD,
“Nate, I sincerely tried to help you. I answered your question.”
You did, but in doing so, you contradict yourself. You would like that to be my fault, but i don’t see how it can be.
You are tying yourself in knots, saying things that don’t make sense, and digging yourself in deeper. Contradicting ordinary physics. You like to say its because other people need to learn physics, but clearly it’s not.
Take some responsibility for your own mistakes, man!
Tesla “The only problem is that the conception of orbital motion of one side (that of SkepticGoneWild, Nate, the others, and mainstream science), by their own admission, can barely ever be witnessed anywhere in the known Universe!”
Moons and planets have a whole range of rotation rates. Some are tidally locked, some not. So not sure what you mean?
The textbook description of rigid body motion, with independent translation and rotation, is meant to apply universally to any motion, from a Moon to a 3D printer head.
In the latter case it is programmed to translate from one x, y, z position to another one. It could move in a circle, with no need to rotate at all. These are independent motions.
Clearly this approach has a good track record for making sense of motion.
One more time, then.
Each side of this argument has its own conception of what orbital motion (purely translational motion, no axial rotation) is. To make it even simpler to understand this comment, your argument is that it is the motion in the diagram on the top right. Our side of the argument is that it is the motion in the diagram in the top left.
The problem you have is that your conception of orbital motion (purely translational motion, no axial rotation, in your conception the top right hand diagram) is not actually to be witnessed in hardly any celestial bodies in the known Universe. I mean, that motion, WITHOUT any additional axial rotation as you see it. That motion (top right diagram) on its own.
“I mean, that motion, WITHOUT any additional axial rotation as you see it. That motion (top right diagram) on its own.”
Having EXACTLY 0 axial rotation is probably rare, because as solar systems come together all things are moving.
But who says it doesn’t exist? Conceptually, it can. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn’t. So with billions of stars with planets and moons, it likely does.
Yes, Nate, if you read my comment carefully you will note that I too did not say that it could not possibly exist. I daresay you will not find too many examples of the exact motion shown in the bottom diagram either, come to that.
But you will find plenty of examples of the motion shown in the top left diagram.
Are you happy with your conception of orbital motion (the top right diagram)?
Just to be clear, that your conception of orbital motion is represented by the top right hand diagram is a direct logical consequence of your own arguments, the way you visualise orbital motion and axial rotation. So with that in mind, one final question.
You will have studied orbital motion, too, Im sure. Does what you learned about orbital motion in any way reconcile with your own conception of orbital motion (top right diagram)?
N Tesla says: “Even after all this discussion, I am still struck with the mental image of the commenter Norman, from way upthread, back in the day, as he said, approaching Nikola Tesla with an orange with a face painted on it, and a melon, and calmly informing him that he made a simple misunderstanding about gravity.”
Norman is always good for a laugh. Somewhere, I saw him state that a horse was “rotating on its own axis” as it lapped an oval race track. I bet even the horse didn’t know that….
“The Moon, and the left top graphic, are orbiting only. Neither is rotating on its axis.
Poor brain dead JD just does not get what “orbiting” means. All your objects in your graphic are orbiting. You are clearly out of your league here. “Orbiting only” has no meaning in kinematic terms. Per established principles for describing the kinematic motion of a rigid body, the motion of any rigid body (like an orbiting object) can be described as a translation of the body’s center of mass, plus a rotation about it’s center of mass. Try to learn and understand this simple concept.
Another stupid statement from JD:
“The arrow in the top left graphic represents a vector from the Moons center of mass.”
Wrong. You have to draw a LINE through two points in your rigid body. (Furthermore, your graphic does not show any moon. The rigid body is your arrow) That line has to remain parallel throughout the orbit to qualify as pure translational motion. In the case of your graphic the line will be drawn though the point of your arrow and the the beginning of your arrow, so the line’s direction is the same as your arrow. And in your top left graphic THE LINE DOES NOT REMAIN PARALLEL as it performs an orbit. So, by definition, that motion is not pure translation. Which means the arrow’s center of mass is translating around the circle, plus rotating about its center of mass. Try cracking open a textbook in kinematics.
SGW, just take that comment to where you paid for your “education”. They’ll be happy to give you a full refund, unless it was some quack, online, diploma mill?
“You will have studied orbital motion, too, Im sure. Does what you learned about orbital motion in any way reconcile with your own conception of orbital motion (top right diagram)”
Yes.
Dont know about the bottom picture, but Mercury is just as odd. It rotates 3 times in every 2 orbits of the sun. The sun shines on the same face of Mercury every two orbits. So its solar DAY is twice as long as its year.
Expectations of what things in the universe should do can fool you.
N Tesla, it appears the clowns are dropping out.
So as this fun is coming to an end, here is another source that proves our case:
The example is a train on a circular track. (Sound familiar?) Equation 21.6.8 indicates the train is NOT rotating on its own axis. The clowns probably won’t be able to follow the solution.
http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/modules/chapter21.pdf
The clowns being (not in any order): Nate, Norman, Bart, Kristian, SGW, and Ball4. I hope I didn’t leave out anyone.
☺
“we treat the person as a point-like particle located at the center of mass”
JD misses that the solution is for a “point-like particle” which has zero rotational inertia from which no rotational forces can develop so as they write enables considering their defined “special case” solution FBD of no rotation about the cm. Of course, JD can’t comprehend how this is different from an object with rotational inertia such as the moon which is not “a point-like particle located at the center of mass”.
Fun to watch these antics by JD and associated sock puppets especially when the sock puppets talk to each other thru comments. Very entertaining fails just like their on topic comments on climate. More please.
“The clowns probably won’t be able to follow the solution.”
Ball4 ✓
JD of course fails to provide any defense of an indefensible position, yet another fail ✓
More fails please JD and associates, very funny. JD on blog topic climate fails are even funnier along with the sock puppets.
“Equation 21.6.8 indicates the train is NOT rotating on its own axis.”
Your attempt at a gotcha displays your ignorance and fails miserably. Equation 21.6.8 has NOTHING to do whether the train is rotating on its own axis. That is your conclusion based on sheer ignorance of the problem.
Equation 21.6.8 is calculating the torques acting on this person’s center of mass. And they are equal to zero because the guy is not rotating in the z direction. If you had taken statics before, you would realize that when something is not rotating, the sum of the moments are zero. This has nothing to do whether or not the guy is rotating in the xy direction.
Look at Figure 21.6. The forces that create a torque about his center of mass are F1, F2, N1, and N2. And the sum of these must equal zero. The weight of the guy (mg) does not create a torque since it is acting on his center of mass. All these torques and forces are acting in the z direction.
Here is the same problem with a little better graphic:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/mans-weight-on-a-railroad-car.940381/
Notice in the “Attempt at solution” that it states, “this torque equals zero because he doesn’t rotate with respect to his own center of mass”, i.e. he is not spinning cartwheels about his center of mass in the z direction.
Is that your best?
“The clowns probably won’t be able to follow the solution.”
Ball4 ✓
SGW ✓
JD crows:
“The clowns probably won’t be able to follow the solution.”
Wrong!
As is common with solutions in statics, the author draws a free body diagram (Figure 21.6) which depicts the body with all of the applied forces and moments, as well as reactions, that act on that body.
f1 and f2 are centripetal forces acting on the guys shoes. N1 and N2 are the reactional forces acting on the guy’s shoes in the vertical direction. And mg is the weight of the guy.
They based their solution using 3 equations: 21.6.6, 21.6.7, and 21.6.8.
Equation 21.6.6 is an equation for the centripetal forces acting on the guys shoes.
Equation 21.6.7 sums the vertical forces, which must equal zero for the guy to be in static equilibrium.
Equation 21.6.8 indicates that the sum of all the moment-arms (torques) about the guy’s center of mass must equal zero, otherwise this guy would be rotating like a pinwheel about his center of mass in a vertical plane.
The solution is quite easy to follow and starts on page 21-11 and finishes on 21-12. (simple algebra with lots of substitutions and solving 2 equations with 2 unknowns) It was interesting that one could set N1 to zero and calculate the velocity at which point the guy would start to tip over.
JD could not even figure what equation 21.6.8 was all about, when the document clearly explained it:
“Notice that the forces f1, N1, and f2 all contribute torques about the center of mass in the positive θ-direction while N2 contributes a torque about the center of mass in the negative θ-direction. According to Eq. (21.6.8) the sum of these torques about the center of mass must be zero”
This had nothing to do with the train not rotating on its own axis. JD understood nothing about this example problem. He just in his ignorance assumed what he wanted to prove, hoping nobody else would understand, or take the time to understand the problem.
This was your ultimate embarrassment, Bozo.
(And to add insult to injury, JD put a smiley face at the end of his post! Bwahahaha!)
Another day, another JD beat-down.
You are way out of your league, Bozo.
SGW, you are unable to make a valid point. You do not understand the MIT example. You are not understanding that the reason there is no torque (eq. 21.6.8) is that there is NO “rotating on its own axis”.
You do not understand the basic physics. Consequently, as I predicted, you can not underwent the MIT example.
Continue to prove me right. I enjoy it.
☺
“underwent” should be “understand”.
JDHuffman, I fear you are wasting your breath with SkepticGoneWild. In his comment at August 22, 2018 at 2:03 PM, he demonstrates that he has completely missed the point, even after I so clearly explained it to Nate. Of course all three arrows in your diagram are orbiting! He states that all three objects are orbiting, as if that is not understood. Until he can understand what this argument is even about, there is certainly no point discussing lecture notes with him.
“..the reason there is no torque (eq. 21.6.8) is that there is NO “rotating on its own axis”.”
True for the point mass “special case” example – SGW completely understands that as his comment indicates, no torque is possible from a point mass in the example unlike the moon which is not a point mass. JD’s own source proves that JD is wrong about the moon rotating on its internal axis which JD & sock puppets have shown inability to comprehend:
“If you could look at the moon orbiting the Earth from above, you’d see that it orbits once on its axis exactly as long as it takes to orbit once around our planet. Its always turning, showing us exactly the same face.”
Funny when the sock puppets comment about each other. More inanity please.
Yes N Tesla, SGW is a very “special” case. It’s no surprise that he and Ball4 are still trying to defend their nonsense. The rest have fled.
Ball4 will likely be here all day, making a fool of himself because he can’t understand the simple, clear, and direct wording in the MIT example:
“…because the object is not rotating about the center of mass.”
JD,
That equation says sum of torques = 0. How does that say angular velocity is 0?
It refers back to 21.4.4, which relates sum of torques to angular acceleration.
You do know that acceleration and velocity are different things, don’t you?
Now I predict you will respond with an insult, and/or ‘learn some physics’, but certainly no actual rebuttal. Let’s see.
“..because the object is not rotating about the center of mass.”
Correct JD, for once anyway, the MIT object which in their words they “treat” as a point mass so cannot be rotating about its cm (see eqn. 21.6.8) where in the case of the moon not being a point mass & for which eqn. 21.6.8 is NOT identically zero.
Keep your laughable gaffes going JD and, please, concur more often with your sock puppets which is so entertaining.
“The clowns probably won”t be able to follow the solution.”
Ball4 ✓
SGW ✓
Nate ✓
JustDumb mumbles:
“You are not understanding that the reason there is no torque (eq. 21.6.8) is that there is NO rotating on its own axis.”
You are just a idiot troll. All you ever do is make declarative statements with no support or explanation whatsoever.
Your sample problem does not state anything about the train not rotating on its axis. So by all means explain eq 21.6.8. and how you come up with this conclusion.
I want more laughs today.
SkepticGoneWild, on August 22, 2018 at 11:21 PM you stated that the forces creating a torque about the persons center of mass, F1, F2, and N1, N2 were all acting on the z axis. This is obviously incorrect on simple inspection of Figure 21.6. It might be easier to take you seriously if you were able to admit your mistakes, and were a little less belligerent.
N “You do know that acceleration and velocity are different things, don’t you?”
Apparently Not.
N “Now I predict you will respond with an insult, and/or ‘learn some physics’, but certainly no actual rebuttal. Let’s see.”
JD ““The clowns probably won”t be able to follow the solution.”
As predicted, the professional clown tosses insults, runs away.
No point in posting physics, JD, if you dont understand it, cant defend it.
Even with a complete explanation of a train on an oval track, the clowns still are in full denial. Reality is their enemy.
SkepticGoneWild says: “Your sample problem does not state anything about the train not rotating on its axis.”
From the MIT example: “…because the object is not rotating about the center of mass.”
Clowns desperately fleeing reality makes for great comedy.
JD thinks in order for something to be rotating it needs to have angular acceleration. It needs to have a torque.
Since Earth has negligible angular acceleration it can’t be spinning, right JD?
“Clown Nate conveniently forgets that he has been sent to his room for making false accusations and twisting physics.”
Consequently, I will not be addressing his latest false accusations and twisted physics.
“Consequently, I will not be addressing his latest false accusations and twisted physics.”
You addressed the original post to me among others, JD.
Now that I have responded to it, and pointed out your obvious errors, suddenly mum’s the word!
What a lame, flimsy excuse!
JDHuffman says, August 22, 2018 at 7:27 PM:
And why is that? Because the frame of reference in this particular case is not an inertial one; the guy under study is specfically moving with the train, which is constantly changing its course (accelerating).
For the umpteenth time: The Moon can only be seen rotating on its own axis when observed from some fixed external vantage point, like the stars; that is, from within an inertial frame of reference. Standing on the Moon itself, looking down at the Earth, you do not get the impression that you’re rotating. Because you’re in a NON-inertial (rotating) frame of reference. But looking up at the stars, you will recognise that you are in fact rotating about your own, directionally fixed axis; slowly, but surely.
You are still confounded by the basic physics concept of ‘frame of reference’, that’s pretty obvious. This is the sole reason you’re so clearly confused about this whole issue. But again, you don’t need to understand this. Because, rest assured, physicists all over the world already do …
I knew Kristian was out there lurking, as is Norman and Bart. The list grows.
“The clowns probably won’t be able to follow the solution.”
Ball4 ✓
SGW ✓
Nate ✓
Kristian ✓
Just Dumb shrieks: “From the MIT example: “…because the object is not rotating about the center of mass.”
And what plane is the object’s rotation occurring in? And what object is not rotating? Did I see the word “train” in the above? Did I see the statement the train is not rotating about its axis?
JustDumb continues to use his standard reply when confused:
“Because oh, look! A squirrel!”
“Because the frame of reference in this particular case is not an inertial one; the guy under study is specfically moving with the train, which is constantly changing its course (accelerating).”
Correct Kristian. This is basically a statics problem (bodies at rest, forces in equilibrium) which went way over JD’s head.
JDHuffman says, August 23, 2018 at 1:04 PM:
Haha! Of course that’s your response. You’re not even reading, are you? Just waited for my handle to show up.
Frame of reference, g*. Frame of reference.
“But again, you don’t need to understand this. Because, rest assured, physicists all over the world already do …”
Indeed. And that works out well for the world. Best to leave it at that.
Wrong again, Kristian. I read it. I wouldn’t want to miss your pompous bloviation: “Because, rest assured, physicists all over the world already do.”
It’s fun to watch you clowns try to rewrite the MIT example. It’s just one more indication you have no understanding of the issue. And, it gets really fun when all you would have to do, to understand, is stick a sharp pencil through an apple. This is NOT advanced physics. But, it sure has you, and the others, humorously confused.
JustDumb sputters, “You are not understanding that the reason there is no torque (eq. 21.6.8) is that there is NO “rotating on its own axis!”.
Another really dumb statement from our resident Bozo. Equation 21.6.8 does not state there is no torque, you idiot.
And as I stated earlier, the problem does not state that the train is not rotating on its own axis. You are just making stuff up.
And you failed to answer any of my earlier questions because you simply do not understand the problem.
You got schooled and now telling us to, “Look, a squirrel!”
It is just like Norman, with his comment about a basic misunderstanding of gravity.
Oh Mr Tesla, you are simply confused about reference frames…
SGW still cannot understand the MIT example: “Equation 21.6.8 does not state there is no torque, you idiot.”
From the MIT text: “According to Eq. (21.6.8) the sum of these torques about the center of mass must be zero.”
It must be so frustrating for SGW. That’s why he resorts to his name-calling and juvenile tactics.
Even when clowns are frustrated, they are still funny.
JustDumb stated:
You are not understanding that the reason there is no torque (eq. 21.6.8) is that there is NO rotating on its own axis!”.
You said “there is no torque”. That is NOT true. There are torques, but their sum is zero. Big difference, Bozo.
And he continues to ignore my earlier questions because he is clueless about the problem.
As SGW gets more frustrated, he gets more desperate: “You said ‘there is no torque’. That is NOT true. There are torques, but their sum is zero.”
Frustration + desperation = Great comedy
JustDumb claims eq. 21.6.8 says there are not torques, when the opposite is true. I call him on it and he gets bent out of shape.
LMAO. What a Bozo.
SGW learns that when the sum of torques is zero, then there is no torque.
SGW learns something, and I howl in laughter.
It’s a win-win!
Figure 21.7 of the problem in question is a torque diagram.
I guess these must be imaginary since there are no torques per Bozo.
Clown SGW, in your desperation, you’re trying to bend reality. You are the one confused about torque, not me.
Any more false accusations, Shorty, and you’ll get sent to your room like Nate.
And, that’s always good for a laugh.
☺
To sum it up:
The problem has a torque diagram.
The problem solves for the torques created by f1, f2, N1 and N2.
But according to our resident Bozo, there are no torques.
How long have you been suffering these type of delusions?
“there are no torques”
Show me where I said that, Shorty.
N Tesla says, August 23, 2018 at 4:35 PM:
Yup. That’s just a trivial observational fact. It’s been clear from what you’ve been saying throughout this ‘discussion’. You employ an inertial frame of reference when it comes to the Moon’s revolution around the Earth-Moon barycentre, but a NON-inertial frame of reference when it comes to the Moon’s rotation around its own barycentre. It’s as simple as that.
JDHuffman says, August 23, 2018 at 2:41 PM:
You obviously didn’t.
Haha! A ‘rewrite’. What precisely is ‘rewritten’? The problem employs a non-inertial frame of reference by default. Are you unable or unwilling to understand this …?
Kristian, I personally would not take you seriously either.
I do not mind if you wish to credit me with zero intelligence or understanding of basic physical matters.
Let us suppose that the moon were travelling in a straight line. With zero rotation of the moon on its axis, all the particles of the moon would travel in neat, parallel lines. Any axial rotation of the moon would be manifest in a criss-crossing of those lines along the path. The lines are parallel. All here would be happy to declare that this was purely translational motion. Now let us suppose the motion of the moon was bent into a curve by gravity. Now all the particles of the moon are travelling in parallel curves. Any axial rotation would be manifest in a criss-crossing of those lines along the path. There is none. All here should be (but some will most likely will not be) happy to declare that this is purely translational motion. To finish, let us suppose the curve continues, until an orbit is complete. You then have a series of concentric ellipses for the motion of the moons particles. Any axial rotation would be manifest in a criss-crossing of those lines along the path. There is none. Yet you will no longer find most anyone here happy to declare that this is purely translational motion. Strange, but true. And none of this understanding is affected by reference frames in the least.
N Tesla says:
“Yet you will no longer find most anyone here happy to declare that this is purely translational motion. Strange, but true.”
You have not been paying attention.
Your first example is rectilinear translation.
Your second example was curvilinear translation.
Your third example where the curvilinear translation becomes a full orbit? That is still curvilinear translation. It’s what we’ve been saying all along. JD’s graphic on the right represents this.
The proof is that a line through two points on this moon remains parallel throughout its movement. That is the requirement for pure translational motion:
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration”
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm%5D
No, SkepticGoneWild, my third example is represented by the motion in JDHuffmans diagram on the top left.
Kristian says: “What precisely is ‘rewritten’? The problem employs a non-inertial frame of reference by default.”
Kristian, stop trying to play junior physicist. A clown tossing around terms like “inertial frame of reference” and “barycenter” is funny. But in this simple issue, it is just part of your basket of red herrings.
You clowns lost the argument with the toy train on an oval track. Clown Norman even went as far as to claim a horse running a race track was “rotating on its axis”! Then, you clowns lost again when Bart’s calculations revealed the Moon’s orbital and axial angular speeds were the same!
And now, there is the example from MIT, which clearly states that a train on an oval track is NOT rotating on its axis.
Throw in the efforts of Ball4 and SGW to misrepresent what others say, and it makes for outstanding comedy.
Clowns are not only funny, they are predictable funny.
Below from 2-time loser JD’s source, JD is wrong yet again, Norman and Bart are right, JD wrong, fun to watch JD and associated sock puppet antics more please, only for the laughs:
“If you could look at the moon orbiting the Earth from above, you’d see that it orbits once on its axis exactly as long as it takes to orbit once around our planet. It’s always turning, showing us exactly the same face.”
Thus:
“If you could look at a toy train moving around a circular track from above, you’d see that it orbits once on its axis exactly as long as it takes to orbit once around the track. It’s always turning, showing JD at the center of the circle exactly the same face.”
“If you could look at horse orbiting Churchill Downs racetrack from above, you’d see that it orbits once on its axis exactly as long as it takes to orbit once around the track. It’s always turning in the corners, showing a race fan on the infield exactly the same side.”
It is JD that is predictably wrong & so funny.
“No, SkepticGoneWild, my third example is represented by the motion in JDHuffmans diagram on the top left.”
No. In the image on the right, the lines remain parallel in every position shown. The lines in the image on the top left do not remain parallel, but rotate.
Read the translation definition again.
My third example is represented by the top left graphic. Read through my comment again. Consult the graphic. Trace out lines on a piece of paper if you must.
SGW and Ball4 rush in to perform, once again.
Neither understands “rotating on its own axis”. Neither understands orbital motion.
But, they both believe they do!
Maximum hilarity.
“More please”
Thx JD. Predictably wrong and funny JD does not understand the physics of “rotating on its own axis” as does JD’s own source. Neither does JD understand a demonstration of the physics of orbital motion.
But, JD and sock puppets believe they do! Quite a show, 3 ring circus actually. More please.
