The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2019 was +0.36 deg. C, essentially unchanged from the January, 2019 value of +0.37 deg. C:
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 14 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.11 +0.59 +1.36 +0.43
2018 02 +0.20 +0.25 +0.16 +0.04 +0.92 +1.19 +0.18
2018 03 +0.25 +0.40 +0.10 +0.07 -0.32 -0.33 +0.60
2018 04 +0.21 +0.32 +0.11 -0.12 -0.00 +1.02 +0.69
2018 05 +0.18 +0.41 -0.05 +0.03 +1.93 +0.18 -0.39
2018 06 +0.21 +0.38 +0.04 +0.12 +1.20 +0.83 -0.55
2018 07 +0.32 +0.43 +0.22 +0.29 +0.51 +0.29 +1.37
2018 08 +0.19 +0.22 +0.17 +0.13 +0.07 +0.09 +0.26
2018 09 +0.15 +0.15 +0.14 +0.24 +0.88 +0.21 +0.19
2018 10 +0.22 +0.31 +0.13 +0.34 +0.25 +1.11 +0.39
2018 11 +0.28 +0.27 +0.30 +0.50 -1.13 +0.69 +0.53
2018 12 +0.25 +0.32 +0.19 +0.32 +0.20 +0.65 +1.19
2019 01 +0.37 +0.32 +0.42 +0.37 +0.48 -0.18 +1.10
2019 02 +0.36 +0.46 +0.26 +0.43 -0.03 +1.03 -0.07
The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through February 2019 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
The UAH LT global anomaly image for February, 2019 should be available in the next few days here.
The new Version 6 files should also be updated at that time, 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
Another wave of Arctic air reached the Great Lakes. The temperature at night will drop drastically.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00980/0djfo2q2vnva.png
WHO EFFING CARES
The myopic observer.
https://tinyurl.com/y48846u5
B,
ren, perhaps?
You could refrain from trolling, if you really felt like it.
Cheers.
bob…”WHO EFFING CARES”
I do. Ren’s doing a great job, you’re just a sheep molester.
It is telling that conservaturds can’t separate insulting a single person from insulting an entire country.
Well you’re an insult to the entire human race. How’s that working for you?
B,
Do you feel insulted by being referred to as a sheep molester? Why?
Have you no self esteem, or is your boyfriend perhaps named B-a-a-a-sil?
You could always stop troliling, or just decline to feel insulted – although this might be difficult if you are really as stupid and ignorant as you appear.
Cheers.
bob…”It is telling that conservaturds cant separate insulting a single person from insulting an entire country”.
There are many fine Australians, you just happen to be one of those Aussies for whom the saying was coined that mean are men and sheep are nervous.
There are some people with sirius density problem here and I’m not talking air density.
Any board without up keep and moderation attracts the lunatick types
Don’t worry, I’m here.
Look at the circulation in the lower stratosphere over North America.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/03/01/2100Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-100.27,60.27,679
Here I am praying for snow in Japan and it is a no go. Too hot.
A ruined ski season for many.
Looks like another uptick in the UAH data. That’s probably a disappointment for those who expected the US experience of some rather cold, but not unusual winter weather in February, to be a sign that there’s no global Warming.
The 12 month averages for March 2018 thru Feb 2019 are:
Globe = 0.25
NH = 0.33
Tropics = 0.23
Arctic = 0.47
US 48 = 0.34
yup. usa48 basically average is something of a shocker.
I’m sure Salvatore will be along any minute now to explain when he expects the cooling to start
I am seriously surprised that you Guys do not understand that what the Satellites are measuring is the Warmth escaping the Earth via the Atmosphere and bears little relationship to what is happening on the Surface.
It will take many years before the Surface cooling shows up in the Atmosphere losses to space.
Even if the surface is covered in Ice the higher albedo will put the Solar energy back in to the Atmosphere with little surface warming.
so the most recent super el nino actually occurred….when?
What surface cooling?
“It will take many years before the Surface cooling shows up in the Atmosphere”
And which surface cooling are you referring to?
No need for the repeat, barry.