N Tesla,
You are not being clear in your examples. To analyze for pure translational motion you have two points on your object and draw a line through them. If the lines remain parallel throughout the movement, then they are purely translating, as in JD’s graphic on the right.
My examples are perfectly clear, and the third is represented by the motion in the top left diagram. So is the second, in fact, if you just look at part of the orbit.
Like I say, draw it out if you must. Draw the arrows as in the top left diagram onto a piece of paper. Connect the respective parts of each arrow to the next with curved lines. You will find that these lines remain parallel to each other, and do not criss-cross. Complete the curved lines throughout the whole orbit. You will have drawn a series of concentric circles. No criss-crossing.
Next, draw out the arrows on a piece of paper, as they are in the diagram on the right. Connect the respective parts of each arrow with curved lines. On completion of the orbit, you will have drawn lines that criss-cross. Technically you should be able to see this just from looking at the diagram, but draw it out to prove it to yourself, if you like.
N Tesla,
You are not getting it. Read the definition again.
In JD’s graphic on the left, the line does not remain parallel. So that is not pure translation.
You are refusing to draw a line on your examples. The line has to remain in the same orientation (say north) throughout its motion for the motion to be considered pure translation.
SkepticGoneWild, we can do this all day if you wish. Read through my comment again. Study the diagram. Draw out the top left diagram. Connect the respective parts of each arrow with curved lines. Repeat for the top right diagram. The top left will show concentric circles. The paths of the particles on the top right diagram will criss-cross. Until you actually do this you will never be convinced, that my second and third examples are represented by the motion of the arrow, on the top left.
N Tesla,
Go to page 3 at the following link. It shows rectilinear and curvilinear translation. Notice the line through the object remains parallel throughout its motion:
http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~grandajj/e110/Lecture%20Notes%20for%20Sections%2016-1%20-%2016-3.pdf
My second and third examples are represented by the motion of the top left arrow. You can consider this my response to any further comments you might make, in perpetuity. I am not going to repeat myself further. Draw it out, see for yourself.
“My second and third examples are represented by the motion of the top left arrow. You can consider this my response to any further comments you might make, in perpetuity.”
Then your second and third examples do not meet the definition of pure translation.
Read the definition again, and look at the link I provided, in perpetuity. Maybe it might sink in. I doubt it.
You happily accepted the examples were of translation initially, you just assumed they were represented by the motion in the top right diagram. When I proved to you that they are represented by the motion in the top left diagram, they are suddenly no longer examples of translation. Exactly as I predicted in my original comment.
N Tesla babbles, “When I proved to you that they are represented by the motion in the top left diagram, they are suddenly no longer examples of translation!”
You did not prove anything. You just clarified. Your second and third examples simply do not meet the definition of pure translation. Deal with it.
I guess it has not sunk in yet. Study the definition harder.
As I tried to indicate to you much earlier on, the definitions of translation you continually refer to are not fit for this problem. You reference yourself the direction north, in one of your unnecessary repeated explanations earlier. There is no north, east, west, south, in space. This is all a conception of the human mind that some are completely unable to shake when it comes to looking at such problems. We are talking about orbital motion. It is a trajectory in space curved due to gravity. Your conception of orbital motion (top right diagram) is bizarre and totally unnatural.
Gone for hours, glad to see I haven’t missed anything.
SGW is still confused about orbiting. And Ball4 is still spinning on his axis.
Raucous reads.
N Tesla shrieks, “Your conception of orbital motion (top right diagram) is bizarre and totally unnatural.
These are standard principles in the field dynamics and kinematics
Another reference:
http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/mehmet.cevik/Dynamics/Slides/CHAP15_Kinematics_of%20rigid_bodies.pdf
Look at page 15-4. It says the same thing:
“Consider rigid body in translation: direction of any straight line inside the body is constant, all particles forming the body move in parallel lines.”
It is YOU with the bizarre ideas.
JD’s graphic on the right has arrows always pointing up in the same direction all throughout the orbit. That is PURE translation per the definition in every dynamic and kinematic textbook. Nothing bizarre about it!
Shall I use some crayons and draw you some stick figures?
It shouldnt come as a surprise to someone who has read and understood the Tesla papers, that he considered orbital motion (our conception, top left diagram) a special case of translational motion. He went to some lengths to explain why (particularly in the third paper). I have done my best to explain it, but I am no Nikola Tesla. Im sure JDHuffman can help you out with your misunderstandings on orbital motion.
“And now, there is the example from MIT”
JD thinks if he asserts a lie over and over again it becomes true!
JD, the example shows torques sum to 0 on our man. He can still be rotating, however.
No need for torque unless he is speeding up or slowing down his rotation rate. He is not.
Meanwhile JD and Tesla, which orbiting moon has greater kinetic energy? The one orbiting like the left image or the right?
Does the left one, that you call ‘non rotating’ have greater kinetic energy than the ‘rotating’ one on the right?
“Im sure JDHuffman can help you out with your misunderstandings on orbital motion.”
You can’t even figure it out!! How can you even judge whether our resident Bozo can figure it out? JD can’t because he, like you, is clueless in regards to dynamics and kinematics, which is why you have everything backwards.
You, like JD, do not even know what translational motion is.
You don’t even know what orbital motion is!! All three of JD’s graphics are orbital motion. OMG get some education!
Now anonymous Nate, hiding in the shadows, accuses me of lying because I referenced the MIT example.
Poor Nate is years from establishing credibility as anything other than a clown.
Maybe that’s the way it’s supposed to be….
Shorty Gone Wild: “You can’t even figure it out!! How can you even judge whether our resident Bozo can figure it out? JD can’t because he, like you, is clueless in regards to dynamics and kinematics, which is why you have everything backwards.”
Shorty, the more you deny reality, the shorter you get.
(I think it’s called the “reverse Pinocchio effect”.)
JD quotes from the MIT problem:
““…because the object is not rotating about the center of mass.”
What object are they referring too, and where is the axis of rotation located?
I keep asking questions but JD never has answers.
JD,
In your infamous graphic, which way do the arrows point on the graphic to the right? Which way do they point throughout the whole orbit?
Yes SkepticGoneWild, all three diagrams do involve orbital motion. I believe this point was covered some time ago. Do try to be less belligerent.
N Tesla moans, “Yes SkepticGoneWild, all three diagrams do involve orbital motion.”
Yet earlier he states:
“Each side of this argument has its own conception of what orbital motion (purely translational motion, no axial rotation) is. “
So N Tesla defines orbital motion as “purely translational motion, no axial rotation”. Now he says all three are orbital motion. Get your story straight!!!
Shorty continues to admit his inability to understand the MIT example: “What object are they referring too, and where is the axis of rotation located?”
Shorty, the axis of rotation is the center of mass. Study the example.
Shorty asks: “JD, In your infamous graphic, which way do the arrows point on the graphic to the right? Which way do they point throughout the whole orbit?”
Shorty, if you cannot figure out which way the arrows point, I cannot help you.
No, JD, you are lying ABOUT what the MIT example is showing. With torques = 0, that proves nothing about whether it is rotating.
“And now, there is the example from MIT, which clearly states that a train on an oval track is NOT rotating on its axis.”
Nope. You are misreading it. Where does it say that? And what axis is it talking about?
If the clowns knew their false accusations melted like ice on a hot plate, they would not try them every time.
But then they wouldn’t be clowns….
My story is complete straight, SkepticGoneWild. If you do not understand it is because you have not been paying attention. That is not my fault.
Which one has greater kinetic energy?
Hint: its the one that has the moon rotating as well as orbiting. Energy exists in both motions.
Which clown is the funniest?
Hint: It is the one with the most pseudoscience.
Humor exists in all their comments.
So I explain to our resident Bozo that the MIT problem does not say anything about the the train not rotating on its axis. Then Einstein tells me the MIT example states:
““…because the object is not rotating about the center of mass.”
Well, Oppenheimer, the “object” is not the “train”. JustDumb lives up to his name.
Shorty, just keep giving us more examples of your stupidity.
Not that we need anymore evidence….
(Poor clown does not understand the “object” is NOT “rotating on its axis” debunks his claim about the Moon. Don’t tell him.)
So Bozo can’t figure out which direction the arrows point in his graphic on the right side.
Here’s a hint: whatever direction you want to call it, north or up, it points the same direction throughout the whole orbit. Every arrow is parallel to all the other arrows.
How would we describe that type of motion? Hint: pure translational motion. Ooops. That was not a hint.
JustDumb squeals, “Poor clown does not understand the object is NOT rotating on its axis debunks his claim about the Moon.”
JD is his usual mode of never explaining anything. He just makes declarations we are supposed to accept. He cannot explain why this quote debunks anything. That’s because he does not know. He is clueless.
Shorty, the arrows need to be facing in the direction of motion.
But, you are closing fast to top ranking in clown pseudoscience.
Keep working, the crown awaits you.
Shorty the clown: “JD is his usual mode of never explaining anything. He just makes declarations we are supposed to accept. He cannot explain why this quote debunks anything.”
Shorty, with your extensive “university” background, that you claimed, are you now admitting you cannot understand the MIT example problem?
Between a rock and a hard place, huh?
If you can’t understand, your “university” background is fictitious. If you understand, then all your previous comments make you a super-clown.
Which will it be–Complete phony, or super-clown?
So let me summarize. Our resident Bozo feverishly tried (and failed) to find a toy train problem that indicates the train does not rotate about its own axis.
So he runs across this sample rail car problem and rubs his grimy hands with glee because in the sample problem it states:
“…because the object is not rotating about the center of mass.”
Bozo’s fist problem is that he does not understand kinematics. Secondly, he should have realized the “object” being referred to is not the train, but a guy standing on the train.
But the guy is standing on the train, you may say!
Don’t matter. The axis of rotation the problem refers to does not even pass through the center of mass of the train. It does not even pass through the train at all. The axis of rotation passes through the the guy’s center of mass, which is at a distance L above the surface of the train, and in a direction parallel to the surface of the train.
Basically the problem is a simple statics problem since all the forces acting on the guy are in equilibrium, and the guy is not moving in reference to the train. All the rotation of the train provides to the problem are centripetal forces acting on the guy’s shoes.
There was nothing in the problem regarding whether or not the train is rotating on its axis. That was a figment of Bozo’s vivid imagination. When pressed on several issues, he resorted to declarative statements, and could not analyze the problem or prove his point.
That’s why everyone left. Nothing to see here, move along.
Shorty answers the question “Which will it be–Complete phony, or super-clown?’
Shorty Goes With: “BOTH!”
Shorty is both a complete phony and a super-clown.
No surprise.
The MIT example problem clearly states, several times, the train is in motion. Poor Shorty cannot understand.
The MIT example problem clearly indicates the object is NOT rotating on its axis. Poor Shorty cannot understand. He, and other clowns, have been “preaching” that the object is rotating on its axis, because it would appear as such from “the stars”. The clowns STILL can NOT understand “rotating on its own axis”.
Shorty can’t even understand that if the sum of torques is zero, then there is no torque.
But, Shorty can type long rambling, uninformed, irresponsible, irrational comments….
This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
“The MIT example problem clearly states, several times, the train is in motion.”
I never said it wasn’t. I said the train’s motion contributed the centripetal forces on the guys feet.
“The MIT example problem clearly indicates the object is NOT rotating on its axis.”
The object “not rotating” does not refer to the train. It’s referring to the guy, and the axis of rotation, as I explained does not even intersect the train at all. The guys is not rotating wrt the train, i.e, he is not spinning like a pinwheel. It’s a statics problem. But of course you would not understand since you have not taken statics and I have.
“there is no torque.”
The problem even states:
“The torque on the inner foot is given by:”
Yawn.
Shorty, the “object”, on the orbiting train, would appear EXACTLY the same as my left top graphic. The object is NOT rotating on its axis, just as indicated in the MIT example. The arrow in the left top graphic is NOT rotating on its axis, just as I, and others, have tried to teach you clowns. The Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis.
You are a super-clown, and a complete phony, consequently unteachable.
But, you’re funny….
Bozo: “the “object”, on the orbiting train, would appear EXACTLY the same as my left top graphic.”
Yes.
Bozo: “The object is NOT rotating on its axis….”
No. Per the multiple definitions I have give regarding rigid body motion, your arrows do not remain parallel to each other throughout the orbit. That means it’s not pure translation, which means the object is rotating on its axis while its center of mass translates along the orbital path (all per the definitions of general rigid body motion)
Bozo: “…..just as indicated in the MIT example”
No. You are TOTALLY confused about the “rotation” being referred to. The MIT example is not referring to a rotation whose axis vertically intersects the train’s center of mass, or vertically intersects the guy’s center of mass. The “rotation” is in a plane perpendicular to the train’s floor at a height of L. And the axis of rotation is parallel the the train’s floor right through his center of mass.
This is a statics problem, and the train only contributes centripetal forces on the guys feet. You are confused. You don’t know crap about kinematics or statics.
Bozo: “The arrow in the left top graphic is NOT rotating on its axis”
Wrong. Go back and study all the references from various universities I gave. If the arrow does not remain parallel throughout the orbit then it is rotating on its own axis, per ALL the kinematic references I gave.
Bozo: “The Moon is NOT rotating on its own axis.”
More declarations without support. On the same par as, “Oh look! A squirrel!”
I’m done with you. It’s like talking to a turnip.
Shorty, you belong to that grouping of clowns that believes the longer their comment, the likelier they are to getting something right.
But, you always get it wrong. A long typing session does not imply knowledge of physics.
The MIT example problem clearly identifies the object is NOT rotating on its own axis. That simple fact completely destroys all your imagined pseudoscience. You just don’t have the education or cognitive skills to understand.
The test relating to your diagram from earlier showed that all the respondents here are lacking in the spatial ability, in particular spatial visualization, necessary to understand the moon rotation issue. Even those claiming to be able to visualize the motions from simple inspection of the diagram showed, in subsequent comments, that this claim was untrue.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_ability
“The axis of rotation the problem refers to does not even pass through the center of mass of the train. It does not even pass through the train at all. The axis of rotation passes through the the guy’s center of mass, which is at a distance L above the surface of the train, and in a direction parallel to the surface of the train.”
Exactly, SGW. This is the point I was making earlier when I asked JD for the quote about the guy not rotating, and which axis that referred to.
Of course the dude is not rotating around an axis coming out out his belly button. That point is made, as you correctly point out, in order to set up the static equilibrium problem.
JD, does not understand this, because it is basic freshman physics.
Nor does he understand 0 torque is required to keep the Earth, or a dude, spinning.
Nor does he understand the parallel axis thm and how that shows that the moon has additional energy due to its rotation.
The main thing he doesnt understand is that he’s lost the argument, and that no one takes his posts seriously anymore.
More false accusations and running from reality, from Nate.
Nothing new.
“more false accusations”.
You told me this a dozen times in this thread, JD. You never say why theyre false. You never have any answers.
Rings hollow.
Clown Nate, I’m glad you used the word “hollow”. Maybe you understand the meaning.
Your entire existence appears to be hollow. Everything is fake. No background in physics. No acceptance of reality. Can’t understand “rotating on its own axis”. Can’t learn.
No wonder you’re a clown.
Again no content, no answers, no rebuttal.
Instead we get textbook projection, JD.
Projection
“the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.”
No wonder you’re a clown.
The MIT example problem clearly identifies the object is NOT rotating on its own axis. That simple fact completely destroys all of the clowns’ imagined pseudoscience. They just don’t have the education or cognitive skills to understand.
Bart, Kristian, Ball4, and Norman have dropped out. At least they have enough of a brain to not argue with MIT.
But, super clowns Nate and SGW continue to try to redefine the axis of rotation.
Their lack of education is obvious, as they can’t understand the “z” in equation 21.4.4.
Clowns, and super clowns, provide some of the best comedy available.
http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/modules/chapter21.pdf
The equation is for torque and alpha (angular acceleration), not angular velocity, JD.
“The MIT example problem clearly identifies the object is NOT rotating on its own axis.”
JD is clearly wrong yet again, the object is NOT rotating on its axis because the object has NO axis upon which to rotate “we treat the person as a point-like particle” so they assign special case alpha cm = 0.0.
To have an axis, any axis, an object needs to have at least two points to draw an axis through and this MIT object is only one point. Predictably wrong and funny JD does not comprehend even the most basic physics and geometry.
More please. Keep the audience laughing at you JD & not with you.
Super clown Nate just keeps spinning on his axis!
Without the background to follow and understand the MIT solution, he is reduced to grasping at straws.
From the text:
“…and Eq. (21.4.4) for rotational motion about the center of mass…because the object is not rotating about the center of mass.”
Super clown Nate will likely still not understand. Once a clown, always a clown….
Ball4 has rejoined the competition. But, he has lost his axis. He and Nate will have to both spin on the same axis.
That should be really funny.
“Their lack of education is obvious, as they can’t understand the “z” in equation 21.4.4.”
The eqn says nothing about angular velocity, only angular acceleration.
Citing this equation does not make your case that the guy is not rotating about the z axis.
Thus it is a non-sequitur. That does not follow, JD!
JD lashes out in another losing cause by commenting without any supporting material, fun to watch. More lashing please, keep the audience entertained.
JD, you keep saying look, LOOK at this MIT example.
You take a sentence out of context. But Its MIT! Look guys!
You need to first argue it out with the guy who said this:
“(We) willingly swallow anything put out by institutionalized science, without question. They just believe what they are taught. They cant think for themselves”
for rotational motion about the center of mass noting that we are
considering the special case that
alpha(cm) = 0 because the object is not rotating about the
center of mass.
If you look at the context of this statement, and you understand how to set up statics problems, you will understand that he only is talking about rotation about the axis thru his cm and into the page.
He is not concerned with rotation about z axis because it is not involved in solving the problem.
Getting that requires physics knowledge, JD.
Nate, no, there is an infinity of axes “thru his cm and into the page”. The reason there is no rotation “alpha cm = 0” is that there is no axis to rotate about for a point “we treat the person as a point-like particle”. MIT “treats” it as no rotation specifically, set up as a special case from the get go and JD entirely missed this from the beginning as JD’s physics comprehension is so poor as to be that entertaining.
Not only are Nate and Ball4 spinning on the same axis, they are synchronizing their comments!
Nate says: 5:13 PM
Ball4 says: 5:13 PM
Talk about togetherness….
And all I have to do is provide the MIT text that annihilates their continuing pseudoscience: “For fixed axis rotation, choose the z-axis as the axis of rotation that passes through the center of mass of the rigid body.
The clowns are really performing well today.
“For fixed axis rotation, choose the z-axis as the axis of rotation that passes through the center of mass of the rigid body.”
More mindless quoting from an authorities, with out knowing what the hell it means, JD.
Why do they say that, JD? What is point? You have no idea.
Why is the z-axis rotation relevant to the naked dude, when only belly button axis rotation is used to solve the problem.
Ball4. No, not infinite number of axes into the page thru belly button of the dude, only one.
Thanks for even more laughs JD. Quite clearly JD misses: “For fixed axis rotation, choose the z-axis as the axis of rotation that passes through the center of mass of the rigid body…Rotational equation of motion about cm Torque ext cm, z Eqn. 21.4.2 which becomes = Icm * alpha cm eqn. 21.4.4.”
Example 21.2: “special case alpha cm = 0” therefore the rotational eqn. of motion vanishes because a point has no defined axis of rotation thus can’t rotate which is why the object is “treated” as it is – a point mass. Thus there is no axis of rotation – it was arbitrarily made to go poof in this special case – contrary to all JD’s hand waving and bluster.
Again, JD entirely missed this from the beginning as JD’s physics comprehension is so poor as to be that entertaining. Fun to watch.
“Ball4. No, not infinite number of axes into the page thru belly button of the dude, only one.”
Looking north, there is an axis at 1 degree thru the bellybutton, an axis at 2 degrees…an axis at 90 degrees to 180, then looking west same thing, then south, so forth all compass points, all degrees to an infinite hemisphere of axes thru the dude’s point bb and out the other side.
A point has no defined axis of rotation even though JD writes a point has an axis of rotation. Hint: JD’s physics are poor which is why the audience laughs at JD and thinks this is so entertaining. And seems to want even more because JD lashing out is so much fun to watch while struggling with the basic physics.
As I predicted way up thread, the clowns can not understand the MIT example. They just don’t have the education to discuss the basic physics.
They’re so confused they’re even arguing with each other.
Great humor.
MIT, SHMEMIT.
JD bows down to “institutionalized science” when it seems to agree with him, otherwise people shouldn’t trust it.
The MIT source clearly defines translation and rotation of rigid bodies in ways that disagree with JDs ideas of translation and rotation.
http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/modules/chapter20.pdf
Here we see a wrench is flying in a parabolic path. If it was always horizontal during the flight, JD would say it is rotating. MIT says it is not. Hmmm.
Ball4: he says treat the guy like a point-like particle. But then goes on to find TORQUES on him and sum them and solve the problem. Clearly, he is not a point-like particle for this part of the solution. He meant point-like at c.m. only for summing FORCES.
Context is important, as JD shows.
“Into the page” is physics problem-solving lingo that means perpendicular to page. There is only one axis that does that, Ball4.
Nate, summing torques about a given point is well defined as the MIT sketches show. There is no defined axis perpendicular to the page anywhere in the example or chapter. Nor can there be for a point which has “special case” or “treats” alpha defined as = 0.0.
JD mistakes arguing with each other for learning from each other because JD is not here to learn just to argue which makes JD so entertaining while struggling with the basic physics. Fun to watch JD’s antics. More please.
Nate claims: “Here we see a wrench is flying in a parabolic path.”
1) Nate has found another MIT link that he also doesn’t understand. He sees a “wrench flying”! I just quickly scanned his link, but didn’t see a wrench. Maybe I was just laughing too hard….
2) Nate has now resorted, again, to false accusations. That’s always an indication he knows he is losing.
And, or course, Ball4 continues to spin on his own axis.
The humor continues.
Ok, its a rod not a wrench, my bad.
Either way, you and MIT disagree.
Here we see a rod is flying in a parabolic path. If it was always horizontal during the flight, JD would say it is rotating. MIT says it is not.
“False accusation”
What part is false, JD?