Not a surprise to anyone who realizes we’ve had El Nino conditions since mid September. The rise in January was predictable. If the El Nino fades away then the warming will fade away as well.
I like to Look at the data because it takes all the averaging out of it, which hides many features. If you look at the UAH satellite temperatures, it appears that before the El Nio in the early .
90s, the temperature was stable around -.15 anomaly. Then after the late 90s
La Nia was over, it was again stable before the El Nio in the mid- teens, oscillating around a midpoint about +0.1 anomaly. If the mid teens La Nia is over, it looks like it may be settling in at +0.3 anomaly. Its way too early to say whether we are post La Nia and where it will settle.
Has anyone ever looked to see whether El Nios could cause a step change in global Temp? I cant propose a mechanism, but that is really what the data seems to indicate.
If you look at all the data at once statistically, you hide this kind of internal feature. If you just did a simple regression before 1995 another from 2001-2015, Ill bet you find a statistically different average. It is yet to be seen what happens post 2018..
There is something there we just dont understand. Just sayin.
DaveM says:
“Has anyone ever looked to see whether El Nios could cause a step change in global Temp?”
Dr. Roy Spencer, Phd, did this:
https://tinyurl.com/y7t5os8z
Roy wrote:
“The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through February 2019 remains at +0.13 C/decade.”
Hardly shocking or disappointing.
Seems Earth is still coming out of the Little Ice Age.
A couple of interesting weather blogs about February in Washington State:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2019/02/third-coldest-february-in-seattle.html
http://inlandnorthwestweather.blogspot.com/2019/02/february-recap-records-broken.html
Thanks Roy.
That’s right, the increased greenhouse effect is still warming the earth out of the LIA.
It’s increased sunspot activity.
That has been decreasing since the sixties.
Since the serious warming began in the mid 70s, sunspot activity has been FALLING.
Bobdesbond says: on Mar.1,2019 at 3:37PM “the increased greenhouse effect is still warming the earth out of the LIA.”
Wrong. Increased solar activity is still warming the earth out of the LIA: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif
The increased solar radiation has caused the ocean warming, and that huge thermal mass is transferring heat from the oceans to the atmosphere. CO2 is basically along for the ride as an effect, not a cause.
John…”A couple of interesting weather blogs about February in Washington State:”
I live just north of Washington State, in Canada, near the border and the ocean. It has been inordinately cold around here and the cold has persisted. Normally, it’s only cold for a week, two at most.
We’re stuck in it for another week at least and as ren pointed out, the Chicago area is in for another blast of record setting cold.
Global warming, my butt.
G. R. wrote
” I live just north of Washington State, in Canada, ”
Cold air flows into the large Fraser drainage and moves southwest.
Then that cold air comes roaring out of the Fraser, turns south, and meets the moist air in Puget Sound. Communities there get all tangled up in snow.
I think we need a wall, and folks from B.C. should pay for it.
Actually, we are east of the Cascades. Arctic air has to get into the State, then goes down into the Columbia River Valley. We are west of the River, so cold air has to fill that area first and then come back up to over 2,200 feet (670 m). To accomplish this takes a whole lot of cold air, but it happens.
Models indicate that on or about March 9th, cold will show signs of fading.
Jon…”Models indicate that on or about March 9th, cold will show signs of fading”.
I am grateful. I worked night shift in -25C weather near Edmonton and folks up there would regard our cold spell as a cheery warming. Some would call it a chinook.
No need for a wall, we Canadians get treated far more harshly than Mexicans if we sneak in and work illegally. That’s because we won’t work for nothing. Personally, I have never felt the urge to sneak into the US.
ps. I’ll bet NOAA has no thermometers in the Cascades. They’ll all be located by the oceans, where it’s some 15 degrees warmer.
And what’s with you guys having a tornado near Seattle? That’s bizarre.
0.36 C is nothing. Only the 5th warmest February on record. It was 0.1 C warmer in 2010, which is 9 years ago… so much for global warming!
Let this be the Final Nail in the coffin of the AGW scare!
TFN
Please explain why you expect natural variation to disappear in a warming world.
No one expects it to disappear. In fact, a lot of people view a warming (or cooling) world to be just another example of “natural variation”. Too bad we can’t get any climate model coders to study natural variation.
RM,
Who needs to actually know anything about Nature? They are using really, really, big computers which go really, really, fast. They cost really, really, large amounts of money to run.
Obviously, politicians wouldn’t hand over really, really, large amounts of money to a pack of bumbling idiots who produce nothing at all of use to man nor beast, would they?
Or am I wrong?
Cheers.
Nine years is nothing, CO2 is long term.
svante…”Nine years is nothing, CO2 is long term”.
CO2 has no effect on warming, so who cares?
Ah, but it helps plants grow. And we need plants to feed the animals to feed the people.
CO2 makes a difference, the direct effect is 2 W/m^2:
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
Svante, that “2 W/m^2” is pseudoscience.
It comes from a bogus equation that has no derivation or empirical validity.
It only makes a “difference” to clowns.
S,
Is that 2 W/m2 more powerful than 300 W/m2 emitted by ice, or is it special pseudoscientific climatological Wattage?
Are these special recent Watts unconnected with the Watts that have resulted in the Earth’s surface cooling over the last four and a half billion years?
You can’t raise the temperature of water at all, using 300 W/m2 from ice. How much hotter does water get using your special pseudoscientific Watts?
You have no clue, have you? Fanaticism is no substitute for science. Carry on with the comedy routine.
Cheers.
Battle proved MODTRAN keeps you safe:
https://tinyurl.com/yy62njvv
Svante, “battle proved”? What “battles” are you talking about? Your battles with your boyfriend?
MODTRAN is a computer simulation programmed on AGW!
But, we appreciate you humor.
S,
You’ve become even loonier. It’s about a simulation. Might be correct, might not. Just like one of a hundred climate simulations with different results might be be correct – or none might be.
Battle? Battling fact with fantasy is not likely to bring success.
Carry on acting the goat.
Cheers.
2 W/m^2 is not a lot, and it’s only one side of the balance.
No, it’s not a lot, 0.4 compared to 288 K.
A thousand papers on MODTRAN and missiles for Mike and JD:
https://tinyurl.com/yxr2ly7n
Looks like it can be applied to great effect.
S,
Are you quite mad? You link to computer modelling papers in general. That is about as stupid as linking to GCMs and pretending they are worthwhile.
Luckily, not everyone is as gullible as you.
Aircraft designers use tried and tested modelling based on measurement and reality. After all that, the aircraft undergoes testing using experienced test pilots. So much for betting your life on a computer model, without verifying the results.
From MODTRAN –
” . . . radiance accuracy is approximately 2%.” Using a theoretical standard atmosphere, of course. At least you get to pick one of six standard atmospheres – none of which are accurate.
Carry on believing. Maybe you could find just one testable GHE hypothesis, rather than thousands of pointless computer modelling exercises.
Cheers.
Of course it is tried and tested, turns out it works.
Bart
The difference between the Maunder minimum and the peak at the end of the last century is about 1.2 W/m^2 (averaged over the 11 year cycle). So if 2 W/m^2 is not much, then neither was the drop in activity of the Maunder minimum.
Or…
Begging the question.
The main thing is that it is not too hot in Australia.
Some of you may have noticed, Australia is a big place, even bigger than Texas ( hard to believe I know).
For the record ( the last few months have brought a lot of new ones in Oz) , Hobart has just had its hottest March day on record of 39.1 C easily eclipsing the old record of 37.3 C.
Along with all the other ecological shifts southwards the human population is joing them but even Tasmania maybe only be a temporary refuge. Next stop south is Macquarie Island. I hear real-estate is still very cheap there.
MR,
No need to flee South. Come North to Darwin. Even with the best efforts of the BOM, our absolute maximum temperature is less than that of Hobart.
It doesn’t even get really cold in Darwin, either.
The rest of Australia is obviously too hot for me. Darwin has the lowest maximum temperature of any Australian capital. I’m sure there is a valid pseudoscientific model which explains all.
Cheers.