Ball4, On page 21-11 they say We begin our calculation of the torques about the center of mass
The diagrams that follow are showing torques around an axis INTO THE PAGE quite clearly.
“the diagrams that follow are showing torques around an axis INTO THE PAGE quite clearly.”
Yes, for those torques, see Fig. 21.7 showing:
“the vector r,cm from the point we are computing the torque about to the point of application of the forces”
For those torques r is always nonzero. Now consider what is the radius r of the point at the cm? You know, the object which JD wrongly claims has AN axis: “on its own axis.” This r is zero, vanishes by their definition.
If they wanted to show the general case of the point like object having rotational inertia, then they would have shown torques about the cm into and out of the page at the feet indicating the object is turning but they chose in this “special case” to “treat” alpha = 0.0. JD’s physics comprehension is so poor that JD missed this “special case” right from the beginning which is why JD is so entertaining to watch struggling with these basic physics.
Nate asks: “What part is false, JD?”
Clown Nate, as a general rule, unless you are correctly quoting a reliable source, you are wrong. You have little else than your false accusations. You run from reality.
Both of your statements are FALSE:
“Either way, you and MIT disagree.”
“Here we see a rod is flying in a parabolic path. If it was always horizontal during the flight, JD would say it is rotating. MIT says it is not.”
You have NO credibility, anonymous Nate.
MikeR says:
January 31, 2018 at 2:26 PM
G* you have summed up your position brilliantly, but it is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.
G* regards himself as a lone voice in the wilderness with his own unique insight. He reveals that because they dont share his beliefs, the entire world wide astronomical community, as well as the engineers and physicists of NASA, are just pseudo-scientists.
Unfortunately g* your message is not getting through, so it may require you to stand on some street corner and wear a sandwich board with a diagram and regale passers-by with your unique insights. It might take some time for the message to get through to any passing astronomers so you may need some help.
Maybe you could cover the East coast and Halp the West coast or vice versa.
The only unfortunate result of this venture could be being forced to share accommodation with a range of individuals who believe they have been similarly blessed with divine revelations.
You may eventually get out, but it may take some time, particularly if you incessantly repeat the same word (hilarious is an unfortunate choice). This kind of behaviour is convincing evidence of a continuing psychiatric disorder.
Obviously Svante and MikeR were frustrated by their hero, G*. All they could respond with were opinions and false accusations. When the issue involves physics, and they don’t understand physics, it can be frustrating and disheartening.
Their kind of behaviour is convincing evidence of a continuing psychiatric disorder.
“Here we see a rod is flying in a parabolic path. If it was always horizontal during the flight, JD would say it is rotating. MIT says it is not.”
JD, you are evasive. Which is false and why?
If the rod is horizontal during the parabolic flight, is it rotating or not, according to you?
According to MIT, (Look at the Intro and the Appendix!), it is not rotating, only translating.
Nate continues to make false accusations:
* “Either way, you and MIT disagree.”
* “Here we see a rod is flying in a parabolic path. If it was always horizontal during the flight, JD would say it is rotating. MIT says it is not.”
* “JD, you are evasive.”
That’s all he has.
“If the rod is horizontal during the parabolic flight, is it rotating or not, according to you?”
You apparently missed this question, JD. Unless you are being purposely evasive.
If you don’t want to answer, I get it, you don’t want to have to disagree with MIT.
Well Nate, you continue to demonstrate a flagrant disregard for reality. As a super-clown, you are definitely funny, but your constant false allegations and misrepresentations make useful discussion with you impossible.
Consequently it is necessary to stop responding to you, indefinitely
I will still enjoy your humor, however.
Really? Promise? You’ll never responds to my posts again?
If only that could be true.
But, you should make the effort. You have so much trouble answering my questions, and since I keep poking holes in your beliefs, discussion with me must be ultimately very unsatisfying.
In complete denial of reality, super-clown Nate flounders aimlessly.
Lacking originality, but somewhat amusing nevertheless.
Hopefully Bart, and others (if they are still reading) should have at least worked out by now why their arguments about tidal locking do not resolve the debate, or at least not in the way they would have expected. The motion of a tidally-locked moon is shown by the top-left arrow in JDHuffmans diagram. According to their side of the argument, this shows one counter-clockwise axial rotation per counter-clockwise orbit. According to our side of the argument, this diagram shows zero axial rotations per counter-clockwise orbit. It does not matter one bit how the mechanism of tidal locking is supposed to work, because the end result, it is explained, is the motion in that top-left diagram. So, with our understanding, that means tidal-locking is always acting to reduce axial rotation to nil. With their understanding, tidal-locking is always acting to keep axial rotation to a rate of one rotation per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
If they pictured a moon with the motion as in the top-right diagram, which they see as showing zero axial rotations per counter-clockwise orbit, then they would see the tidal locking mechanism as acting to speed up the rate of axial rotation until that moon gets to the point where it displays the motion in the top-left diagram, which they see as one axial rotation per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit. So, they need an increase in axial rotation rate from zero per orbit, to once per orbit. However, we see the motion in the top-right diagram as being one clockwise axial rotation per counter-clockwise orbit. To get to the motion displayed in the top-left diagram, then, we simply see the tidal locking mechanism as acting to reduce the rate of axial rotation, from once per orbit (clockwise), to zero.
Onto the bottom diagram. They picture this motion as if the moon were completing two counter-clockwise axial rotations per counter-clockwise orbit. To get from there to the motion displayed in the top-left diagram, as they see it, involves the tidal locking mechanism acting to reduce axial rotation from twice per orbit, to once. However, we see the motion in the bottom diagram as being one counter-clockwise axial rotation per counter-clockwise orbit. To get to the motion displayed in the top-left diagram, then, we simply see the tidal locking mechanism acting to reduce the rate of axial rotation from once per orbit (counter-clockwise), to zero.
Tidal locking then, actually makes more sense with the way we see orbital motion and axial rotation. With our conception, it is always acting to reduce axial rotation to nil. With the way you see things, in some circumstances it has to act to increase the rate of axial rotation, and other times reduce it, in order to always keep the rate to once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit.
“Tidal locking then, actually makes more sense with the way we see orbital motion and axial rotation.”
Tidal locking then, actually makes NO sense with no axial rotation.
The moon turns as it revolves around the earth as can be plainly seen when it rises over to when it sets keeping same face visible here on earth, that’s why they call it synchronous rotation.
Race horses and toy trains on closed tracks turn in the corners by simple inspection & that’s why they call them turns. Turn 1, turn 2 so forth.
It is a similar story with other issues raised, such as those in Barts parting words in his comment of August 20, 2018 at 3:42 PM. These are just features of the particular orbital path that the moon takes. They can be explained by looking at the moon rotation issue either way. So, as to a resolution, they provide none. They are red herrings.
There are a lot of red herrings raised, a lot of misrepresentations, and a general lack of spatial visualization ability on display, but that is about it. Nothing to take seriously.
All good points, N Tesla, and some great logic. Facts and logic win, every time.
The spinners must change definitions, alter physics, and deny reality.
DA says you can’t link to the UAH data pages here.
Well, you can:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/
is the v6 list of products
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
is the v6 TLT landing page, and
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0.txt
is the TLT anomaly page for global and latitude zones.
What DA doesn’t realize is that the one page that you can’t link has the offending D and C letter sequence in the string. Which is why we convert it via tinyurl.
https://tinyurl.com/y997zl7w
The name of the game is overall sea surface temperatures which are trending down.
Not much more to say but to watch and enjoy.
For those wishing for EL NINO to prop up AGW
Compared to last month, the updated (June-July) MEI dropped rapidly to +0.07, ending up right in the middle of ENSO-neutral ranking. This means that not a single season has reached El Nio conditions in 2018. Looking at the nearest 12 rankings (+6/-6) in this season, and excluding all cases that departed by more than 0.6 standard deviations in the changes from the previous month as well as three months earlier (March-April), there are only four analogues to the situation this season: 1985, ’00, ’01, and ’08. All four of these cases either continued with ENSO-neutral conditions (2001) or dropped into at least intermittent La Nia conditions (especially in 2008, but also in 2000, and very briefly in 1985). Even among the other eight cases, El Nio was ‘not on the menu’ (2003 came closest). Compared to last month, the likelihood of El Nio conditions later this year has changed dramatically (from “inevitable” to “very unlikely”).
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 11, 2018 at 5:24 AM
For those wishing for EL NINO to prop up AGW
__________________________________________________
Noone wishes that; dont be childisch.
And El Ninos dont prop up Global Warming; its just warmer for a few moth.
On longer terme they have cooling effect, according to Stefan Boltzmann-Law.
They prop up the advocacy. We haven’t had any identifiable warming in the 21st century, but advocates still draw a trend line, which gets propped up by the latest El Nino, and cite it as evidence of continued warming.
But, that is an underhanded tactic, and it won’t last. The El Nino is a temporary phenomenon. Without it, the trend line is going nowhere, and there is no discernible warming.
Bart says:
August 11, 2018 at 12:35 PM
They prop up the advocacy. We havent had any identifiable warming in the 21st century, but advocates still draw a trend line, which gets propped up by the latest El Nino, and cite it as evidence of continued warming.
_____________________________________________________
Scientists CALCULATE trendlines with datas as they are. To show that things are how they are.
Climatedenying artists draw trendlines freehand, to prove, that things are how they want them to be.
And Fritz. unaware clowns roll over on their backs, exposing their vulnerable innards…but you know the rest.
You are appealing to faux sophistication, Fritz. There is nothing magic about a least squares trend line.
Don’t try to force a straitjacket upon the data. Just look at them. Your brain can do a better job.
I agree with you but those who support AGW do not. El NINO is their poster child.
Sal
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/student/ventrice/real_time/timeLon/u.anom.30.5S-5N.gif
Notice the red blob at the bottom of the chart? Very helpful to a developing el nino.
Snape you have been saying this for the last few months. Maybe it happens ,maybe it doesn’t.
I am more interested in the overall sea surface temperatures.
Sal
Back in April or May, I said that TLT monthly anomalies would trend upwards as the la nina transitioned to neutral. At the time, I didn’t predict an el nino because ENSO forecasts early in the year are notoriously unreliable.
The red blob reflects a trade wind reversal happening right NOW, so I have definitely not been “saying this for the last few months”……Lol.
Maybe so. I think you are sincere. I am just watching those overall oceanic temperatures which I think will be very important as to how the climate is going to go.
From what I could gather I think the trade wind reversal will reverse back around Aug 15. Low pressure will be approaching Australia, by then.
Sal
“From what I could gather I think the trade wind reversal will reverse back around Aug 15. Low pressure will be approaching Australia, by then.”
You are probably correct, but that’s sort of irrelevant. The red blob represents a ~ week long “burst” of anomalous wind. I don’t understand the physics, but that’s all it takes to move ENSO. The anomalies don’t need to be continuous, just an occasional burst will do. The last notable burst occurred in mid June, before that, late March.
Yes. And each time there is a burst, the anomalous heat content in the eastern pacific has a predictable rise, followed by a rise in SST.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
We will see what happens.
This shows the March and June trade wind anomalies:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/u850a_c.gif
I should note that the current WWB is quite measly compared to those that occurred during the 2015/16 super el nino:
http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/steveg/850MB-ANOM-FCST-99AA.png
IF CO2 warming were 4C over the 21st Century.
And the warming were more exponential than linear.
Then the current rate could easily be 0.2 C/decade.
The annual variability can be more than twice that trend. The change from 1998 1999 was 0.5C.
This means that even if there were a genuine long-term trend, it could, by chance, be obscured by natural variability for 20 years or longer.
That’s why a proper investigation of the data goes well beyond the Mk1 eyeball.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.” – Feynman
We apply statistical tests to prevent fooling ourselves. And we remain aware of the pitfalls that may trap the unwary analyst (such as the multiple testing problem).
Some people here have it backasswards. They think the Mk1 eyeball is objective and that statistical testing is intrinsically biased.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard P. Feynman
You can’t even describe the GHE. Hence, not even a testable hypothesis, let alone a theory!
Just endlessly reanalysing historical numbers, trying to divine the future.
Good luck with that – fact outweighs fantasy, (except in the pseudoscientific fantasy world of climatology, of course)!
Keep it up.
Cheers.
“We apply statistical tests to prevent fooling ourselves.”
No, we apply statistical tests to compress data. A mean and 1-sigma parameter tell us where the data are centered, and about how much they vary. Due to the central limit theorem, Gaussian distributions are ubiquitous, and we can generally infer a lot about a series from its mean and standard deviation without having to cart around all the data.
But, statistical tests are limited to those situations in which the statistical model matches the data to a reasonable extent. When you compute a confidence interval for a trend, you are specifically asserting that the data conform to the model of a linear function in time with measurements polluted by stationary, zero mean, i.i.d. noise. If your data do not actually conform to that model, then you are just cranking out garbage.
Statistical tools are not magical. You cannot just apply them with wild abandon to any set of data you please, and expect them to provide a crystal ball with which to gauge the truth. If you do, you are a ninny.
But, statistical tests are limited to those situations in which the statistical model matches the data to a reasonable extent.
No! This is incredibly short-sighted.
When you compute a confidence interval for a trend, you are specifically asserting that the data conform to the model of a linear function in time
You apply statistical tests to check if the statistical model chosen matches the data.
You can run different tests to see which model has the likeliest fit. And you can run further tests to see if the answer you got is statistically valid. There are suites of tests just to do this.
https://otexts.org/fpp2/regression-evaluation.html
You can also run tests for autocorrelation and further tests to see which autocorrelation model is best fit (for our purposes, it isn’t a big issue).
You don’t just choose the model you want, whether linear or (x) order polynomial, step function, sine wave or what have you, and assume that’s the best.
But this is exactly what you are doing with your Mk1 eyeball approach. There is zero statistical analysis backing up your comments on the ‘pause’. And you are arguing that your view is superior because you have avoided subjecting it to statistical testing. That’s backasswards.
I challenge you to give a definition of the pause that was, and, based on the same method from which it was determined, explain how it is “already back.”
You can’t do it. You have to use 2 different criteria to describe the pause that was (flat trend), and then to argue that it is back (‘bobbling’ – no trend analysis).
This is statistically spurious.
You could compare some hot daytime temps in Autumn with some cold daytime temps in Summer, and conclude that Autumn is hotter than Summer. That’s exactly the error you’re making WRT the ‘pause’ comments of late. You need more data, not cherry-picking. And you certainly need some statistical analysis before declaring anything. In no reasonable context does pure assertion cut it. You should know better.
No, sorry. Statistical analysis without a valid statistical model is just mathturbation. Your linear models are useless.
“Thats exactly the error youre making WRT the pause comments of late.”
No, I am not doing something so random as that. I am looking at a long term pattern that stretches back at least as far as the turn of the 19th century.
http://oi63.tinypic.com/ke92le.jpg
I will allow that “it’s already back” is not precise. It would be more precise to say, it was never gone. It was just temporarily masked by the monster El Nino of 2016.
“You apply statistical tests to check if the statistical model chosen matches the data.”
Sure, you can pick through that morass, and pile it higher and deeper if you like. But, if you do not have a good reason to believe a particular model should fit, then what you are doing is analogous to a polynomial fit to a curve over a finite span of data. You can achieve such a fit to arbitrary accuracy, but it generally does not provide a reliable means of extrapolating beyond that finite span.
No, sorry. Statistical analysis without a valid statistical model is just mathturbation. Your linear models are useless.
Did you even read what I wrote?
“You apply statistical tests to check if the statistical model chosen matches the data.
You can run different tests to see which model has the likeliest fit. And you can run further tests to see if the answer you got is statistically valid. There are suites of tests just to do this…
You dont just choose the model you want, whether linear or (x) order polynomial, step function, sine wave or what have you, and assume thats the best.”
Yet this is exactly what you are doing with the Mk1 eyeball. You name your model “bobbling,” but you don’t check it in any rigorous way.
And you imply that your hypothesis is superior because it is unencumbered by any statistical rigour.
I’m not the one assuming a certain model. You are. With specious argument to boot.
Whatever you think of Tamino’s view on AGW, there’s no denying his stats chops. Here is a post in which he does multiple tests to look for the best ft to data – and finds that a non-linear model provides a better fit.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/non-linear-trends/
And then look how he frames his conclusion.
That’s what I’m used to when talking about testing statistical models – no assumption about which model, but tests FOR the best-fit model.
And then reasonable comment about that. End-user stats is mostly probabilities.
Here’s another, shorter post and trend changes (or not).
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/07/11/climate-trend-change-do-it-right/
Yet more tests.
You don’t assume. You
1) Make a hypothesis
2) Test it to see if it breaks
You aren’t getting past 1) in your chat about the pause.
Furthermore: you have not defined what the pause WAS and how it was determined.
Because as soon as you do it, you’ll be asked to apply the same criterion to establish its alleged return. And that is when you’ll change the criterion, instantly demolishing your argument.
“You can run different tests to see which model has the likeliest fit. And you can run further tests to see if the answer you got is statistically valid.”
And, none of this is dispositive, because there are infinitely many models that can “fit” the data to arbitrary precision over a finite span of time.
“And you imply that your hypothesis is superior because it is unencumbered by any statistical rigour.”
No, it is superior because it is unencumbered by bias in selection of the model.
“Whatever you think of Taminos view on AGW, theres no denying his stats chops.”
I thought physics and engineering students were warned about the perils of polynomial extrapolation early in their educations. I think it was one of the first things they covered when I was in school.
“Thats what Im used to when talking about testing statistical models no assumption about which model, but tests FOR the best-fit model.”
Again, there are infinitely many models that can “fit” the data to arbitrary precision over a finite span of time.
What we are looking for is persistent patterns, and their inception date. What we are seeing is a trend + ~60 year cyclic that were in evidence at least as far back as the turn of the 19th century.
There is no bias in the model selection. That is something you’ve simply made up. And we know you’ve made it up because no model has been fixed on as the correct one. Not by me. That’s your fiction.
And, none of this is dispositive, because there are infinitely many models that can “fit” the data to arbitrary precision over a finite span of time.
Some models fit the data better than others. We test to rule out those that don’t fit well at all.
None of it is deterministic. You can only say that model X is most likely. And you can only say that after you have subjected the data to rigorous statistical tests.
All done so you don’t fool yourself by assuming a given model.
You assume a given model, Bart.
What we are seeing is a trend + ~60 year cyclic that were in evidence at least as far back as the turn of the 19th century.
You don’t have the data to say that.
You don’t test the data you do have statistically. Or produce a physical basis.
Your starting assumption is flawed – you need at least 2 complete cycles before you can say that there is one – possibly. You don’t have the data to determine 2 complete cycles.
And if you are thinking of proxies, then you need to admit that these are not well-determined. You need to allow for that uncertainty in your ‘model’. Where the hell is your skepticism? Where is the stuff of science here? All you are doing is advocacy.
There’s no rigour in your methods. At all. And no amount of trying to deflect this complete lack onto others is going to change that.
There is only faux rigor in your methods. You’re just finding excuses to believe what you want to believe.
Well, the battle continues. Until we meet again…
I doubt you could name a model I ‘believe’.
Until next time….
I’ll leave you with some light reading – it encapsulates and substantiates pretty much all I’ve said about testing for validity of various model types against a given set of data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion
Snape
I see your interest in El Nino development for this year.
Though MEI recently moved down a bit, a look at
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
shows for the first time in this year an El Nino forecast with no longer more than 40% neutral instead of 50% until now.
The rest of that web page clearly shows us that the Japanese Meteorology Agency has highly valuable ENSO experience.
Near an own SST (COBE-SST2) and an own OHC record, these people produce the ‘coldest’ surface temperature measurements (0.14 C / decade for the satellite era):
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
This is manifestly due to the fact that they do not interpolate (especially in the Arctic) and leave everything unknown as grey zone.
But nevertheless, a look at
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y1998/gridtemp1998ane.png
compared with
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2016/gridtemp2016ane.png
is quite interesting when keeping in mind that the 1997/98 ENSO event was a bit stronger than that of 2015/16.
—
A spicy detail for the ignorants still thinking that a baseline is a fixed, inamovible property of temperature records is that since a few years, JMA presents anomalies wrt 1981-2010 but keeps the gridded data anomalies wrt WMO’s previous reference period (1971-2000).
The same happened a few years ago for the UAH record, as Roy Spencer & team shifted their anomalies from 1979-1998 up to 1981-2010.
Bart says:
August 11, 2018 at 12:35 PM
…We havent had any identifiable warming in the 21st century, but advocates still draw a trend line, which gets propped up by the latest El Nino, and cite it as evidence of continued warming.
That, Bart, is pseudoskeptic nonsense below your niveau.
1. The linear estimate for UAH6.0 over its entire period is 0.13 C / decade; that for the period 2000-2018 is exactly the same (even a small tick higher for those who want to see 3 digits after the period).
Thus if you think that there was no identifiable warming in the 21st century, that means you think there was no warming since 1979 as well.
2. ‘… propped up by the latest El Nino’?
Why don’t you mention all the La Ninas? Do they not prop anything down?
Please look at JMA’s pictures presented by J.-P. alias Bindidon above, and explain us the difference between JMA’s annual distributions for 1997/98 and 2015/16.
3. In 2014, Santer & al. published a paper showing their work performed in extracting out of the RSS3.3 record (nearly identical to UAH6.0)
– ENSO signals (El Nino AND La Nina);
– volcanic eruptions leading to huge aerosol output.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/full/ngeo2098.html
(behind paywall)
https://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disseminate/1721.1/89054
(free)
The result: the residual linear estimate was 0.086 C / decade, i.e. 70 % of the original 0.124 C for RSS between 1979 and 2013:
http://4gp.me/bbtc/1534088844869.jpg
This result was denied soon after publication (especially at WUWT) but until now, no one (rept: no one) was able to scientifically contradict it.
No wonder: the usual technique of pseudoskeptics is
– to carefully avoid scientific contradiction
– to comfortably pretend that something is wrong
– to say then ‘Prove me wrong’.
People are very good at denying what is right in front of their eyes, if they would have to entertain the possibility that their initial belief was wrong. They find all kinds of reasons to avoid it, and as the divergence grows, their rationalizations become more and more convoluted. Eventually, they buckle under the weight of accumulating contradictions, and that is when real progress can begin.