Yes Darwin, is very pleasant in the winter. Enjoyed many a beautiful sunset at Mindil beach.
The six months summer humidity is a bit brutal though unless you like that kind of thing. Despite this the maximum temperature is constrained by the absence of the blisteringly hot winds in summer from central Australia that causes the extremes in the other capitals. I guess you can blame the summer monsoon for that. As they say it’s an ill wind ….
I also haven’t heard of too many internally displaced climate refugees heading north. If there are refugee caravans on the way north then the rabbit proof in central Australia could be upgraded. Maybe our government could declare a national emergency and invoke the US Australia NZ treaty (ANZUS) and get Trump to help fund the upgrade. Hopefully Trump hasn’t already withdrawn and joined the Warsaw Pact.
However Tassie seems to be the preferred direction for refugees and unfortunately Hobart real estate prices now appear to be getting out of hand. Even down here in the cooler parts of the mainland we are now experiencing net migration from the north. As they say about Queensland, “beautiful one day too effn hot the next”.
So Mike, enjoy the heat and humidity. There seems to be plenty of it coming your way. Looking at the BOM forecast for Darwin, you guys might have an outside chance of breaking the March maximum later in the week. Imagine that the two extremities of the vast continent breaking the March record! Could be a message in that.
Ahhh!
That Macquarie Island, remote, nearly unpopulated, no industry, no Urban Heat Island, no adjustments ….
That Automatic Weather Station run by our BOM, where the trend of temperature over the last 50 years is Z E R O
For both Tmax and Tmin. (But manages to show Global Warming according to GISS.)
Geoff
The average temperature of southern hemisphere is considerably cooler than Northern hemisphere- and there has long debate about why this is the case, for over century.
Antarctic hasn’t been warming.
The start and end of glacial and interglacial periods is largely concerning the Northern Hemisphere [which has most to land area].
There have been various possible explanations for the none-warming trend in Antarctica. The one that seems most convincing to me is that although Antarctica gets the CO2 increase experienced in the rest of the world, its temperatures are less affected by other causes of warming . . . such as UHI, soot deposits, changes in relative humidity, land development, agricultural practices, and other human intervention such as ice-breakers and introduction of plants. Again, other explanations have been advanced. Honest scientfic debate is possible.
I’m afraid it’s too warm in the Arctic.
https://weather.gc.ca/data/saisons/images/2019030100_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000.png
I’m thinking I’d rather stay down here.
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/weather/nunavut/the-north-pole
Temperatures are forecast to dip to 10-20 degrees Fahrenheit below average and are likely be be even colder than that of average for January in many cases.
https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/8e9f4d3/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2F0d%2Fb0%2F0b2418794d9cacacec2fe5d7a4a0%2Farctic-blast.jpeg
–It will take many years before the Surface cooling shows up in the Atmosphere losses to space–
Nope.
Tropical heating would couple months delay in terms of global temp.
But generally, ocean temperatures control global temperature and cooling or colder land doesn’t. Particularly, when it only a small portion of land.
Though I would say, land cools Earth, and water warms Earth.
And land gets cold, due to lack of ocean warming or warmer land will result in more heat loss to space.
Plus any real warming is the entire volume of the ocean warming. And it appears that over last hundred years there probably some warming, and still could some warming in the future.
But what this is mostly about is weather and global warming is mostly about centuries of warming or cooling.
Funny I thought the Surface included the Seas, silly me.
The heat being lost from the Land & Oceans is going through the Atmosphere and regesitering as if it is staying warm.
The Northern Hemisphere is Not Currently warm and yet according to the Satellites it is half a degree above normal.
As to the Seas staying warm, certainly not all of it.
Take a look at this in the Northern Hemisphere
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/28/the-seas-get-cooler-around-iceland-some-charts-and-anecdotes/
–A C Osborn says:
March 2, 2019 at 11:26 AM
Funny I thought the Surface included the Seas, silly me.
The heat being lost from the Land & Oceans is going through the Atmosphere and regesitering as if it is staying warm.–
The seas are small part of the surface.
A warmer land does not do much in terms warming the air.