You’re one to talk!
DA,
Your standard is slipping.
Back to Troll U. for you, Davey.
Cheers.
People are very good at denying what is right in front of their eyes… They find all kinds of reasons to avoid it…
This describes your reply to Pangolina. You utterly avoided taking on the substantive point. Instead, this pile of waffle.
It’s just a bunch of phony baloney. Models are infinitely malleable to produce whatever results one wants. It is not compelling.
You’re very good at denying what is in front of your eyes. Here you give yet more phoney baloney reasons for your non-responses.
It’s the argument scene, chapter and verse. Pythonesque.
I am very good at rejecting non-rigorous arguments.
Laudable. If only you would turn that skill inwards.
Thanks, Bin.
I’ve been following a site called “stormsurf” , which has a lot of interesting graphics.
http://www.stormsurf.com/page2/links/ensocurr.html
Thanks in turn
R. & J.-P.
Norman
You wrote:
“I have not got the logic to work yet, I must be doing something wrong.
I can see why the photon density would have to be so very small. The energy if moving very fast and a higher density would be a tremendous amount of energy in the time frame of one second.”
I think the confusion comes from the term “energy density”, which is a measure of energy stored within a volume (such as the air inside an igloo). You are wondering how much energy is “passing through” that space. Different ideas.
I looked at Tim’s link to how radiative energy density is calculated, and it involves temperature. I assume, then, that the greater the temperature of a given volume the greater the energy
density will be.
Consider this:
If we leave Earth’s atmosphere and move towards the sun, the temperature is only a few degrees Kelvin, yet the radiative flux is the same as at the TOA. Therefore, radiative flux in that regard is not related to temperature .
Snape, the equation I linked to is specifically for blackbody radiation (ie cavity radiation where the walls are all at a fixed, uniform temperature). If you are trying to calculate the energy density of photons between the earth and the sun, you would have to add the effects of photons from various sources at various temperatures coming from various directions.
* In deep space far from any galaxies, you could get about the right energy density using the 3K background temperature.
* On the night side of earth, you would have to add the energy density of the thermal IR from earth.
* On the day side of earth, you would further have to add the energy density of sun light.
Or stated another way, we have to consider varying amounts of energy density due to sun, earth, and cosmic background.
Anyway, I think there could be an enormous amount of energy “just passing through” the interior of the igloo.
– Place an invisible, one square meter plate just above one square meter of ice surface. A radiative flux of 300 w/m^2 will pass through the plate.
– If each plate is 1 mm thick, a thousand such plates stacked on top of each other would only be one meter high.
– a flux of 300 w/m^2 would simultaneously pass through each of those 1000 plates
– if each plate was only a micrometer thick, and stacked a meter high, 300 w/m^2 would simultaneously pass through a million such plates.
*****
Thoughts? Am I confused about something?
S,
You are heading in the right direction – thinking for yourself.
The Pauli exclusion principle does not apply to photons. This means that many photons can simultaneously occupy the same space – theoretically an infinite number!
I hope you have already worked out for yourself that “radiative intensity”, “radiative flux”, and so on, are loosely used in general, and may or may not relate to temperature.
Photons move at the speed of light because, well, they are light! Whether the photon has a wavelength of a squillion meters, or a squillionth of a meter makes no difference at all. Still light.
So here are a few questions to ponder, if you wish. Can an infinite number of photons of different energies (wavelengths) occupy the same cubic meter of space, resulting in infinite energy density in that cubic meter? Why has this cubic meter of space (if a vacuum) a temperature of absolute zero? If the cubic meter of space was occupied by matter at the time, would it make any difference?
The answers might surprise you, or might not. You might well exclaim “But that’s absurd – it makes no sense at all!”. Yep. Nature is absurd, chaotic and unpredictable, it seems.
Cheers.
” Place an invisible, one square meter plate just above one square meter of ice surface. A radiative flux of 300 w/m^2 will pass through the plate.”
The key to the seeming conundrum is that 300 W/m^2 is passing through on one side, and 300 W/m^2 is passing through on the other, for a net of zero.
Bart
I’m not at all interested in the net flux passing through the plates. Just questioning the difference between energy density, and energy “just passing through” a given volime.
They seem to be entirely different animals.
S,
If you happen to agree that e=mc2, and that photons have no rest mass, then your question is possibly meaningless.
Your volume contains energy “just passing through”, does it not? Or maybe only when it isn’t?
If photons do not interact with matter, how do you detect them, measure them, or even know they are there? It’s not as easy as you might think – although I might be wrong.
Once you have figured out why all the heat energy in all the ice in the universe cannot be utilised to heat a microgram of water, you will hopefully accept reality.
I’ll leave you to it.
Cheers.
Mike, could you expand on what you mean by
“If you happen to agree that e=mc2, and that photons have no rest mass, then your question is possibly meaningless.”
You seem to be implying that photons have no mass and hence no energy. Of course, that is wrong, so maybe you can tell us what you are actually trying to say with this cryptic comment.
Tim,
Are you disagreeing with something I said?
From Wiki –
“In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) . . . ”
Obviously, then, if e=mc2, then the intuitive concept of mass is irrelevant, and given that Pauli’s exclusion principle does not preclude a theoretically infinite photon energy concentration in any given volume of space, then Snape’s question may possibly be meaningless.
Learn to read. I wrote “no rest mass”. They are massless. If you don’t like it, go to your alternate universe, where warming is not the same as heating, where compression or friction cannot heat CO2, and where cooling is really an increase in temperature.
Carry on whining, and expressing what you think I seem to be implying! Maybe you are a bit grumbly because you can’t describe the GHE in any meaningful way. Join the pseudoscientific climatological club!
Cheers.
Snape, there is an “enormous amount of energy” passing through the igloo. But, it’s the same fundamental quantity of energy, bouncing back and forth and being counted over and over and over again. Does that help?
Snape, energy density and energy flux are indeed two different (but related concepts). Its basically the same as the distinction between the density of a gas and the flow rate of a gas.
Mass: density = kg/m^3; flow rate = kg/m^2/s
Energy: density = J/m^3; flow rate = J/m^2/s
Mike
“Can an infinite number of photons of different energies (wavelengths) occupy the same cubic meter of space, resulting in infinite energy density in that cubic meter?”
As mentioned above, I don’t think the term “energy density” is a measure of how much energy occupies a given space.
“The total energy radiated from an area in this region of space is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the energy density associated with the radiation can be related to that law.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/raddens.html
Looks like radiative energy density is a measure of how much energy a given volume radiates, not how much is passing through.
I think part of your conceptual difficulty is the imprecise language being employed.
Watts are not a measure of energy, but of energy per unit of time, a.k.a. power or energy flux, or more specifically, energy time flux. The units are joules per second. A joule is a measure of energy.
Think of a closed container of fluid being sloshed back and forth. The faster you shake it, the faster the fluid moves. Shake it really fast, and you can get a very high velocity of a given incremental volume of fluid. But, you’ve still got the same overall volume of fluid.
The velocity of a given incremental volume is like watts, but the quantity of fluid is like joules.
“If photons do not interact with matter, how do you detect them, measure them, or even know they are there?”
What?? Why do you think photons don’t interact with matter?
S,
I assume you are either trying for a gotcha, or that you are stupid and ignorant.
Some photons interact with some matter, depending on the circumstances. When they don’t, you can’t detect them, can you?
If you cannot accept this as being true, you will never understand why a cooler body cannot heat a warmer, or why placing CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer cannot make the thermometer hotter.
All the semantic trickery in the pseudoscientific climatological lexicon cannot make the mythical GHE become reality.
Keep trying, anyway.
Cheers.
Tim, Bart
My question is how much energy occupies the a given volume assuming a flux of 300 w/m^2 is passing through. Joules/m^3 seems like the proper unit of measure.
If 300 w/m^2 are passing through a million plates, that would be an awful lot of Joules.
The million plates is of course arbitrary. Could be a trillion. Is there a formula for calculating such a thing?
******
Bart: “But, its the same fundamental quantity of energy, bouncing back and forth and being counted over and over and over again. Does that help?”
The question needn’t involve an igloo. How about a cubic meter in space where a flux of 1361 w/m^2 is passing through? How much energy is in the box?
Snape, you can start with wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas) or Hyperphysics (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/raddens.html) for answers.
From hyperphysics, the energy density within a cavity will all the walls at a given temperature is
u = 4 * (P/A) / c
So withing an igloo where all the walls are emitting 300 W/m^2, this becomes
u = 4 * (300 W/m^2) / (3e8 m/s) = 4e-6 W*s/m^3 = 0.000004 J/m^3
Without checking further, I suspect that for your unidirectional flux of 1361 W/m^2 arriving at the earth, the “4” would disappear (but I won’t guarantee this — its just a hunch). Then you would just have:
u = (1361 W/m^2) / 3e8 = 4.5e-6 J/m^2.
“If 300 w/m^2 are passing through a million plates, that would be an awful lot of Joules.”
No, it would be an awful lot of joules per second.
If you have 300 w/m^2 going through an area of 1 m^2, then you have 300 watts. The time it takes for the photons to traverse a 1 meter depth is 1/c = 3.3 nano-sec. So, at any given instant, you would have 300*3.3e-9 = about 1 micro-Joule in that volume.
Tim’s number is 4x this. That is because the cavity does not have unidirectional flow.
Bottom line, boys and girls, is that radiative fluxes do NOT add/subtract.
Subtracting 240 Watts/m^2 from 390 Watts/M^2 and expecting 150 Watts/m^2, is pure pseudoscience.
No, the bottom line is that you need to understand the situation.
You CANNOT add two outgoing fluxes from two different areas to get one larger outgoing flux. For example, 300 W/m^2 being emitted from one square meter cannot be added to 300 W/m^2 being emitted from some other square meter to get 600 W/m^2. If this were true, then the “cook with ice” sort of scenarios could work (which we all know is false).
You CAN add two incident fluxes. For example, 200 W/m^2 of incident thermal radiation from one direction and 300 W/2 of incident thermal radiation from another direction can be added to give 500 W/m^2 of total incident radiation. If this were false, then turning on a second light would not make a room brighter!
WRONG!
Tim, you just spin and twist yourself into a pseudoscience pretzel.
So, if 200 + 300 (units omitted) = 500, then 10 sources each would be 2000 +3000 = 5000!
From 10 ice sources, and 10 much colder sources, Tim arrives with 5000 Watts/m^2!
Tim the Pretzel!
JD, your imagined “pretzel” is due to missing/ignoring/failing to understand the word “incident” in my post. I even explained it in detail, but you can’t seem to grasp the significance.
If one spotlight delivers 200 W/m^2 to some spot on the floor, and a second spotlight delivers 300 W/m^2 to the same spot, then the incident radiation is 500 W/m^2 at that spot. You simply add those two numbers to get the total incident energy. Aiming two spotlights at the same spot makes that spot brighter than either spotlight independently.
Surely you can’t disagree that these two fluxes add!?
Tim, you are twisting and spinning again. Why do you hate reality?
You can “add” anything, if you twist and spin the process. For example, you can add 2 forks to 3 spoons, and get 5 eating utensils. But, you don[‘t have 5 spoons or 5 forks.
You can “add” numbers. You can add 200 to 300 and get 500. But you don’t get 500 Watts/m^2.
200 Watts/m^2 absorbed by a thin perfect surface, insulated on back, would have an equilibrium temperature of about 244K. 300 Watts/m^2, by itself, would correspond to about 270K.
But both 200 and 300 arriving together would NOT “add” to 500 Watts/m^2, and the corresponding temperature of 306K.
And, as an added bonus, radiative fluxes are NOT conserved. Just one more reason the “390-240 = 150” is pure pseudoscience.
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman says, August 14, 2018 at 1:25 AM:
If those two fluxes were separate incoming HEAT fluxes reaching the same surface, they would indeed add to make that surface warmer. Think two suns in the sky up at the same time shining down on us. Do you seriously suggest our world wouldn’t be a warmer place on average in such a situation?
You can’t add “atmospheric back radiation” to the solar heat flux, that is very true. But you CAN add separate heat fluxes, as long as they impinge on the same surface.
Kristian, the issue is about the “missing” 150 Watts/m^2, and related things like using ice to warm a house. Discussions are all around.
Here’s just one place to start catching up:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/summer-causes-climate-change-hysteria/#comment-311927
JDHuffman says, August 15, 2018 at 5:17 PM:
I know what the issue is. You CAN’T add a ‘hemiflux’ to a full (net, real) flux, like a heat flux, but you CAN add full fluxes, like heat fluxes, as long as they move in the same direction and end up at the same surface (or leave the same surface).
You can add the conductive heat flux [Q_cond], the evaporative heat flux [Q_evap], and the radiative heat flux [Q_rad(lw)] to get Earth’s total surface heat loss: 24 + 88 + 53 = 165 W/m^2. Because they are all ‘full’ (net, real) fluxes, heat fluxes, they all move in the same direction, up and away from the surface, and they all leave the very same surface area, Earth’s global surface.
You can NOT, however, add the “atmospheric back radiation” ‘hemiflux’ (which conceptually makes up part of the surface radiative heat LOSS, [Q_rad(lw)]) to the incoming solar heat flux [Q_rad(sw)] and somehow get a ‘total incoming flux’ to the surface to set its temperature. That is not how reality works. It is pure and utter BS.
I just wanted to make this quite essential distinction clear. We very much agree, the two of us, that the atmosphere doesn’t ADD macroscopic energy to the surface to make it warmer, because that would constitute a HEAT flux, and only the Sun heats the surface of the Earth, not the atmosphere.
But being categorical about the notion that “fluxes don’t add”, like you are, is unhelpful. Because it simply isn’t true. There are real fluxes and there are conceptual (mathematically defined) fluxes – ‘hemifluxes’. The two kinds are NOT equivalent entities. Only the first kind possesses the discrete ability to produce thermodynamic effects (like ‘warming’ or ‘cooling’). The second kind is only a partial (component) ‘flux’. It always needs its ‘opposite’ in order to become a full thermodynamic flux. It can therefore only ever be calculated, indirectly, never itself be directly physically detected. It this sense it isn’t ‘real’, only ‘conceptual’ (theoretical).
“You can NOT, however, add the “atmospheric back radiation” ‘hemiflux’ (which conceptually makes up part of the surface radiative heat LOSS, [Q_rad(lw)]) to the incoming solar heat flux [Q_rad(sw)] and somehow get a ‘total incoming flux’ to the surface to set its temperature. That is not how reality works. It is pure and utter BS.”
True if, and only if, the 1st law of thermodynamics is wrong. So far extensive testing has upheld the 1LOT and Kristian has not established the 1LOT is wrong.
Better: “You can NOT, however, add the “atmospheric back radiation” ‘hemiflux’ (which conceptually makes up part of the surface radiative heat LOSS, [Q_rad(lw)]) to the incoming solar heat flux [Q_rad(sw)] and somehow get a ‘total incoming flux’ to the surface to set its temperature. That is not how reality works. It is pure and utter BS.”
True if, and only if, the 1st law of thermodynamics is wrong. So far extensive testing has upheld the 1LOT and Kristian has not established the 1LOT is wrong.
JDHuffman
You claim you know physics. You do understand unsupported declarations people are just supposed to believe are the essence of pseudoscience. Why do you constantly employ pseudoscience when you rant against it? What is your scientific evidence that fluxes do NOT add/subtract? There are times they will not there are other times they will. What is the basis of your declarations? Without evidence, support or experiment you proclaim pseudoscience.
You could do an actual experiment and be more scientific. The hypothesis is that if you had really cold surroundings (dry ice will do), you do a set-up similar to E. Swanson’s experiment (vacuum conditions). You have a ice block that is around 270 K. You move a plate that absorbs IR well close to the ice block. You measure the temperature of the plate. It will be colder than the ice block. You move another ice block on the opposite side of the plate and the temperature rises. It does so because fluxes add. If you do the experiment you will be free of your own pseudoscience. I do not make up physics like you do. I go to valid sources on the topic and use the material in my posts. You should do so as well. As it stands you have lots of “hot air” zero substance. Add some substance to you claims, be more scientific.
Norman, I see you had another typing lesson.
Now, if only you could only think of something meaningful to type….
I know, maybe you could explain how when you multiply by 4, you end up with 4 times your original number. That probably still amazes you, huh?
g.e.r.a.n
Funny how your old tactic does nothing at all for science and is just a pointless snide remark designed to elicit a response that makes you laugh when the responder sends an insult.
How does your comment address the issue I talk about in any way? What is the point of it? I did type a meaningful response.
Here it is, support your claims with valid evidence. This is quite meaningful in a scientific world. In the pseudoscience world you live in, declarations are made with no support or evidence.
Why not do an experiment? E. Swanson did, what is holding you back?
Norman, I’m not sure what “tactics” you believe I’m using. I’m just laughing at you. Maybe you believe I (or your hero, g.e.r.a.n) has the power to put nonsense in your head, so that you constantly make a fool of yourself?
No super powers here. I’m just laughing at you.
(4 X 5 = 20. How does that work? Algebra is soooo amazing.)
JDHuffman
You got that right! All you are doing is laughing and avoiding science.
NOTE FOR YOU. While you play around and laugh, you have avoided doing any experiment or supporting even one of your declarations with some valid physics.
You keep laughing but it is noted you are avoiding supporting your physics or doing any experiments to prove your opinions.
Some may not see your tactic. I can see it clearly. You avoid reality and run from it. What you post about others is exactly what you need to do for yourself. You run from reality, you need to study physics. You need to stop laughing so much (hilarious) and start to support your claims. When will you do this?
Norman, get ready to be amazed.
4 X 7 = 28!
Can you believe that?
It happens every time! You multiply by 4 and you get 4 times as much.
If you think algebra is amazing, you should try some physics. (After you’ve learned algebra, of course.)
JDHuffman
You are just digging a hole for yourself with your stupid posts.
So support your claim: “But both 200 and 300 arriving together would NOT add to 500 Watts/m^2, and the corresponding temperature of 306K.”
And why do you think it would not add?. I say they would add and you would have the same as a 500 w/m^2 source. What support do you provide that your point has an validity and is based upon real physics. None. You just make it up as you go.
You state “learn some physics”. What is your source of this physics? What textbook do you find this one at?
Norman, I have explained the physics to you. You don’t have the background to understand. Even worse, you don’t want to understand. You want your own “reality”. You want to live in a world that you can type out. A world in which you are intelligent, smart, well-educated, etc.
Your inability to face reality is your problem, not mine.
Norman, you have just repeated the same example as from earlier.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316559
I am now convinced that you are trying to mislead. Please stop trolling.
Tim, Bart
Thanks for your input. I’m still thinking on it.
Huffy
“From 10 ice sources, and 10 much colder sources, Tim arrives with 5000 Watts/m^2!”
You propose an impossible situation, then argue the resulting flux would not be correct. Pretzel logic.
******
Please explain how “10 ice sources, and 10 much colder sources”, could cause a flux of 5000 w/m^2 to arrive at a surface? (This is where knowledge of view factors would be helpful).
Ms Snape, your problems with reading comprehension and logic, plague you again.
From Tim the Pretzel: “For example, 200 W/m^2 of incident thermal radiation from one direction and 300 W/2 of incident thermal radiation from another direction can be added to give 500 W/m^2 of total incident radiation.”
Now see if you can figure it out.
Silly Snape,
Just use a suitable lens to concentrate the 300 W/m2 from 1m2 of ice into as small area as you wish – just as you would to concentrate the light from the sun, or the light from IR sources to provide an image in a photo imaging device,
Now focus your 5000 W/m2 (or even 500,000 W/m2), onto a teaspoon of water, and watch nothing at all happen.
Foolish Warmists are disconnected from reality – desperately trying to defend a mythical concept which they cannot even describe!
Carry on being confused. With a bit of effort, you might be able to combine confusion with delusion, and join the climate clown club!
Cheers.
Silly, Mike,
Everyone (who knows anything about how radiation works in such situations) knows that you cannot focus diffuse thermal radiation to get anything more concentrated than the original source. So radiation from ice @ 300 W/m^2 can never be focused to anything more than 300 W/m^2. (Doing so would violate the 2nd Law).
Foolish Mike is disconnected from reality — desperately trying to project his false understanding of physics onto everyone else. He is already in the “climate clown club” — he simply doesn’t know it.
T,
What are you disagreeing with? Something I didn’t say, perhaps?
Deny, divert, confuse!
Oh, dear. Hotter bodies do not get hotter when exposed to radiation from colder. Nor can colder bodies become even colder by losing energy to a hotter environment.
Still no GHE – the fact that you cannot even usefully describe such a bizarre concept might be a starting point for discussion, don’t you think?
Time for another straw man, or irrelevant and pointless analogy, Tim. Go for it.
Cheers.
For starters, I disagree with your perpetual misstatement of the GHE.
“Increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer certainly reduces the amount of energy reaching the thermometer, unless you can dig up some heretofore unknown physical laws. ”
No one but you thinks this is how scientists describe the GHE.
T,
So of course you can tell me how scientists describe the GHE, I suppose? No? I knew you were making stuff up, as usual.
Better luck next time. Maybe you could try providing a link to something quite irrelevant?
Or you could demonstrate that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
Off you go, Tim. Good luck.
Cheers.
Mike, you know perfectly well by now that I have indeed explained how CO2 (and other GHGs) leads to a warmer surface. Other similar explanations are all over the internet and in numerous textbooks. You just have to actually make an effort to understand, rather than retreating over an over to your incorrect preconceptions.
This is not a topic that can be distilled to a single sentence or a single equation, as you seem to expect.
Tim offers his excuse: “This is not a topic that can be distilled to a single sentence or a single equation, as you seem to expect.”
Tim, even gravity could be crudely explained in 200 words, or less. The fact that you cannot offer a reason “executive summary” of the AGW/GHE is telling, don’t you think?
I doubt a 200-word sentence would illuminate anything.
barry, just look how well you did with less than 10 words!
Huff, I should probably help you out:
Place a 1/m^2 plate of ice (plate A) directly in front of a 1/m^2 blackbody surface (plate B), so the two plates are only an inch apart. If plate A emits 300 w/m^2, then plate B will receive a flux of ~ 300 w/m^2.
Do you notice the problem this has created? The other 19 sources of energy can no longer “see” plate B. Plate A is blocking their view.
Regarding your comment above:
– shine a spotlight on plate B, so that it receives a flux of 300 w/m^2
– now shine a second spotlight at plate B. Notice that the first spotlight DOES NOT INTERFERE with the second spotlight.
Mike
“Now focus your 5000 W/m2 (or even 500,000 W/m2), onto a teaspoon of water, and watch nothing at all happen.”
Why don’t YOU focus 5000 w/m^2 onto a teaspoon of water. Record the experiment on video, and show us what happens?
“Do you notice the problem this has created? The other 19 sources of energy can no longer see plate B. Plate A is blocking their view.”
In other words, for a body to receive 300 w/m^2 flux from a block of ice, the block of ice has to be really close. If it is really close, it is obstructing the view of other fluxes!
“the block of ice has to be really close”
Or slightly more specifically, ice has to occupy the the entire 2 pi steradians above the surface. So you could have a flat sheet of ice very close. Or a very large dome of ice over the surface. Or a small box of ice around the surface.
But once you have the full 2 pi steradians providing 300 W/m^2 of 270 K thermal radiation to a surface, then any other ice you might try to add will be “obstructing the view of other fluxes” as you say. So any new ice will block exactly as much previous ice, keeping the total the same.
On the other hand, a body can receive a flux of 300 w/m^2 from a heat lamp, even if the heat lamp is several feet away. Being several feet away, other heat lamps can be placed around the body without blocking each other’s view.
swannie…”Dissipation? What’s that?”
And you claim to be a mechanical engineer???
If you heated a room with warm air and the room had no way of getting rid of the heat, the room temperature would rise to a level determined by the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules.
Call that Tmax.
Now introduce dissipation, like leaky walls, walls that conduct heat, etc. T max will reduce to a level dependent on how much heat is dissipated from the room air molecules.
Call that T ambient.
Obviously, Tamb is proportional to heat ‘in’ versus heat ‘out’.
If we have a room at Tamb, and we change its means of cooling (dissipating heat), in this case, by reducing it’s ability to dissipate heat, then T amb will rise toward Tmax.
The rise in Tamb is not caused by the whatever is changing the heat dissipation, it is caused by the heat input source.
You and Norman have claimed a cooler environment surrounding a heated body can cause that body to warm. That’s wrong. All the environment can do is affect the rate of heat dissipation and any warming is due to the heating source when dissipation is reduced.
Solar energy reaching the surface is Tmax. T amb is the result of the surface dissipating heat through conduction, convection and radiation. The cooler environment above the surface is the atmosphere. You cannot transfer heat from the cooler environment to raise Tmax.
That’s what AGW claims and it is wrong. Your version, that a gas representing 0.04% of the atmosphere can affect the rate of surface heat dissipation. Not possible. Only the entire atmosphere, made up of 99% nitrogen and oxygen, can have that effect, through conduction and convection.
There is no way that 0.04% of the atmosphere can warm the 99% of the atmosphere. The Ideal Gas Law and Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures says so.BTW, Bart earlier claimed heat dissipation at TOA can be done only by GHGs.
Not so. As air rises it thins (pressure drop) and the temperature reduces naturally. Also, there’s nothing to prevent nitrogen and oxygen radiating under the right conditions.
Gordo, Again you post more amazing deviant physics and silly BS.
First off, I didn’t specify the mode of heating. Adding energy to the insulated space doesn’t require warm air, such as that from a furnace, thus there’s no Tmax. Anyway, a furnace provides energy via another heat transfer process, adding energy and warming the air flowing thru it by some increment added to the temperature of the inlet air. If the space is perfectly insulated, the inlet air temperature will increase, thus the outlet temperature of the furnace will continue to increase.
On the other side of the equation, real insulation results in a temperature drop between the inside and the outside of the space, a drop which is a function of the flow of energy thru the walls. As a result, in reality, the inside temperature will stabilize at some value above the outside temperature, given the fixed rate of energy supplied to the inside. Getting back to my original point, adding more insulation to the walls will simply result in an increase in the inside temperature in this scenario.
Then you wrote:
NO, NO, NO. Solar energy isn’t “temperature”, it’s power. The resulting temperature of the surface and the lower atmosphere is a direct function of the net insulation effect of the atmosphere as that energy exits the Earth as IR EM radiation. The physical reality is that there’s no other way for energy to exit the TOA.
But, you compound your delusions, writing:
Yes, O2 and N2 can radiate IR energy, but emit very little at TOA within the range of temperatures in the lower atmosphere. Dr. Roy’s satellite measurements are based on the emissions from O2 at microwave frequencies, which represent a tiny fraction of the total energy flow. Much of the TOA emissions are due to surface black body emissions which pass thru the “atmospheric window” between about 8 and 12 microns, as well as the emissions from water in clouds and from CO2 at higher elevations.
Your post shows again that you still misunderstand the physical fact that the temperature at the surface is determined by the net effects of atmospheric processes on the outbound energy flows. The atmosphere doesn’t add energy to the surface, on balance, it slows the rate of loss of thermal energy to deep space. Changing the optical properties of the atmosphere by adding CO2 will change the rate of thermal IR energy loss. As MF would say, Learn some Physics.
Gordon Robertson says:
August 13, 2018 at 11:31 PM
Also, theres nothing to prevent nitrogen and oxygen radiating under the right conditions.
Robertson, you may call my life companion Bindidon and me ‘idiot’s.
That does not change anything to the level of your ignorance and incompetence.
You have been told so often that N2 and O2 absorb and emit nearly nothing in the range 0.16-40 microns in comparison with H2O and CO2.
The absorp-tion and emission intensities for atmospheric gases has been observed and computed long time ago.
Taking into account their relative atmospheric abundance, N2 absorbs / emits 1,000,000 times less than H2O and 100,000 times less than CO2; O2 absorbs / emits 1,000 times less than H2O and 100 times less than CO2.
Use SpectralCalc’s line list browser accessing the HITRAN2012 database, and read
http://www.spectralcalc.com/info/CalculatingSpectra.pdf
Bart says,
“If you have 300 w/m^2 going through an area of 1 m^2, then you have 300 watts. The time it takes for the photons to traverse a 1 meter depth is 1/c = 3.3 nano-sec. So, at any given instant, you would have 300*3.3e-9 = about 1 micro-Joule in that volume.”
*****
Yes!!!
I really struggled with this. Finally was able to work it through on my own. Lo and behold……….only 0.000001 Joule at any given moment.
S,
Nope. You appear to have made a bizarre assumption that only one photon can occupy a space at one time. Quite apart from that, photons are not little tennis balls, and you assume that they are all travelling as you wish. Possibly all neatly parallel to each other?
Any fool can calculate anything they want – just like climatologists can endlessly calculate meaningless averages! Is there a point to your pointless calculation, or are you hoping to divert attention away from the fact that the GHE is climatological pseudoscience?
Maybe you can calculate the climate of California! What value would you give it, or would you just give up and say climate is too complicated for anyone except a highly trained climatological pseudoscientist to understand!
Have at it! Calculate the climate of California, if you wish. Let me know your answer – I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting.
Cheers.
JDHuffman
Here is the reality of physics that you do not accept but come up with your own version that is just wrong.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
You did not accept this version as real so you made up your own false version;
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Which is not supported by real world experimnents
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
You have the two plates at the same temperature: False! (They do not reach a equal steady state temperature)
You do not have the blue plate warming up with the addition of the green plate: False! (It warms up)
You state people should study physics. It seems you should accept science (actual experiments) and give up on your addiction to unsupported declarations and pseudoscience.
The first one is wrong, the second one appears correct, and the third one is Swanson’s, which he has now backed away from.
At least you got one right!
Huffingman, No, that last link is still my best effort so far. I may yet do better by reducing the pressure another notch. You are just spouting “fake news” and disinformation, aka, troll poop.
What I’m referring to is the fact that you have backed away from saying your “experiment” was proof of the blue/green plate nonsense.
If you have changed back, let us know.
Huffingman, My experimental demonstration of the Green Plate Effect stands on it’s own merits. You, as usual, have presented no logical critique of my work, thus have nothing to stand on.
Right. It’s just that the “merits” keep changing.
Huffingman, As usual, your reply contains nothing of substance.
I respond at the level of your comment.
ES,
In your description you bang on on about the Greenhouse Effect. What is this Greehouse Effect?
Can you describe it? Of course not.
What your experiment demonstrates is that the laws of physics do not need to be revised, in order to comply with the supposed existence of a mythical and indescribable effect.
You seem to be totally amazed that even partial insulation reduces the ability of a continuously heated object to achieve a lower equilibrium temperature.. This has all the mystery of stepping out from a shaded area into sunlight and claiming that shade generates heat – every time you move a thermometer out of the shade, it gets hotter! Bear in mind that in the case of the Earth, the atmosphere is between the heat source and the surface, and insulation only slows energy transmission – equally, in both directions!
No accumulation, trapping, or storage of heat. Turn off your additional heat source, and your plates will stabilise at the same temperature as the environment. It doesn’t matter where you place them, what colour they are, or whether they are highly reflective or black bodies.
Feel free to keep believing that putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter. This might lead to the logical conclusion that the thermometer will reach its maximum temperature when you have blocked 100% of the Sun’s energy!
Or do think that CO2 has negative transparency, something like phlogiston has negative weight?
Cheers.
MF posts more anti-science. Of course, it’s easily demonstrated that the CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs IR EM and also that some of the solar energy entering the atmosphere is thus absorbed. From these observations, it’s blindingly obvious that CO2 does warm the atmosphere from the inward flow of sunlight.
In addition, it’s proven that absorp_tion by CO2 also works for the outbound energy flows from the surface and lower atmosphere to deep space. The net result is a warmer planet and is called The Greenhouse Effect.
Your repeated denial of facts doesn’t change the physical reality, it only wastes everybody’s time.
E. Swanson,
In addition, it’s proven that absorp_tion by CO2 also works for the outbound energy flows from the surface and lower atmosphere to deep space. The net result is a warmer planet and is called The Greenhouse Effect.
Forgive me but it is a very bad description of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon of thermodynamic nature that must be explained with compatible notions. The opposing double energy flows are not thermodynamic notions. In reality, GHG’s never warms the atmosphere but cool it, they are always net emitters whatever their concentrations. GHGs do not heat the planet. They temperate the surface by cooling the atmosphere that would be warmer without them.
phi wrote:
I have no clue where you found your incorrect description of the effects of CO2. Perhaps you would provide some evidence to support your claim.
E. Swanson,
The question is not where I found this description but whether it is correct or not.
You do not argue.
Your own description is incompatible with thermodynamics for several reasons and especially because it does not take into account that GHGs are net emitters of IR and therefore cool the atmosphere.
E.S. man,
phi is of course correct. All you need is look at the numbers:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
The atmosphere’s radiative budget is as follows:
Absorbed from Sun – 75 W/m^2
Absorbed from sfc – [398-345.6=] 52.4 W/m^2
Total radiative heating: 127.4 W/m^2
Emitted to space – [239.7-20=] 219.7 W/m^2
Total radiative cooling: 219.7 W/m^2
This huge excess in radiative loss over radiative gain for the atmosphere is only made up for by the additional atmospheric absorp tion of 24 W/m^2 via conduction and 88 W/m^2 via latent heat (evaporation/condensation of water) from the surface.
So you can easily deduce from this how the NON-radiative heat transfers of the atmosphere ONLY heat it, while the radiative heat transfers to/from the atmosphere heat it some, but cools it a LOT more, leaving an average clear and unequivocal net radiative cooling of the atmosphere to be balanced …
phi, Your math is incorrect. You’ve left out the latent (88) and sensible (24) heating of the atmosphere from the surface. Add those to your Total radiative heating of 127.4 and you get 239.4, which matches outgoing longwave IR EM radiation in the figure. Better luck next time…
At this point it is clear that the E.S. man is just playing a game of stupid.
E. Swanson
I did not give any numbers.
Do you dispute the fact that GHGs are net emitters ???
Kristian,
Or it’s denial. It is always painful and destabilizing to have to give up a belief.
phi, Kristian, Sorry for my mixup in attribution.
That said, no, I don’t dispute that the atmosphere emits IR EM thermal radiation to deep space. Indeed, I think the relevant point is that the atmosphere does convert the energy flow from the convective processes into thermal radiation, which is then transferred out of the Earth’s climate system. The result on the surface is a temperature balance from the interplay of all those energy flows, both regionally and seasonally. By changing the optical properties of the atmosphere, humanity is in the process of changing the surface temperature balance point.
JDHUffman
Yes what I did get 100% correct it that you need to “give up on your addiction to unsupported declarations and pseudoscience.”
You get everything wrong all the time. It must be in your genetics to be an wrong all the time. Most would be able to learn, you can’t.
I make mistakes and learn. You spend several posts making fun of me for the process of not understanding something initially, then going on to learn it. Weird form of amusement on your part.
JDHuffman
Do an experiment to prove that the blue and green plate will reach the same steady state temperature. Find some established physics to support your view.
You declare your view is correct yet you provide zero support for it. Why do you do this? Why do you need to be so deep into pseudoscience?
Question for you. Have you supported even one of your deluded and twisted physics proclamations? I might have missed one. I have not seen any.
JDHuffman
All you point out is that I can learn things. You cannot. You just look up a few terms that you don’t have a clue about and pretend to be this expert. When pushed on any topic you clearly show you really don’t have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Knowledge is very vast. A rational human knows they cannot master all information. There are more things I do not know than I know. But once again, your logic is very flawed (nothing new about that, you really have poor reasoning ability). You conclude if someone lacks knowledge in some area than whatever they know about is wrong. Really stupid logic there.
I am willing to learn and my mistakes along the way do not in any way demonstrate that your points are valid or in any way useful.
Norman, your beliefs have all been crushed, again.
Radiative fluxes do not add, as I demonstrated with AM radio stations, igloos, and the example of adding photons.
You have no meaningful knowledge of physics. You thought “phase” was “polarization”. You read a wiki article and BELIEVE you are then an expert. We found out you don’t even understand basic algebra.
All you have is your typing. In your mind, if you can type it, it must be true. You believe you can type out your own reality. It’s called “delusion”.
Choosing delusion over reality makes you a clown.
Tim, I really liked your reply to, “the block of ice has to be really close”. Saved it for future reference.
****
One more time for Huffy and Flynn:
“Or slightly more specifically, ice has to occupy the the entire 2 pi steradians above the surface. So you could have a flat sheet of ice very close. Or a very large dome of ice over the surface. Or a small box of ice around the surface.
But once you have the full 2 pi steradians providing 300 W/m^2 of 270 K thermal radiation to a surface, then any other ice you might try to add will be “obstructing the view of other fluxes” as you say. So any new ice will block exactly as much previous ice, keeping the total the same.”
S,
So what fluxes can be added? If you have CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun, and the back radiation rom your 2 Pi steradians is a nice 333 W/m2 or so, can you add the 1000 W/m2 from the Sun?
That would be good – the Moon achieves surface temperatures in excess of 100 C easily, at those incident energy levels! Free steam powered electricity generation for all!
Fool. Wishful thinking won’t turn fantasy into fact. You can’t even describe your mythical GHE, can you? Sounds like religion – not science. Worship away. Pray for miracles.
Cheers,
“So what fluxes can be added? “
Well, all incident fluxes can and must be added. So of course you can add the 333 from the atmosphere to the 1000 from the sun.
And yes, you could easily generate some steam from that if you worked at it. But it would hardly be “free”. Apparently you are unaware that the maximum efficiency of any heat engine is 1- Tc/Th. So your generator would have a maximum theoretical efficiency around 1 – 300/373 = 20%. The real efficiency would be much less, making your idea impractical and expensive.
But you were never one to let actual science and engineering impact your wishful ‘gotchas’.
Tim Folkerts says, August 14, 2018 at 8:44 PM:
Mathematically, you can. Physically, however, it makes no actual sense. To be more precise, thermodynamically, it makes no sense. In macroscopic reality, only equivalent macroscopic fluxes add. Heat fluxes moving in the same direction add. But adding a ‘hemiflux’, essentially one of the two directional components mathematically/conceptually making up a heat flux, to an actual heat flux is totally confused.
This is why adding the 345 W/m^2 downward component of the OUTGOING radiative heat flux of the surface (to the atmosphere and space) alone, disregarding the fact that it is always fully integrated with the (slightly larger) upward component, to the ‘full’ 165 W/m^2 INCOMING radiative heat flux of the surface (from the Sun) is physically (thermodynamically) nonsensical.
It’s confused AND confusing, Tim. To people (like Norman et al.) who do not have the background knowledge to naturally distinguish between mathematical/conceptual models of real effects and processes and those real effects and processes themselves …
Kristian
You act like an expert on heat transfer physics. You are a retired geologist. What makes you the expert. The more I read of your posts and your blog I see you as someone that does not understand the correct physics and uses their own made up version to pass along.
The real effect is all objects are radiating if they have temperature. The heat lost by a surface is the combination of macroscopic (watts/m^2) energy it emits based upon its temperature and the amount of energy it absorbs.
The processes are of what is emitted and absorbed are different. You dime analogy is bad and does not have bearing on the reality. Snape’s is much better with his money analogy.
You are a pretend expert. Maybe some day you will read real physics books no heat transfer. I don’t think it will happen.
No one is confused by the real physics but you. It does not fit with your made up version.
Norman, Im afraid that is once again just 90% childish rant. Maybe 75% if Im being generous.
Tim,
You see what I mean?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
So explain why this is a childish rant? Not sure what your objection to it is.
I have asked both Kristian and your best friend JDHuffman to provide evidence for their declarations. So far neither has done the slightest bit toward this effort. I have posted many links to valid heat transfer. These two goofballs react with “I don’t understand what I am reading”. I ask for clarification of this position. They offer none. You are also one of those goofballs. You make claims but will offer no evidence. I am asking you for clear descriptions of exactly what you find childish in my post to Kristian?
You make maybe one on-topic point, in a typical comment. Then there are just lines and lines of:
You do not understand the correct physics.
You make up your own physics.
I know the correct physics.
Your analogy is bad.
Someone elses analogy is good.
You are a pretend expert.
You should read books on heat transfer.
I read books on heat transfer.
You are the one confused with the real physics…
Etc etc, ad nauseam.
But, at least Norman can type.
If only he had something constructive to write….
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Elaborate further. In your list:
“You do not understand the correct physics.
You make up your own physics.
I know the correct physics.
Your analogy is bad.
Someone elses analogy is good.
You are a pretend expert.
You should read books on heat transfer.
I read books on heat transfer.
You are the one confused with the real physics”
Which do you believe is not an accurate statement of fact?
The correct physics is clear: Objects with temperature emit IR. The heat loss of a surface is how much energy it emits minus how much it absorbs. This is a two-way exchange of energy.
Kristian’s dime analogy is bad. It assumes that two unrelated processes act together. They don’t and his analogy is a poor description.
Snape’s money analogy fits very well with what a surface is doing. A rich man (hotter object) is giving out more money than he is receiving but the two processes are separate and distinct. Much better analogy.
Yes Kristian should read heat transfer textbooks. The heat transfer he describes are not found in any of the valid material. The only reference he gives for proof of his ideas is his own blog. That is not valid science.
Yes Kristian pretends to be this expert. The real expert on this blog would be Tim Folkerts. There are a few others who post here with actual knowledge of physics. People attack David Appell. At least he posts many links to actual scientific studies. Considerably more than what your best friend and Kristian do.
Let me understand your point. Asking people for evidence is childish. Telling them they use bad analogies is childish. Telling them to read textbook physics is childish. Hmm, you don’t make a lot of sense. Not sure what your points are at all. More illogical irrational thoughts from you for no real reason. You post to annoy, making you a troll. Ban yourself and quit posting troll!
Its just a constant stream of garbage, with an occasional on-topic point. Besides the point there is this little flow of incessant arguments by repeated assertion, like: I know the correct physics, you dont know the correct physics, you make up your own false and phony physics, etc etc. Always short, simple statements (such as a child might make) continually asserting your superior knowledge and asserting others stupidity, ignorance, lack of logical reasoning ability etc. This is repeated thousands of times throughout your comments. Your overall MO (or the overall tactic of whoever is controlling the Norman avatar at any particular point) is like a rudimentary brain-washing technique. The repeated assertions dont even get picked up by the conscious mind, because after a while those reading the comments just zone out the assertions and only focus on the occasional on-topic point. But the subconscious is receiving this steady bombardment of all these little arguments by repeated assertion, all the while. I mean, its effective. For instance, Svante even recently said he thought you were brilliant. So I guess it works for you.
N,
Two facts –
The Earth’s surface is no longer molten, whilst the molten interior remains so.
You cannot describe the GHE.
Off you go. Deny, divert, confuse at will.
Maybe you could try appealing to a pair of bearded balding buffoons, pretending that endlessly calculating pointless averages will enable them to predict the future! Go for it – give the rest of us a good laugh, at your expense (not forgetting the buffoons, of course).
Cheers.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I disagree with your post and stand by my points.
So are you saying a poster can say the Moon is actually made of cheese and the astronauts are keeping it secret and no one has a right to challenge this?
When I ask someone to prove their declarations with supporting evidence from valid science and they will not, it is correct to make the claim it is made up physics. Especially when it goes against established physics.
I link to valid physics in most my posts. I make claims which are supported by valid science. This is the proper method of discussing scientific ideas.
Not sure what your complaint is about. Maybe you think people should be okay to make up any ideas they want and that is okay. Truth is not important, people’s feelings are. Maybe you think I should not point out people are peddling made up physics. I am doing it for the sake of science not for you feelings. We already have a political arena of made up ideas, people say anything they want about someone who they don’t like and it is okay. I guess you want that horrible system for science as well.