One can have somewhat warm land with snow on it.
A few inches of land surface can warm daily and few inches of ground doesn’t hold much heat. Meters of depth can hold a fair amount of heat, but it’s insulated/isolated in regards to air above it.
Several inches of dirt holds far less heat than the atmosphere above
it. A square meter of dirt 20 cm deep is less than ton and the air above square meter is about 10 tons. And ground at surface tends to get a bit colder than air above at night.
A ton of water at same temperature has about 5 times as much heat as the ground. And square meter water 1 meter deep is a ton, and meters of depth of water is warmed daily.
Both water and ground warm and cool at depth seasonally, but water gains and loses more heat seasonally- and is losing to the atmosphere. Though both water and land radiate energy to space, and since land can become hotter, land can radiate more energy to space at the time it is hotter.
Wet land area puts more heat into the atmosphere as compared to dry land. And ocean warms atmosphere more than land.
It warms the atmosphere more, because 70% of surface is ocean and warms more because on average it’s warmer than land.
Average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average land is about 10 C.
As Mr Spencer pointed out last June, the satellite reading for Australia or the US has little bearing on the temperature “IN” that country. It was actually Australia’s 4th warmest February of the past century.
According to BOM’s massively adjusted data..
roflmao !
You mean the adjustments which remove the UHI effect?
Bobdesbond says: on Mar.4,2019 at 2:20PM “You mean the adjustments which remove the UHI effect”
The adjustments cool the past and warm the present.
That’s backwards for a UHI adjustment.
The satellite measurement is different measurement of AUS.
And I would say a superior way to measure the atmospheric temperature, though not a superior way to measure air temperature in a white box 5 feet above the ground. Though a superior way to measure average air temperature as compared to balloon measurement.
UAH – Number of months below +0.2 in each 5 year period for the past 40 years:
Mar 79-Feb 84: 60
Mar 84-Feb 89: 58
Mar 89-Feb 94: 57
Mar 94-Feb 99: 46
Mar 99-Feb 04: 41
Mar 04-Feb 09: 49
Mar 09-Feb 14: 39
Mar 14-Feb 19: 10
Number of months below +0.15 in each 5 year period:
Mar 79-Feb 84: 59
Mar 84-Feb 89: 54
Mar 89-Feb 94: 55
Mar 94-Feb 99: 46
Mar 99-Feb 04: 35
Mar 04-Feb 09: 37
Mar 09-Feb 14: 34
Mar 14-Feb 19: 5
What part of super El Nino and +AMO do you fail to understand?
Bode isn’t making any claims. He’s just pointing out the natural variability of temperature.
Are you referring to the “Super El Nino” of 1997/98?
Or perhaps the one of 1982/83?
Surely you can’t be referring to the one of 2015/16, which the MEI data shows was weaker than the other two.
Bobdesbond, please stop trolling.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . Why is Climate Science different? . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
Climate science is probably the only branch of science, that doesn’t look at absolute measurements.
Climate science looks mostly at temperature anomalies.
To calculate temperature anomalies, you need to use absolute temperatures.
But Climate science then ignores the absolute temperatures, and concentrates on the temperature anomalies.
Why?
====================
I have actual absolute temperature data, for 216 countries. For each country, I have:
1) the temperature of the average coldest month (winter)
2) the temperature of the average month
3) the temperature of the average hottest month (summer)
For this article, I have sorted the data by the temperature of the average month.
====================
There are 2 other important absolute temperatures, that you should know about:
1) the average temperature of the land (averaged by area, for 216 countries), is 15.6 degrees Celsius (this is the red line on the graph)
2) the average temperature that humans live at (averaged over the total population of the Earth), is 19.7 degrees Celsius (this is the blue line on the graph)
Humans love the temperature to be warmer than the average land temperature. They choose to live in warmer places.
There is plenty of cooler land around. Humans don’t want to live on the cooler land.
But global warming will make the cooler land, warmer. It might become desirable.
Countries with a lot of “cool” land, like Russia and Canada, will probably become the next world superpowers.