If you make a claim that is scientific, back it up. If you are new to this blog, I have asked Kristian many times to support his idea of one-way energy transfer. He has not done so to date. Your pal, JDHuffman, has yet to support his declarations that fluxes don’t add. So far this poster has not done so and it will seem they never will.
Sorry your words will not change my motivation. Keep science truthful, correct, accurate and definitely work to prevent made up declarations posing as if they were truth. You are just flat out wrong!
Can you demonstrate, with valid science, any point I made that is not correct or truthful? If so that would be a valuable use of your posting time. Allowing bad science sucks! As long as Roy Spencer allows me to post I will continue to oppose bad science.
Sorry Norman but your entire comment is just more of the same, just written with slightly more care than usual. Your portrayal of yourself as a defender of true science is just your subjective opinion. It has no impact or bearing on any of the arguments you make.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “Your portrayal of yourself as a defender of true science is just your subjective opinion. It has no impact or bearing on any of the arguments you make.”
Sorry you are wrong. It has complete impact on the arguments I make. I will look at textbook information on radiant heat transfer. Make an argument based upon that and then link to the source so others can see I am not making up the physics.
Your best pal, on the other hand, does not support any physics but you are okay with that. Why?
No, it has no impact on the arguments you make. You may read, or link to a textbook on whatever you wish. It does not guarantee you understand it or are representing it correctly. Others may do the same, or not, as they wish. Part of critical thinking is to research for yourself whether statements people have asserted may be true or not, and that holds whether those people back up their statements or not. There is absolutely no reason for anybody to take your arguments any more seriously just because you claim you are a defender of true science.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I guess my goal of keeping science a valid system to pursue the truth would not help in people taking an argument I make more seriously.
Still I will continue with my efforts. When people make declarations I will ask them for evidence to support their claims.
Do you think that making up physics and declaring it factual is a valid argument. Do you believe it is a valid position for a poster to declare a textbook on heat transfer wrong whereas they have zero evidence it is?
Do you believe Kristian has a valid position when he says that two-way transfer is just a mathematical model but not real? Even though all the textbooks state there is a two-way energy transfer. His view opposes all accepted textbook data yet he offers no evidence for his position, yet you think it is wrong for me to make the claim he is making up physics? I believe it is a valid position. If you cannot prove your claim, then why would I accept it is valid?
I made myself clear in the last comment.
T,
Are you joking, or just delusional?
Where on Earth might one find surface temperatures in excess of 100 C resulting from the unconcentrated rays of the Sun?
The highest natural surface temperature recorded is less than 60 C. Using a well designed and engineered collector, temperatures of maybe 90 C can be obtained. Still much less than on the Moon.
So no, Tim, no matter how much you work at it, you can’t overcome physics with climatological pseudoscience. No unconcentrated sun powered steam generated electricity!
As to efficiency, your comment is misleading and irrelevant as usual. I was merely pointing out the logical stupidity of your conclusion, borne out by reality. Apart from that, people who enthuse about photovoltaic power don’t worry about efficiencies below 20%. What a surprise!
I am surprised you managed to pack so much misdirection, obfuscation, and ignorance into a few sentences. Do you think you can do better in future, or have you achieved peak delusion?
Cheers.
MF, As usual, your straw man is easy to shoot full of holes. There are other Rankine Cycle systems using different working fluids which have been built to operate on waste heat below 100C. Systems using FREON have been marketed for more than 40 years operating as “Bottoming Cycles”.
You don’t need to boil water to build a “steam” engine!!
ES,
What part of my comment are you disagreeing with? None?
Steam is the gaseous phase of water – H2O.
Not Freon, not ammonia, not the gaseous phase of liquid CO2.
Deny, divert, confuse.
Bad luck. You still can’t even describe the mythical GHE, can you? So sad, too bad.
Cheers.
MF, I’ve built low tech solar collectors which have achieved temperatures above 100C, in fact, hot enough to melt Styrofoam and soften polycarbonate. I didn’t even use a material with a selective surface to do that. One could combine best practice solar collectors with a Rankine cycle based on FREON or other gas such as propane and produce electricity. It’s just that doing so would be inefficient because of the Carnot limit and thus cost much more per kilowatt-hr than present large scale generating systems.
No, it’s obvious by now that I can’t describe a GHE that you would accept, since you won’t accept any of the relevant science.
ES,
Not if your collectors relied on the unconcentrated rays of the Sun, you didn’t – at sea level, anyway.
You still can’t find anything to disagree with, can you? Just more deny, divert, and confuse. Standard fare for climatological pseudoscientists!
And you still can’t describe the GHE, can you?
To help you out a bit, I’ll use the Mpemba Effect, as a guide. In case you think I made it up –
“The Mpemba effect
The Mpemba effect is the phenomenon where hot water freezes quicker than cold water. The Royal Society of Chemistry offered 1000 to the person or team producing the best and most creative explanation as to why this occurs.
We received 22 000 entries to the competition. These were whittled down to just 11 finalists by the panel of expert judges and the public vote.
The winner of the competition, Nikola Bregovic, research assistant in the field of physical chemistry at the Department of Chemistry, University of Zagreb, Croatia, was announced on the 10th of January 2013.”
Easily stated, fairly easily reproduced, but difficult to come up with a testable hypothesis. At least one person managed to do so.
So try to state your mythical Greenhouse Effect. You can’t, can you?
Complete nonsense. Your blathering about relevant science is meaningless, if you can’t even say what you are trying to relate your undefined science to!
Press on. Maybe you can assert fantasy into fact if you assert really, really, vehemently! Let me know if you can.
Cheers.
MF, It pains me that you don’t believe my results, though that’s to be expected from you as it’s part of your game plan. I gave a hint of the details of the test, which you also ignored. I used polycarbonate multi-layer greenhouse glazing, which has an “R” value around 2.0, instead of glass with an “R” value near 0.5. As a result, much less energy flows thru the cover plate out to the surroundings. Of course, as noted by others, the polycarbonate was damaged by the higher temperatures, a fact which I had to consider and solve when I used the same cover material in the collectors I designed for my house.
To obscure your ignorance, you threw out a “red herring” as part of your demand for some theory of GHE which meets your impossible standards. It’s all just another blast from you in your quest to deny AGW while hiding your identity. You are just another useless troll, wasting everyone’s time.
“Where on Earth might one find surface temperatures in excess of
100 C resulting from the unconcentrated rays of the Sun?
The highest natural surface temperature recorded is less than 60 C. Using a well designed and engineered collector, temperatures of maybe 90 C can be obtained. Still much less than on the Moon.
********
The moon’s average temperature is much colder than Earth’s…..even with NOTHING between the sun and a thermometer on the ground. Your theory is an epic fail.
Make an effort to understand the GHE, Mike, instead of begging others to explain it to you.
S,
Are you disagreeing with anything I said, or just trying to outdo Tim in misdirection, obfuscation, ignorance and stupidity?
What is this theory you claim I have?
What is the description of this GHE which you claim I beg others to explain? Can you name one person (just one) I have begged to explain the non-existent GHE?
You are a fool. You cannot even describe this GHE which you worship so devoutly!
Carry on young Snape – pray harder, don sackcloth and ashes, chant the sacred Manntras ever more stridently! Try self flagellation if it makes you happy. It still won’t turn the CO2 heating fantasy into fact.
Off you go now. I wish you well.
Cheers.
Snape, Tim just said that of course you can add the 333 W/m^2 from the atmosphere to the 1000 W/m^2 from the sun. 1333 W/m^2 corresponds to a BB temperature of 391.5 K, or 118.35 C. That ought to give those not trolling pause for thought.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Your posts could have value if you possessed rational thought process.
You don’t have an ability to reason. You may know a little physics but you have no idea how to correctly apply even simple ideas.
In your case the 1333 W/m^2 potential is only of very short duration and will not lead to a BB temperatute of 118.35 C.
You would need to have this energy input on a continuous basis for a few days. It takes the Moon’s surface a few days to reach its high steady state temperature.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-average-high-and-low-temperatures-on-the-surface-of-the-moon
Also you have other mechanisms removing heat from the surface like evaporation and convection.
You really do not make very good points. Please stop posting. You are wasting the time of people who actually want to figure things out. You are what you post about, just another stupid troll posting stupid comments.
Norman, what you keep missing is the 1000 Watts/m^2 and the 333 Watts/m^2 do NOT add.
There is NO 1333 Watts/m^2. That’s why you never see the resulting temperature. Tim is WRONG, again.
You’re just trying to spin your way out of reality.
Learn some physics. Embrace reality.
JDHuffman
You are an incredibly stubborn pseudoscience poster.
I have asked you several times for you to support your declarations with an experiment or some valid science. To date you have done none!! Now you post again no evidence, no experiment, no valid physics. You did this when you posted as g.e.r.a.n and you did not change when you adopted a new posting identity.
No one is trying to spin but you. You are a spinner. No one is trying to spin out of reality buy you. Most posters are learning physics but you don’t.
Why don’t you embrace reality and do some science. Most are sick of your endless pseudoscience.
E. Swanson did a valid experiment showing you are completely wrong but you reject actual science in favor of your made up pseudoscience. You never tire of being wrong or making up stuff do you?
Norman, if you believe you can convince anyone with just your endless typing, you’ve got a lot of typing yet to do.
Proceed, as if you were making progress.
So JD …
* Suppose I aim an IR laser at some hole in the floor. The laser provides 0.0333 W into the 1 cm^2 entrance to the hole. What is the radiative flux? (HINT: 333 W/m^2)
* Suppose I aim an green laser at some hole in the floor. The laser provides 0.1 W into the 1 cm^2 entrance to the hole. What is the radiative flux? (HINT: 1000 W/m^2)
* Suppose I turn on both lasers and aim them at the same spot on the floor. What is the radiative flux from both lasers together?
a) 333 W/m^2
b) 1000 W/m^2
c) 1333 W/m^2
JDHuffman
YOU: “Norman, if you believe you can convince anyone with just your endless typing, youve got a lot of typing yet to do.
Proceed, as if you were making progress.”
Yet another post with no supporting evidence. You really do like to avoid proving what you claim don’t you.
How many more posts will you continue to do this. This blog all knows your empty tactics. Who are you still trying to fool?
Tim, the pretzel guy, winds himself even tighter, now with lasers.
Tim doesn’t understand what “coherent” light means.
(Desperate pseudoscience sure makes for great comedy.)
Norman Grinvalds, did you know that if you multiply one laser by 4, you now get 4 lasers?
See, learning is not so hard, is it?
JDHUffman
YOU: “Norman Grinvalds, did you know that if you multiply one laser by 4, you now get 4 lasers?
See, learning is not so hard, is it?”
Learning for me is relatively easy. I think for you it is next to impossible.
And yet another mindless pointless post from you in order to avoid having to give up pseudoscience and prove your declarations.
I wonder how many more posts you will create to avoid the reality that you just don’t know any physics and make up the rest.
Prove your declaration that fluxes do not add!
I have given you actual experimental evidence that they do.
E. Swanson’s two plate test. Proves you are wrong. You declare the test is wrong but you offer no evidence.
Norman, I still do not have a contact for my friend. He needs a dead-end job bad. He can type really good. Should he just contact their personnel office directly? Can he use you as a reference?
g.e.r.a.n
You are on a roll for worthless posts that do not relate in any way with the topics discussed. That makes one more post avoiding the Truth (you can’t handle the truth so you divert with really really stupid posts, lots an lots of them).
Prove your declaration that fluxes do not add!
You are avoiding this. Why? You post everything unrelated to this point. Will you post another stupid post that has nothing to do with science? Will you not find evidence for your claims?
Norman, you have a short memory. Obviously you forgot that you could not figure out how to add photons. If you can’t figure out how to add photons, forget about adding fluxes.
But, you did learn that if you multiply something by 4, you get 4 times what you started with.
You do remember that, don’t you?
JDHuffman
YOU: “Obviously you forgot that you could not figure out how to add photons.”
A correct statement would be obviously you will never support your absurd and dumb idea that fluxes do not add or subtract.
Here I will give you an example where fluxes add.
Fluxes add:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b74f78890b9a.png
The Solar Net plus the IR Net equals the Total Net.
Simple and proven. You don’t know what you are talking about but that has never stopped you before. You will continue to gab and BS .
ANOTHER funny one Norman!
You find a link that you don’t understand and present it as “proof” of your beliefs!
And, you never learn.
At least you can type….
Its quite simple, Norman. Mike already mentioned that using a well-designed and engineered collector, temperatures of maybe 90 C could be obtained. You could block convection and conduct the experiment in the desert, if you wanted. This 90 C corresponds only to the 1000 W/m^2.
Basically, if you could add the 333 W/m^2 to the 1000 W/m^2, somebody somewhere on Earth would have demonstrated something close to that resulting temperature of 118 C, by now.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Once again you post without any deeper thought or logic. You don’t seem to understand even simple physics or you would think about what you are posting.
Mike Flynn collector has a very small mass so you can get to a higher temperature with a small mass exposed to 1000 W/m^2 energy source (Sun in this case). When you talk about the Earth’s surface it has a much greater thermal system to warm. Most the surface is ocean and the energy penetrates some meters down and so you are heating a large mass of water. Sand heats fast and you can find that out walking barefoot in the sand on a sunny day. You can get surface temperatures up to 70 C when you are taking desert readings.
“A higher surface temperature of 159.3 F (70.7 C) was recorded by a Landsat satellite in 2004 and 2005 in the Lut Desert in Iran.”
https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html
Norman, there is a big difference between 118 °C and 71 °C. But, keep spinning and twisting reality. That seems to suit you.
Norman, why has not a well-designed and engineered collector, anywhere on the planet, under any conditions that you might wish for, ever demonstrated a temperature of anything like 118 C, ever, in history?
Roys EMT, There are several solar collectors capable of achieving temperatures above 100 C, especially those employing evacuated tubes. Looking thru the list from the Florida Solar Solar Rating & Certification Corp, one can see several with Y intercepts above 0.6 which produce good results at an output of 80 C, thus they will exceed 100 C under stagnation conditions.
https://youtu.be/jSoPeZMHMf4
ES,
A tube is not flat. If you have clear tubes, you have a collection of magnifiers – concentrating the rays of the Sun,
If you have metal opaque tubes, you have internal concave surfaces involved – more lenses.
Light is light, whether visible or not.
The unconcentrated rays of the Sun cannot achieve in excess of 100 C at sea level. The atmosphere reduces the amount of insolation.
Anybody who believes that CO2 or any other gas in the atmosphere can restore the energy lost within the atmosphere to the equivalent of that which is transmitted through a vacuum is simply stupid, ignorant and deluded.
Put your green plate and your blue plate in the Sun. Try to manipulate them into producing a temperature above 100 C without cunningly concentrating the sunlight, or introducing another energy source hoping no one will notice!
After you become the richest man in the universe, feel free to throw a billion or two my way, for prodding you into doing that which has never been done. Unconcentrated rays of the Sun, mind. Make sure you don’t try to measure temperatures with a thermometer made of glass – more curved surfaces, concentrating energy.
Off you go now. I wish you well.
Cheers.
MF said:
MFer, for a guy who claims to know a lot about physics, you sure are ignorant. You are thinking of a lens with opposing curved surfaces, though one side might be flat. With a tubular solar collector, the collecting plate is inside the tube, so there’s no concentration. I have no clue about your reference to metal tubes being part of a glass tube collector.
Of course, both the flat plate and the tubular collectors are tested at 80 C, which means that their stagnation temperature will be above 100 C. In fact, the stagnation temperature of a collector is an important measurement which is required for certification.
MF et al., HERE’s some information from a manufacturer of evacuated tube collectors. Notice the data for stagnation temperature, which is given as 442 F or 228 C. The collectors operate at 35% efficiency at a delta T of 120 C…
They’re twistin’, twistin’
Everybody’s feelin’ great
They’re twistin’, twistin’
They’re twistin’ the night away
Huffypuff says,
“Its quite simple, Norman. Mike already mentioned that using a well-designed and engineered collector, temperatures of maybe 90 C could be obtained. You could block convection and conduct the experiment in the desert, if you wanted. This 90 C corresponds only to the 1000 W/m^2.”
Of course. The key words being, if “you could block convection”. Using SB to calculate temperature assumes no atmosphere! It assumes no conduction or convection. It assumes only one out of the three possible methods of heat transfer is available for cooling.
With no atmosphere, the dark side of the moon gets unearthly cold. The sunny side, unearthly hot. On average, however, much colder than earth.
Farcical, not worth a reply.
Time for an analogy:
Let’s a small surface is absorbing 1333 w/m^2. At the same time, using a fan, we blow icy cold air across the surface. Will it ever reach the SB temperature? Please learn some physics!
ibid.
Convection is why the Congo doesn’t get as hot as the Sahara. Thermal updrafts, a result of the high humidity there, transport heat away from the jungle floor. In the arid Sahara….not so much.
“In general, cumulonimbus require moisture, an unstable air mass, and a lifting force (heat) in order to form.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud
ibid.
Snape says, August 15, 2018 at 10:37 AM:
Exactly. Conclusion: Convection easily negates any ‘attempted’ enhancement of a “radiative GHE” as defined. Shown here:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/the-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt-part-2/
and revisited here:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/the-congo-vs-sahara-sahel-once-more/
And also, the same general empirical finding, albeit on a smaller scale, here:
https://tinyurl.com/ybdf3zmp
Relevant quotes:
“(…)from Glaser’sresults for vertical windows it can be seen that the convective transferbecomes significant at around 9 mm for SF6, while there is practically noconvective transfer through an air-filled window at gapwidths up to 20 mmunder these conditions. In fact, air outperforms SF6at gapwidths greaterthan 9 mm in a vertical window and the benefits from infrared absorp tionby SF6have been negated by the magnitude of the convection.”
and:
“For larger vertical gap widths, where energy savings from the use ofinfrared absorbing gasses may begin to accrue, convection effects willbegin to take effect and negate the positive impact of going to larger gapwidths.”
After losing an argument, little huffy storms off, angrily muttering, “well that’s just stupid, not worth a reply”
lol!
ibid, ad infinitum.
Kristian
We’ve been down this road before. You’re conclusion is ass-backwards.
The Sahara radiates to space more than it absorbs. If the whole planet were that arid, it would likely cool until an equilibrium is reached.
The Congo absorbs MORE energy from the sun than it emits to space. If the whole planet were that humid, it would likely warm until an equilibrium is reached.
Snape says, August 15, 2018 at 12:16 PM:
Yup. And that road is closed. By the data. By reality. The average surface temperature in the Sahara-Sahel region should’ve been considerably LOWER than the same in the Congo, if the radiative part of their heat budgets dominated the others. It isn’t. It is considerably HIGHER. Convection dominates completely, especially the kind which is evaporatively driven. Moving along the surface from the Sahara-Sahel to the Congo, we see a drastic strengthening in the so-called “GHE”, while the heat input from the Sun remains unchanged. Yet, at the same time, the average surface temperature DROPS by several degrees.
If these data tell us ONE thing, Snape, it is that there is no physically valid reason to assume – as ‘Mainstream Climate Science’ does – that simply decreasing the radiative heat loss from a surface (by increasing the so-called “atmospheric back radiation”) MUST make that surface warmer on average. THERE ARE OTHER VARIABLES AT PLAY! The ‘All Else Being Equal’ premise is plainly and obviously an invalid one.
But as always with you CO2 heads, you deny reality and embrace your very own one-dimensional hypothetical reasoning and models based on that reasoning instead as somehow the conveyor of Truth. It only makes you look stupid and stubborn.
Good luck with that.
Earth’s energy budget shows a net loss from evaporation, thermals, etc.
(104.8 w/m^2). This is thought to be more than balanced by the LWIR absorbed by water vapor and then emitted as backradiation (included in the 340.3 w/m^2 backradiation from the atmosphere).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
“Earths energy budget shows a net loss from evaporation, thermals, etc.”
To clarify, I’m talking about the process of evaporation and convection moving heat away from the surface in one area, returning it as rain, warm winds to another. The cycle does not appear to be a wash, rather it produces a net loss to space.
That is different, though, than saying there is a net loss compared to the gains from backradiation..
“Evaporation is an important process in the global water cycle. Solar radiation hits the surface of water or land and causes water to change state from a liquid to a gas. This is how water vapour enters the atmosphere: moisture in the atmosphere is linked to cloud formation and rainfall. Evaporation acts like an air conditioner for the surface because heat is used when water enters the atmosphere as moisture. But at the same time, water vapour acts as a green house gas by trapping radiation in the lower atmosphere.”
http://www.waterand climatechange.eu/evaporation
Upthread, team moron (huffypuff) asked,
“Norman, why has not a well-designed and engineered collector, anywhere on the planet, under any conditions that you might wish for, ever demonstrated a temperature of anything like 118 C, ever, in history?”
******
“Some early selectively coated polymer collectors suffered from overheating when insulated, as stagnation temperatures can exceed the polymer’s melting point.[4][5] For example, the melting point of polypropylene is 160 C (320 F), while the stagnation temperature of insulated thermal collectors can exceed 180 C (356 F) if control strategies are not used.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_collector
Snape, Im going to ask you to please stop trolling, but its for your own good. You keep commenting without thinking, and it is only reflecting badly on yourself.
Snape, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Maybe you should take your own advice.
YOU: “You keep commenting without thinking, and it is only reflecting badly on yourself”
Snape is correct and you are just getting it wrong.
Here:
http://aspephx.com/limiting_stagnation.pdf
They actually want to limit the temperature of solar collectors since they will damage the units if they get too hot. If you have a 1000 W/m^2 solar flux and an air temperature of 30 C, a typical solar collector will reach 175 C if the heat transfer systems fail potentially damaging the unit. Time for you to reevaluate.
I hope you are not like JDHuffman who can’t learn when new information comes his way. Live an learn, it will do you well.
Norman, you seem to have forgotten you are looking for 1000 w/m^2 of radiation from the sun to add to 333 w/m^2 of radiation from the atmosphere to produce a flux of 1333 w/m^2, with a corresponding temperature of up to 118 C. Obviously stagnation temperatures are not the evidence you are looking for.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Your response would be the moving the goalposts tactic.
The article is a response to your Norman, why has not a well-designed and engineered collector, anywhere on the planet, under any conditions that you might wish for, ever demonstrated a temperature of anything like 118 C, ever, in history?
I already explained why the Earth’s surface would not get 118 C. Thermal mass and other heat loss mechanisms exist. So either point has been addressed.
The solar heat collector clearly demonstrates the GHE. The much colder ambient air is added in the equation to increase the temperature of the collector fluid.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5b74ec432603d.png
This graphic will help you understand. The downwelling solar is close to 1000 W/m^2 at peak. But about 200 W/m^2 are reflected so only around 800 W/m^2 are absorbed by the surface. But the surface is radiating away about 700 W/m^2. The surface would only absorb 100 W/m^2 if not for the downwelling IR. The surface would be much cooler without GHG. As it is the Surface gains about 500 W/m^2 at peak which gets it close to the actual surface temperature. This graph tells you that to achieve the surface temperature that is recorded you need the downwelling component. Remove it and you get a much colder surface.
No, the moving the goalposts tactic would be bringing up stagnation temperatures. Then the rest of your comment would be the completely changing the subject tactic.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Are you at all rational? Can you follow a logical argument?
YOU: “No, the moving the goalposts tactic would be bringing up stagnation temperatures.”
Why would that be? It is completely relevant to your statement.
YOU: “Norman, why has not a well-designed and engineered collector, anywhere on the planet, under any conditions that you might wish for, ever demonstrated a temperature of anything like 118 C, ever, in history?”
The stagnation is a condition of a solar collector. The temperatures not only get to 118 C but much higher. How is that moving the goalposts?
Now would the rest of the comment be changing the tactic? Why? Are you rational? What is the topic? It is directly concerning the effects of the extra downwelling IR from the GHG present.
If you remove the Downwelling component you will get a colder surface temperature if all else stays the same. Keep the atmosphere but without GHG. You have zero downwelling IR. You are removing 400 Watts/m^2 from the total.
Logically and rationally it follows the debate very well. What is your complaint about it? Look at the linked graph.
How do the temperatures get higher than 118 C, Norman? Does it have anything to do with fluxes adding? No, thought not. Hence why it is moving the goalposts.
Kristian
“If these data tell us ONE thing, Snape, it is that there is no physically valid reason to assume as Mainstream Climate Science does that simply decreasing the radiative heat loss from a surface (by increasing the so-called atmospheric back radiation) MUST make that surface warmer on average. THERE ARE OTHER VARIABLES AT PLAY! The All Else Being Equal premise is plainly and obviously an invalid one.”
******
You suffer from tunnel vision.
Climate science does NOT claim that a surface, surrounded by a humid atmosphere, will necessarily be warmer on account of having more GHG’s than an arid one:
” Evaporation acts like an air conditioner for the surface because heat is used when water enters the atmosphere as moisture.”
It claims that a planet, surrounded by space, and cooled ONLY by radiation, will warm if it absorbs more radiation than it emits.
Snape,
What makes you think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will reduce the amount of radiation emitted?
S,
You wrote –
“It [climate science] claims that a planet, surrounded by space, and cooled ONLY by radiation, will warm if it absorbs more radiation than it emits.”
So will a banana or a teapot.
What’s your point? Are planets different just because they have molten interiors? Or are you just proclaiming your ignorance and stupidity to the world at large?
Carry on.
Cheers.
Snape says, August 15, 2018 at 2:34 PM:
You suffer from chronic straw man syndrome, Snape. Read what I wrote, and then read your warped ‘rendition’ of it. You seem unable NOT to misrepresent what I write. It’s quite amazing to behold, actually.
The whole idea of “warming caused by an enhanced GHE” rests on the premise that if you simply put more CO2 (or H2O, or CH4, or any other IR-active gases) into an atmosphere (dry or humid), it will result in more “atmospheric back radiation” to the surface below, reducing the NET radiative energy loss from that surface, which – as long as the heat INPUT to the surface remains unchanged – MUST (will necessarily/inevitably) lead to warming of that surface. Do you deny this? If this is NOT the premise it is built upon, then the whole idea loses any kind of explanatory power. Then there is no way anyone can say that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere will create ‘global warming’. And we can basically drop the whole issue. But it IS the premise, Snape …
Phi, you already know what my answer will be, so why ask?
Are you of the mind that most of the IR emitted by the surface is already absorbed by the atmosphere, and consequently, adding more CO2 has little or no effect?
I disagree of course. Just wondering.
S,
I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. Nor are you, I surmise.
Nobody has described the non-existent GHE, and the surface of the Earth has cooled from its molten state. The interior remains molten, cooling slowly, of course.
What is it you disagree with, again?
Cheers.
Snape,
No, I do not already know your answer. The question is specific:
What makes you think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will reduce the amount of radiation emitted?
The ballgame is overall oceanic sea surface temperatures which are trending lower. Good bye AGW.
Phi
I’m going by this diagram:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/640px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
(It doesn’t separate CO2 from the other GHG’s, so I will have to lump them together. All values are in w/m^2. For simplicity, I will assume O2/N2 are totally transparent to solar)
*********
With no GHG’s, we get the following:
Incoming solar: 340.4
Reflected by surface: 22.9
Total absorbed by surface: 317.5
The surface will reach a temperature where it emits 317.5
******
With GHG’s
SWIR absorbed by surface: 163.3
LWIR absorbed by surface: 340.3
Total absorbed by surface: 503.6
Surface convective output 104.8
Surface radiative output: 398.8
*****
Summary:
With GHG’s, surface temperature is such that it radiates 398.8
Without GHG’s, surface temperature would be such that it radiates 317.5
Snape,
Thank you but you do not answer the question.
You wrote above:
It [Climate science] claims that a planet, surrounded by space, and cooled ONLY by radiation, will warm if it absorbs more radiation than it emits.
So I repeat my question:
What makes you think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will reduce the amount of radiation emitted?
It is clearly about the planet and not the surface.
PS : You should use the desktop version of the page to follow the threads.
Kristian
Funny that you left this out:
“It claims that a planet, surrounded by space, and cooled ONLY by radiation, will warm if it absorbs more radiation than it emits.”
Climate science does not claim that every part of the planet will be warmer on account of GHG’s……..convection transfers heat from one local to another (but not to space).
It claims the AVERAGE surface temperature will be warmer.
Snape says, August 17, 2018 at 12:49 AM:
That’s because this is not a claim made by Climate Science, Snape. This is a fundamental thermodynamic truth. All systems that have more heat coming in than going out will warm. It is a given. A physical fact. And so it is naturally not what is being discussed here.
Climate Science make further – and much more interesting, much more specific – claims.
Again, do you deny the following?
“The whole idea of “warming caused by an enhanced GHE” rests on the premise that if you simply put more CO2 (or H2O, or CH4, or any other IR-active gases) into an atmosphere (be it dry or humid), it will result in more “atmospheric back radiation” to the surface below, reducing the NET radiative energy loss from that surface, which – as long as the heat INPUT to the surface remains unchanged – MUST (will necessarily/inevitably) lead to warming of that surface.”
THAT’S the specific claim being tested.
I’m not saying that this is something that Climate Science claims, Snape. Pay attention. Read what I write. You seem way too busy creating straw men out of what your opponents are saying. You should concentrate more on what your opponents are ACTUALLY saying and make an effort to try and follow their actual arguments. You might learn something in the end …
Yes. It ALSO – in the same manner – transports heat AROUND the radiative impediment from more effective IR absorp tion down low, to the layers of more effective IR emission up high, Snape. Which is MY point, phi’s point, and Bart’s point.
Try follow what we’re actually saying for a change. I have yet to see it happen …
Kristian
Sorry for misunderstanding you.
() convection transfers heat from one local to another (but not to space).
Yes. It ALSO in the same manner transports heat AROUND the radiative impediment from more effective IR absorp tion down low, to the layers of more effective IR emission up high….
I agree completely.
Testing
Phi
CO2 absorbs radiation making its way to space, thereby slowing the rate of exit. You’ve heard this a thousand times though, so why ask again?
Snape,
Indeed, I have often read that. This is a reasonable and convincing explanation of the general principle of the greenhouse effect, but it is not an answer to the question that specifically concerns a transient drop in emissions from the planet.
Anthropogenic CO2 is usually injected into the atmosphere at very high temperatures. There would therefore be rather instantaneous and brief increase in emissions. This is of course anecdotal but it is not a decrease in emissions. Then, the CO2 cools and disperses quickly by modifying the radiative structure of the atmosphere and thus modifying the temperature profile. At first, I do not see that at any point in the process, we can say that there is a reduction in radiative emissions from the planet, let alone that we can calculate this deficit.
So, I repeat my question:
What makes you think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will reduce the amount of radiation emitted?
This is just gibberish:
“Then, the CO2 cools and disperses quickly by modifying the radiative structure of the atmosphere and thus modifying the temperature profile.”
A gas cools if it is warmer than the surrounding air. Simple. It disperses like smoke out of a chimney.
*****
” I do not see that at any point in the process, we can say that there is a reduction in radiative emissions from the planet, …”
If a photon is moving towards space at the speed of light, and gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule, its exit is delayed, if only slightly. Why do you not see this?
Snape,
“It disperses like smoke out of a chimney.”
Yes, that’s what I meant (sorry if I translated badly):
Then, the CO2 cools and disperses quickly and so, in the same time, modify the radiative structure of the atmosphere and thus modify the temperature profile.
If a photon is moving towards space at the speed of light, and gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule, its exit is delayed, if only slightly. Why do you not see this?
I did not say the opposite and that’s not the question. The question concerns the reduction of emission, reduction of emission which can in any case only be transient.
I help you a little. The emission reduction is supposed to be caused by a decrease in the emission temperature.
And I repeat my question:
What makes you think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will reduce the amount of radiation emitted?
Snape says:
If a photon is moving towards space at the speed of light, and gets ab.sorb.ed by a CO2 molecule, its exit is delayed, if only slightly. Why do you not see this?
This isn’t at all what actually happens.
Once a photon is ab.sorb.ed, it is gone forever. It ceases to exist.
An emission is a NEW photon.
There is no “delay.” None whatsoever.
Half of that emission goes downward (by symmetry). Half goes upward.
And then ab.sorp.tion & emission happens again, usually (but not always).
Until you get the physics right, you’ll never get your understanding right.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I am wondering about your selective bias on you application of what you determine to be trolling.
Here is the start of a chain.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2018-0-32-deg-c/#comment-316992
(If that links correctly).
In this chain with JDHuffman I am asking for him to prove his statement that fluxes do not add. He comes up with totally unrelated troll comments (attacking me intentionally without any purpose but to provoke emotional response, trolling). He did not even attempt to support his view or point but went about actual trolling and yet you do not make a post asking JDHuffman to “please stop trolling”.
Why are you so selective? Why do you accept JDHuffman’s intentional trolling as okay but if someone brings up a factual point about real science you jump in with your “Please stop trolling”?
What is your hidden agenda with your posting? Are you rejecting valid science and proper argument in favor of actual trolling as long as it is against physics you don’t understand?
Norman, the emergency Im currently more worried about is who has taken over commenting as Norman? Your writing style has all of a sudden utterly changed.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Only Roy Spencer would know, but you may be g.e.r.a.n, JDHuffman posting as this new interation.
You are using JDHuffman tactic. I made a valid point and asked you questions. You ignore the questions and divert to an invalid point that has nothing to do with addressing the questions in my post.
It would certainly explain why you allow JDHuffman to endlessly troll without the slightest objection but when David Appell links to a science article you call that trolling and tell him to stop.
Norman, your questions are only distractions. You have no interest in learning science. Your track record is here for all to see.
Dilbert shows how to handle Norman:
http://dilbert.com/strip/2018-08-17
JDHuffman
g.e.r.a.n (and maybe others) are you acknowledging that you are actually “Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team”?
I was asking this poster questions and you jumped in as if they were addressed to you.
Since you did jump in, do you have any supporting science for your BS claim that fluxes do not add? When people tell you to turn on more lights you talk about AM radio.
When people ask you to supply evidence for you claims you talk about 4 lasers (not exactly sure why).
So will you support you claim with actual science and not a distraction.
Norman, do you have any supporting evidence for your BS claim that you understand the relevant physics?
You seem so confused about AM radio. Your can’t understand some of your own links. And, we don’t even need to mention your inability to understand photons!
(Do you think I am also Dilbert? How many people am I? How many ways are there to measure delusional?)
JDHuffman
Look on many of my posts. I include links to valid physics.
You make your unsupported declarations that I do not understand REAL physics (I can’t follow your made up version) but what are these based upon. What actual physics source do you have other than your endless opinions on things.
I am not at all confused about AM radio. You are not competent enough to understand the material I posted to you on this. Basically you are not very smart and so cannot hope to understand what people tell you. Sorry that is reality.
Basically what you just posted is another troll comment. No content, no support for you claims, nothing but BS. What you are best at. Real science is not your calling.
Back to your AM radio. So you do not think an antennae will have more overall electric current based upon the number of stations in its reception? Hmmm. I wonder about you. Who actually understands photons? You do, what proof do you have of this. You know how to spell the word, great! I guess that makes you an expert on photons.
So you have no supporting evidence, huh?
Not a surprise.
JDHuffman
Read through this:
https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2012/jan/harvesting-energy-from-radio-waves
If you don’t look at the link: ”
However, narrowing the band of collected frequencies has the deleterious effect of rejecting other ambient energy that could otherwise be scavenged. Ultra-wideband (UWB) is a communications protocol that exploits a larger range of frequency to improve performance for certain applications. Wideband techniques are also employed for energy-harvesting applications to collect the widest possible array of frequencies in the bands with the greatest energy density available.”
Norman, you were supposed to provide evidence that you understand the relevant physics. You have provided evidence that you do NOT understand the relevant physics.
It’s too bad they don’t teach you any physics in typing class, huh?
JDHuffman
I am amazed you can post so many times and avoid saying anything.
So the ball is in your court. The odds are considerable you will not answer anything but continue babbling on and on avoiding any meaty posts with some substance. That is not your style.
So how does my link “Norman, you were supposed to provide evidence that you understand the relevant physics. You have provided evidence that you do NOT understand the relevant physics.”
It clearly shows that energy increases with each reception. There is more energy when you increase the band width. That is because each station ADDS energy to your receiver.
You, again, are opposite. I clearly understand the physics. Point it out to you. You do not understand it at all and post a babbling pointless comment. It is what you did as g.e.r.a.n and it is the same as you do as the NEW JDHuffman.
JDHuffman
Exactly why is it delusional to think of the possibility you post under multiple names? You used to post as g.e.r.a.n. Now you post as JDHuffman.
It seems odd that when you come up with some declaration these people (who never posted before…like J Halp-less) jump in and support you.
Now there is this goofy DREMT posting and telling everyone to stop trolling except you. You are the biggest troll here. Just really odd that when you post there are these posters who come to your aid.
It is not so delusional, just odd. Then they quit posting.
Norman, you are clearly able to type words. Next, you need to learn how to arrange the words into coherent thoughts.
Norman, Ger*an will never give you a straight answer. Why do you keep engaging him and MF?
DA, did you find your mythical “150 Watts/m^2” yet?
David Appell
It is a good question. It is kind of interesting to see how g.e.r.a.n will respond. I have tried to avoid this troll in the past but he will invade. I think he likes to provoke me because I respond to his nonsense. Not sure why he posts. I think he must be a very bored person and this is his form of entertainment. Thanks for the advise. Sometimes it does get tiresome with the troll.
I think he might be multiple identities on this blog.
Whereas most the time I think of Mike Flynn as a program, a bot with its creator sometimes stepping in to tweak it, g.e.r.a.n at least seems to be a person, goofy as they are. There is a chance with g.e.r.a.n to get a different response. Usually he likes to mirror ideas I send him about him. He uses the same ideas on me. Kind of funny if you don’t let him get you mad.
But Norman, that just are never worth it.
They won’t give you honest answers.
They won’t give you honest comments.
They are, somehow, thrilled just to get a little attention, like a response to one of their comment.
Ger*an lies about his own identity. What more do you need to know?
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
– Maya Angelou
Ignore them. There ARE people here who want to discuss the science. But don’t fall for their bait.
Norman and DA must live in constant fear of this g.e.r.
But they likely fear anyone that busts their tangled pseudoscience.
Speaking of tangled pseudoscience, DA did you ever find your mythical “150 Watts/m^2”?
David Appell
You are correct. I would much rather discuss science with adult personalities. This one is hard to shake once you paid them some attention. They jump all over you like a puppy. They need constant attention.
Other than amusement g.e.r.a.n is a useless waste of time. A true idiot in all ways, mentally, scientifically, and emotionally. You are also correct that after a few posts even the amusement factor goes away. He is not clever enough to make good remarks. Mostly just a dork. But he is the dork of this blog and now I don’t think he will leave me alone unless he chooses to get banned again.
That might be the this weird person’s idea of fun, getting banned and then coming back with a new identity and pretending it is not them. One really wacko person. Still much better than the really unpleasant Joe Postma. That one is a real mental case. g.e.r.a.n has many lose screws in his head but he does not seem as hostile as Mr. Sophist himself.
Norman, most of his comments are like you say, but once in a while he spots a real flaw in an argument. That’s when he puts out these riddles that you have to solve for yourself.
It’s like he gets input from a helper, but he has to play for time while the helper works out the details. Maybe he has to wait in line for the chief sophist himself.
Svante and Norman, if you two spent as much time learning physics as you do fantasizing about ger.an and Postma, you might be able to provide constructive comments…someday.
It’s just so intriguing that you insist on all your nonsense.
I don’t think you believe it yourself, because sometimes you go a bit too far. For example when you talked to top rate commenter MikeR here:
https://tinyurl.com/y9nhq5or
You said before that you feel like a winner when others lose their temper. What else is in it for you?
Thanks for that link, Svante. It just so happens I’ve been discussing the Moon, on another thread. I may be able to use ger.an’s info. (I noticed he uses “institutionalized pseudoscience” as I use “institutionalized science”. I think I like his term better. What they are putting out is NOT science.)
Glad to help!
Grinvalds, your comment, at your link, has no reality. Not one sentence is correct.
Possibly that’s why EMT responded to the emergency.
Phi
“The question concerns the reduction of emission, reduction of emission which can in any case only be transient.”
Maybe I’ve misunderstood you. By “radiation emitted”, I assumed you meant the LWIR leaving at the top of the atmosphere. That’s what gets reduced with more CO2.
Snape,
I assumed you meant the LWIR leaving at the top of the atmosphere.
LWIR leaving the planet, unspecified altitude of origin. This is implied:
It claims that a planet, surrounded by space, and cooled ONLY by radiation, will warm if it absorbs more radiation than it emits.
Thats what gets reduced with more CO2.
Maybe, but you have not explained nor demonstrated it yet.
What you have said is just as valid at equilibrium and therefore without reduction of emission.
Have to take my hat off to E Swanson for persisting with improving physical experiments to demonstrate the ‘green plate effect’.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
This last one is done in vacuum no less. Noteworthy is the smoothness of the curves, indicating little to no extraneous interference.
The denial of his experiments has moved further and further away from any substance as the experiments become more and more refined. While Swanson recreates Tyndall’s experiment, the hecklers never get their hands dirty. I don’t think they realize how specious their remarks look, as a result.
barry exudes: “I don’t think they realize how specious their remarks look, as a result.”
barry, that’s because you don’t understand the relevant physics.
Don’t worry, you’re still funny.
David Appell
“Once a photon is ab.sorb.ed, it is gone forever. It ceases to exist.”
Duh. But energy is conserved, isn’t it?
*****
“Half of that emission goes downward….. “there is no delay. None whatsoever.”
lol
Revisiting the moon rotation argument:
all of the moon is tidally locked to the earth. It does not actually contain an axis which is fixed to inertial space.
So why should we insist the moon rotates about something imaginary?
The tidally locked moon has more total kinetic energy than one which only rotates about the earth without rotating on its own axis. If this is to be accounted for mathematically in terms of kinetic energy of rotation, you need two rotations. The kinetic energy of rotation about the earth is not enough to account for the total kinetic energy of the moon.
Bob’s bank account would have more money in it than it currently does, if he had more money. If this is to be accounted for mathematically in terms of account balance, he needs more money. The current bank balance is not enough to account for his imaginary extra money.
Similarly, if I stand and turn in a circle, I am rotating relative to my surroundings, but so is every cell in my body.
There is no fixed axis, so why should we pretend there is?
Ms Snape, are you a blonde by any chance?
Thanks, Des
That doesn’t make much sense to me but I’ll take your word for It.
I do understand that, as you move further away from the imaginary fixed axis, the velocity of rotation gets faster. Not sure if that relates though.
The reality is AGW (that not it ever existed) is over. This is the transitional year and one can see that by looking at the trend of the overall sea surface temperatures over the past year. I had forecasted a down turn over a year ago due to very low UV light.
On another note the geological activity (earthquakes 4.0 or higher ) has increase over 20% during the last week and I have longed believed and still do there is a connection between high galactic cosmic ray counts and an increase in geological activity, as well as global cloud coverage.
In the meantime the geo magnetic field is weakening in concert with a weakening solar magnetic field which spells cooling. How much cooling is hard to predict because I do not know the duration and ultimate degree of magnitude changes of both the solar/geo magnetic fields. In addition I do not know what the threshold levels of change are for these fields which would result in a major climatic impact as opposed to a smaller one. Perhaps we will find out moving forward from here over the next few years.
In any event I think at the very least things are in play to cause a climatic shift similar to 1977 very likely ,but this time to cooler as opposed to warmer back then. In addition something more then a climatic shift is possible if the solar/geo magnetic fields weaken enough both in degree of magnitude change and or duration of time.
You use the word “reality” in the same sense as “reality TV”.
Global sea surface temps have been wobbling between 0.1 and 0.2 C anomaly (relative to 1981 to 2010 baseline) since May.
A ‘trend’ over a period of months is meaningless WRT global climate.
Between June and July, the UAH global sea surface temp rose by 0.07C.
If this ‘trend’ continues for 12 months we will get a change of 8.4 C.
That’s 84 C/decade.
If you think that tells us one iota about where the global climate is headed in the next few years, you are beyond help. If you think the trend of a handful of months signifies anything more about where the global climate is headed, you are just as hopeless.
Not seeing much daylight between your ‘reality’ and fantasy here, Sal. Your first order problem is to think a few months signifies anything about global climate.
Barry you are in denial. The overall sea surface temperatures are down around .2c since last summer and the trend it still down.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
The trend is down.
Denial of what?
January global SSTs were 0.19C. July was 0.21C (UAH data).
Is this meaningful?
The trend from Jan to July is -0.002C per month.
Is this meaningful?
I’m not in denial. You’re in fantasy land.
If the sea surface temperatures have gone from around +.35c deviation to +.55c deviation I would never hear the end of it from you.
Instead they have gone from +.35 deviation to around +.15c deviation which I called for a year ago.
Over the last year overall sea surface temperatures are down .2c and let’s see where they are by the end of this year. I say lower.
If the sea surface temperatures have gone from around +.35c deviation to +.55c deviation I would never hear the end of it from you.
On the contrary.
When the 2016 el Nino kicked in I didn’t make a fuss about the warmest temps in the record. I didn’t say that it proved anything about global climate. It was a temporary phenomenon 9as it always is), and the most interesting thing about that time was that the RSS global temp trend from 1998 went positive, and skeptics said the ‘pause’ was over – but it would soon be back! I had plenty to say about that.
But I didn’t prognosticate based on a few months of warm weather. Then – as now – I point out that it is the long term trends that are meaningful with respect to climate, not changes over a few months.
No, Salvatore, you are the one making calls on a few months of anomalies. This is YOUR problem. I simply hold you to what you say. I’ve always said I think your comments on temps over several months is meaningless – even when I held you to your (failed) prediction.
No one says every year will be hotter than the last under AGW – that’s YOUR fiction.
No one sane says that a few months of global temps proves anything about warming or cooling. That’s YOUR silliness (although there are plenty of other skeptics who get excited about a few months or days worth of cold weather).
Barry AGW is over.
Whatever.
and the next few years will tell the story.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 20, 2017 at 6:43 AM
“Now in year 2017 FINALLY it looks like my low average value solar criteria is going to be met following 10+ years of sub solar activity and this is why I am confident that some sort of global cooling will occur ,bringing global temperatures to or below the 30 year means within the next year. Let us say no later then the summer of 2018 unless a very strong EL NINO were to happen which is not likely at all.”
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 22, 2017 at 9:21 AM
“I am sticking with it which is global temperatures by summer of 2018 will be at or below 30 year means.”
Salvatore Del Prete says:
January 2, 2018 at 4:00 PM
“If solar stays low and year 2018 is not the year I will say this time I am wrong.”
Summer of 2018 is not “at or below 30 year means.”
This was your condition to say “I am wrong.”
Perversely, your prediction has failed and yet you are even more certain that ‘AGW is over’.
Your word is meaningless.
JD shrieks, “In tangential motion, both sides, and every particle of the whole, would have the exact same tangential velocity!”
Tangential velocity is proportional to the radius, dummy.
An orbit is just a path the orbiting body follows. Rotation when used to describe general rigid body motion, is rotation of the rigid body about it’s own axis (or center of mass/centroid).
wrong location.
More arguing (with the idiot) about whether the moon rotates or not, so I thought I’d bring back my “donut question” (last time, only one comment).
– If you move a donut around an EXTERNAL point on the table, that’s an orbit.
– If you spin a donut around a point WITHIN the donut, that’s axial rotation. But what if you take a bite, and give it another spin? Is the donut orbiting or rotating?
Barry I am satisfied with the drop in global indices thus far this year.
You’re satisfied with the drop in ‘global indices’? Let’s look at your preferred data set – UAH.
UAH global January to July:
0.26
0.20
0.25
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.32
Last month was the warmest this year. Trend over the year is strongly positive (0.12 C/year). Of course, the trend is not statistically significant.
UAH sea surface temps January to July:
0.19
0.24
0.14
0.11
0.09
0.14
0.21
Last month was the 2nd warmest this year. The trend is slightly negative (-0.03 C/year). Of course, the trend is not statistically significant.
The “drop in global indices thus far this year” is next to nothing. In fact, for truly global indices, there is a rise.
Who is in denial?
Global surface temps have risen by a whopping 1.2 C/decade since January!
Do you really think that is meaningful? It isn’t meaningful at all. It’s weather.
It’s equally as meaningless, and for the same reasons, that SSTs (UAH) have cooled by 0.3 C/decade since January.
As long as you focus on short-term events, you’re going to cheer at every cooling period, and deny deny deny at every warming period, but you will never be speaking of climate change, only the ordinary fluctuations.
Yes Barry I am satisfied. Overall sea surface temperatures down .2c since last year and global temperatures lower this year in contrast to last year.
If you believe the slight rise in temperatures from the end of the Little Ice Age through year 2017 was due to AGW you are a fool.
It was all natural variation and it has happened time and time again. There was nothing unique about the magnitude or duration of time of the rise in temperatures since the Little Ice Age ended.
AGW has hi jacked natural variation in the climate but that is not going to work now because natural variation is no longer going to cooperate with AGW.
So I say AGW, has had it’s day and you can cling to your phony scenario which I am sure you will to the end no matter what the data shows over the next few years.
Good Luck you will need it.
You will be on the loosing end.
you can cling to your phony scenario which I am sure you will to the end no matter what the data shows over the next few years.
But this is exactly what you’ve done for the last 10 years, Salvatore.
Every single time your many predictions haven’t panned out you rationalize it away. Your prediction for Summer 2018 failed. Yet again you were wrong. Yet again you rationalize your failure. Even worse, you claim victory.
“No matter what the data shows,” you “cling to your phony scenario.”
You are speaking of yourself Sal. That’s a perfect description of your behaviour over the last decade.
Wrong my prediction for 2018 is panning out, it just not quite dramatic as I was saying.
No I have said if global warming occurs 2018- next few years I am wrong. How much clearer could it be.
How clear could it be? I kept a record of what you said, Salvatore.
July 20, 2017 at 6:43 AM
“…I am confident that some sort of global cooling will occur, bringing global temperatures to or below the 30 year means within the next year. Let us say no later then the summer of 2018 unless a very strong EL NINO were to happen which is not likely at all.”
That’s clear.
August 20, 2017 at 9:24 AM
“Here is my prediction Des. 2017 is a transition year and by the summer of 2018 barring a strong El Nino , or higher solar activity both of which are very unlikely, the 30 year mean temperature trend as measured by satellite data and model initializations will be at or below 1980-2010 30 year means.”
That’s clear enough.
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
That’s very clear!
January 2, 2018 at 4:00 PM
“If solar stays low and year 2018 is not the year I will say this time I am wrong.”
That’s clear!
That was all clear a few months ago. I asked you about it – many times. You always agreed that this was your prediction, and that if it failed you would say you are wrong.
This prediction failed. You refuse to do what you said you would do.
And now you are pretending that you had a different prediction all along.
At no time last year did you say “if global warming occurs 2018-next few years I am wrong.” You are saying that now – pushing the time forward yet again – because your prediction failed.
You are quoted above, Salvatore. There is a record. You can’t re-write this history.
And you are doing again what you have done many times in the past, as quoted by David.
It is YOU who refuses to change their view in the face of confounding data. It is YOU who have done this consistently for years. Look in the mirror, Salvatore.
How clear could it be? I kept a record of what you said, Salvatore.
July 20, 2017 at 6:43 AM
“…I am confident that some sort of global cooling will occur, bringing global temperatures to or below the 30 year means within the next year. Let us say no later then the summer of 2018 unless a very strong EL NINO were to happen which is not likely at all.”
That’s clear.
August 20, 2017 at 9:24 AM
“Here is my prediction Des. 2017 is a transition year and by the summer of 2018 barring a strong El Nino , or higher solar activity both of which are very unlikely, the 30 year mean temperature trend as measured by satellite data and model initializations will be at or below 1980-2010 30 year means.”
That’s clear enough.
August 13, 2017 at 5:18 AM
“I still say according to satellite data global temperatures by next summer will be at or below 30 year means. 1980-2010.”
That’s very clear!
January 2, 2018 at 4:00 PM
“If solar stays low and year 2018 is not the year I will say this time I am wrong.”
That’s clear!
Barry it is cooling again I am satisfied with my predictions and the trends.
Again if it does not cool from now – over the next few years then you can say I am wrong.
Your on the losing end.
Solar is low and guess what all trends are DOWN!!!
Barry the prediction that is failing is AGW!
“the prediction that is failing is AGW!”
Salvatore, AGW makes no significant prediction for the weather over the next few years as you do.
AGW has to do with the 30-year global T mean level (top post chart mean line) in the next few decades supported by significant stat.s. What barry has made clear about your comments is you so obviously don’t understand the difference between weather and climate so still have much to learn about basic meteorology.
JustDumb stated:
You are not understanding that the reason there is no torque (eq. 21.6.8) is that there is NO rotating on its own axis!”.
You said “there is no torque”. That is NOT true. There are torques, but their sum is zero. Big difference, Bozo.
And he continues to ignore my earlier questions because he is clueless about the problem.
SGW
You’re discussing torque with someone who thinks the letter “N” on a compass is the part that’s fixed on North.
Subject: Predictions- Many do not seem to understand that the models do not incorporate the strengths of the solar /geo magnetic fields when making a prediction.
Earthquakes of magnitide 4.0 or higher have increased over 25% over the last few weeks. This geo magnetic storm(K7) may spur ) even more activity. Waitng for THE ! volcanic eruption.
I said 2018 (the only one) would be a transitional year. Sure enough global temperatures down and overall oceanic sea surface temperatures down.
They are going to continue down.
El Nino happy that is what the models are this year and were last year.
Forget Hurricanes /Tornados moving forward from here. They will continue to trend down on a global basis.
Getting back to the models/ analogs, the more extreme either way the solar/geo magnetic fields may be (in this case weakening) the more off those tools will be.
My simple theory is , very weak solar/geo magnetic fields equate to lower overall global temperatures due to lower overall oceanic sea surface temperatures(less UV/NEAR UV light) and a slight up tick in albedo due to an increase in major geological activity and an increase in global cloud/snow coverage tied into an increase in galactic cosmic rays in response to very weak magnetic fields.
In addition there are threshold levels of magnetic weakness out there that could result in a major as opposed to a sight climatic shift. If one looks at the historical climatic record/ ice core data major/abrupt climatic changes show up more often then not.
Something is causing it to happen and it is not the slow gradual change of the oceans heat content. Besides ocean heat content does not matter it is the surface oceanic temperatures that matter when it comes to the climate and they can change fast.
In closing I say the so called AGW ended in late 2017.
Data from Weather Bell. Still Dr. Spencer’s data is THE data.
weather bell year 2016 — avg global temp. +.457c
year 2017 –avg glbal temp. +.411c
year 2018 thus far avg global temp +.266c
ALL BASED ON 1981-2010 BASELINE.
No surprise that two consecutive years are cooler following the year of very strong el Nino.
Let’s look at what happened after the 1998 el Nino.
1998: 0.482
1999: -0.016
2000: -0.021
Satellite data – DR SPENCER
First 7 months of year 2017 – +.267c above 1981-2010 baseline
year 2018 – +.233c above 1981-2010 baseline.
Full year +.352c above 1981-2010 baseline according to satellite data.
Will not be that high this year.
Let’s get the numbers right:
2016: 0.515
2017: 0.377
2018: 0.231 (so far)
First 7 months of 2017 av was 0.310
Compare with the 3 years from 1998 strong el Nino:
1998: 0.482
1999: -0.016
2000: -0.021
First thing to notice is that there was a big drop of 0.5C from the 1998 Nino to the following year.
The drop from 2016 to 2017 was 0.14.
That was very likely because the 1998 el Nino was followed by a strong la Nina.
There was at best a weak la Nina following the 2016 el Nino, and temps dropped off less rapidly.
No surprise at all that 2 years following a very strong el Nino are cooler. It would be very strange if they were not.
Global temps since early 2016 are – and can only be measured as – the result of transient effects.
This time I say is different because of the solar/geo magnetic factors which were not in play back then.
It is still to early to know but it will be very interesting to see where the temperatures go from here.
You Ball do not know what you are talking about.
If the global temperatures decline over the next few years see how many will be left with your beliefs.
Answer, only the fanatics which you are one of them.
I think Barry is more reasonable and might come around.
On the other hand if temperatures keep going up over the next few years in the face of all the natural indicators pointing to cooling I will be wrong.
I am able to admit wrong. Ball you on the other hand will never admit wrong, no matter what may or may not happen moving forward.
8:48 am: “If the global temperatures decline over the next few years see how many will be left with your beliefs.”
AGW can not, and is not meant to, predict the weather over the next few years Salvatore – which is what you are doing.
Your weather predictions may work out or they may not & however your weather predictions come out, they will have no effect whatsoever on basic meteorology.
Climate is about the 0.0 mean line in the top post Salvatore, if that line moves due weather over decades of time then so has climate. Move your focus to the mean line and you will start discussing climate.
No I am not. We will agree to disagree.
If Salvatore does not change, then all of his global Tmean predictions over a few years will simply remain weather predictions.
It is generally accepted to correctly agree to disagree based on opinions Salvatore, but not on basic meteorological definitions such as weather and climate. Your prediction of global Tmean over a few years correctly is weather not climate.
You and I can’t correctly agree to disagree on your weather predictions over a few years as I make no weather predictions, nor does what Salvatore terms “AGW”.
Ball ,my message is AGW is over (that not it ever existed to begin with ) and global temperatures from this point in time moving forward will be overall lower.
If you want to call it weather so be it.
AGW has hi jacked natural variation(since 1850) to promote it’s nonsense but that all started to change in year 2005.
Now come late 2017 the solar conditions necessary to promote cold have come to fruition and sure enough thus far year 2018 is living up to be a transitional year.
This, if it persist which I am quite sure it will , will be the death nail for AGW regardless of how others may want to try to spin it.
It will not matter. If global temperatures fall over the next few years you can kiss AGW theory goodbye. It will be relegated as obsolete by all but a few fanatics.
Good luck Ball you will need it.
“If global temperatures fall over the next few years you can kiss AGW theory goodbye.”
Global temperatures have already fallen “over the next few years” several times in the UAH 6.0 satellite record, Salvatore, without any basic meteorology theory needing to be changed or becoming obsolete. It was all just weather.
There is no luck needed to understand the basic theory, just some beginning text book study and the pre-req.s accomplished. As I’ve written many times before, your weather predictions may pan out or not. Either way, there will be no effect on basic meteorology nor will it become obsolete.
I do not know what you are talking about and neither do you.
Latest SSTs, Salvatore.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Barry this is what has to be watched the overall sea surface temperatures.
You have many times said that Weatherbell and UAH are the only data sets you accept. You also accept this one, too? ‘Tropical tidbits’?
Any other data sets receive your imprimatur?
Weather bell I just put up there . I only accept Dr. Spencer’s satellite data.
I say now- next few years is key.
The record year of the 2016 el Nino may not be beaten for a few years. That wouldn’t mean that there isn’t an underlying CO2 forcing.
Here’s my prediction. This is Shortest term I can make it to mean anything with respect climate (change).
The 5 years from 2018 to 2022 will be warmer than any five year period up to and including 2009.
Any shorter/sooner than that and natural variability could swamp any underlying signal.
It is amazing how you can buy into AGW.
Have you never looked at the historical climatic record even going back just 10,000 years.
If you did you would quickly see this period of time in the climate is in no way unique, not in the rate of warming, not in the degree of magnitude change in the warming.
.
To make it worse this warming of the past 150 years followed the end of the Little Ice Age.
“It is amazing how you can buy into AGW.”
It is amazing that Salvatore somehow comments other commenters buy into AGW (Salvatore term) being based on:
1)the historical climatic record even going back just 10,000 years.
2)(current) period of time in the climate is in no way unique
2a) not in the rate of warming
2b) not in the degree of magnitude change in the warming.
The basic principles of meteorology are properly bought into based on lab & in situ experiment consistent with those observations, Salvatore, not just those observations you mention.
Unlike yourself Barry has enough confidence (which I respect) to make a prediction, which may or may not be correct.
Good going Barry, you have enough conviction to put yourself out like I have done even though it is opposite but that does not matter.
Unlike myself, barry & Salvatore have enough confidence to make irrelevant weather predictions. This blog and Savatore’s termed “AGW” are relevant to climate not weather.
Whenever Salvatore makes a climate prediction based on basic meteorology, that will be news worth matching.
Alternatively:
The 10-year period 2017 to 2026 will be warmer than the 10-year period 2005 to 2015.
Barring any super massive volcanic activity.
I say the chances of the 10 year period from 2017 -2026 being warmer then the 10 year period from 2005-2015 is zero. Less then zero if it were possible.
I also think the 10 year period from 2017-2016 will wipe out all of the global warming that occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age.
Barry we will see, but I am glad you made a bold prediction. It will be interesting.
Have you never looked at the historical climatic record even going back just 10,000 years.
Yes. The proxy-derived records from ice-cores, tree rings and other sources.
That’s how we know global climate can change.
We also try to assess what caused past changes, and combining that with more recent observations we learn that more than one thing influences global-scale changes in average conditions.
This helps to inform us of what might be causing changes now.
If you did you would quickly see this period of time in the climate is in no way unique, not in the rate of warming, not in the degree of magnitude change in the warming.
The surface of the planet is estimated to have been 1000 C soon after its formation. No one is claiming that current temps are unprecedented against the evolution of surface temperatures. So I don’t know what your point is with that.
I don’t believe you have sure evidence that the current centennial rate of global temperature change is slower than some other period in the distant past.
I have bolded global change, because I believe you will try to present evidence only from Greenland to support your contention. Of course, Greenland is not the whole globe. Greenland has 0.4% of Earth’s surface area.
barry believes: “The proxy-derived records from ice-cores, tree rings and other sources.”
No barry, that is pseudoscience. No fair court would even allow such “evidence”.
The best estimate is something like this:
https://tinyurl.com/yb8sloql
barry,
I don’t believe you have sure evidence that the current centennial rate of global temperature change is slower than some other period in the distant past.
You reverse the burden of proof !!!
So :
I don’t believe you have sure evidence that the current centennial rate of global temperature change is faster than some other period in the distant past.
There is no data of temperature proxy that reveals a particular behavior in the twentieth century. The graph of Svante is pseudoscience, it plays with different smoothings according to the periods and mix data of different natures that are inconsistent with each other.
My point is there is nothing unique about the climate currently.
You reverse the burden of proof !!!
Nonsense. Salvatore made a claim. He has the burden of proof.
If I had made a claim, then the burden of proof would be mine. But I did not make a claim about this topic.
Please try to keep up with the conversation.
barry,
You are asking for proof of normal climate behavior to someone who thinks there is nothing unique about the climate currently
It’s curious to say the least. It’s up to those who say something exceptional about climate to bring exceptional proof. There is nothing.
It’s up to those who say something exceptional about climate…
When “those” who say so come here and express such views then the burden of proof is on them.
You are imagining a different conversation to what is actually going on here.
You are asking for proof of normal climate behavior to someone who thinks there is nothing unique about the climate currently
I’m asking for persuasive corroboration of his claim.
When a claim is made it begs a null (its opposite), it never proves that null just by saying it. Sal’s claim is an assumption in that regard. The burden is on him to make it more than an assumption.
barry,
Salvatore’s claim :
If you did you would quickly see this period of time in the climate is in no way unique, not in the rate of warming, not in the degree of magnitude change in the warming.
The claim is that of the non-existence of the observation of an exceptional hypothetical fact.
You can not ask a proof of nonexistence, it is eventually up to you to prove the fact.
As I have said if one goes back and looks at the historical climatic record this period of time does not have a record rate of warmth , does not have a record degree magnitude change of warmth or absolute high global temperatures of warmth.
It is not even close therefore to think that this period of time in the climate is somehow unique or different is absurd.
Now if global temperature from here were to continue to rise say another 1.0 from here say over the next 20 years then a case might be made.
I will admit I am wrong if that should happen that is for sure.
1.0 C
Let me clarify if the temperatures even go up as little as .2c over the next few years I will be wrong.
+0.2c is:
not a record rate of warmth
not a record degree magnitude change of warmth
not absolute high global temperatures of warmth
not even close therefore to think that this period of time in the climate is somehow unique or different is absurd.
What then makes Salvatore write “if the temperatures even go up as little as .2c over the next few years I will be wrong”?
because I am calling for temperatures to go down, that’s why.
“If 2018 is not the year then I will say I am wrong.”
But in 2018 Salvatore started taking about the temperatures of the next few years.
Repeating a pattern that he has persisted with for a decade.
Sal, if in the next few years the temps go up by 0.2C or more, you will make up another excuse.
I’ve tried to hold you to something and you wriggled away when it didn’t work out.
Surely you realize after all this time that nothing could make you change your mind, and that all suggestion you make otherwise is a load of hot air?
Barry 2018 is colder thus far. This however is not good enough for me to think I could be correct. I realize I have a long way to go but the trend at least is thus far good.
Time will determine.
Let me repeat for the umpteenth time … annual averages do not represent climate.
Let me clarify if the temperatures even go up as little as .2c over the next few years I will be wrong.
That’s not clarified. It’s typical of your vagueness, from which you can try to extract yourself later.
0.2 C up from… what? The UAH temp in July? Which is the warmest month this year?
Or up from the 2018 average so far?
Or up from the total 2018 average?
Or 0.2 C higher than the 1980-2010 baseline?
Can you actually clarify?
And what is the “next few years?” Do you mean three or ten?
Dare I ask you once again to make an absolutely clear and specific prediction? Because what you’ve just said “to clarify” is definitely not that.
2 years . Up from the recent 1981-2010 30 year means.
Why would temperatures go up 0.2C in 2 years when the trend is only 0.13C per decade? At the current rate it should take 15 years to rise by that much.
My guesstimate for August UAH: +0.17
It’s actually a great and useful piece of info.
I’m happy that you shared this useful info with us.
Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for
sharing.
The best part of this blog is content is nice and informative.