I suggest that you learn to speak Russian, or Canadian.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/why-is-climate-science-different
Dear Sheldon,
The soviet republic of Canada will not be very desirable as this global warming has made it very cold this winter. As for Russia, russian women I find desirable but expensive. The only desirable part of Russia is Crimea.
lieb…”The soviet republic of Canada will not be very desirable as this global warming has made it very cold this winter”.
I take exception to that snarky remark. ☺
I’ll have you know that me and my union brothers worked damned hard over a century IN A DEMOCRACY…through a bit of civil disobedience…through beatings by goons hired by your capitalist buddies…through deaths caused by the same…to establish our SOCIALISM.
Nothing in common with Russia, where the Bolsheviks stole Marxist doctrine and named it socialism. There is nothing in the works of Marx mentioned such an abomination as Stalinist communism. The Bolsheviks threw real socialists and communists in concentration camps.
The irony is that Marx hated the word socialism. He refused to call his dogma socialism and it’s just as well. Socialism is a workers movement that grew in democratic countries through people who had the guts to stand up and DEMAND to be treated fairly.
Here in Canada, we have universal Medicare, pensions, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, womens’ rights thanks to those pioneers. and the freedom to live pretty well any way we like, as long as we don’t get caught doing something illegal. ☺
I know of no socialist who begrudges any capitalist the right to make a decent profit as long as he/she behaves, pays his/her taxes, treats people fairly and with dignity, and try not to be ***holes.
In fact, I know of socialists who are pretty good capitalists. Socialists have nothing against making money or preventing others from doing the same. Any propaganda to the contrary is fake news put out by right-wing media.
Let’s face it, there’s plenty to go around and no reason for kids to grow up in poverty. The reason poverty exists is because dickheads hoard the wealth and they are allowed to do so.
“There is nothing in the works of Marx mentioned such an abomination as Stalinist communism.”
It is the inevitable end result. When you invest that much power in the government, sooner or later, someone is going to come along to exploit your naivet and wield it for his or her own ends.
naivete – editor doesn’t like special characters.
‘It is the inevitable end result. When you invest that much power in the government, sooner or later, someone is going to come along to exploit your naivet’
Except that there so many counter-examples where that hasnt happened, eg Canada and many Western European countries.
These are not Marxist regimes, though some are sliding in that direction.
You are the one saying Obamas policies and DEM proposals are socialism, and therefore going to lead to a bad end w authoritarianism.
But we’ve tried this experiment many times over and more completely in Europe, Canada, etc for 7 decades, and your alarmist predictions failed to materialize.
Nate,
The concept of freedom vs govt authoritarianism even in the USA (arguably the most free country on earth…) is of course (IMHO) relative. Depending on the issue (regulations stemming from concerns over climate change being just one), there are large portions of the population who think either we are too free or our freedoms have already been squashed…
IMO we are closer to a socialist society than a free one. Depending on how the next election goes, we could vastly increase our speed moving in that direction as there are multiple self-declared socialists on the scene…
It’s a bit unfair (IMO) to have a scale of authoritarian or not when there are clearly shades of grey in between…
Barry
Obama’s policies frankly sucked, for 8 long years of subpar growth, persistent unemployment, and counterproductive healthcare debacles. But, that is not the discussion we are having here. The question was in regards to governments founded on Marxist principles, and where they ineluctably lead.
Obama got the financial crisis, but it wasn’t all his fault.
It could have been worse than the great depression if he and the Fed hadn’t done what they did.
Svante,
When it comes to economic performance, Obama had good timing. By the time he took office the damage was done and the economy was due for a good rebound no matter how good/bad his initiatives.
During his first two years, he basically threw a couple of massive stimulus blank checks at the situation (always going to cause some ‘economic growth’) and spent most of his political capital working on agenda items (i.e. Obamacare) which had nothing to do with the economy short term.
Barry
During his first 2 y, Trump basically threw a massive (uneeded) stimulus blank check tax giveaway to corporations (always going to cause some economic growth) and spent most of his political capital working on agenda items (i.e. Wall and cozying up to dictators).
“persistent unemployment” the rate was 10% when Obama started and 4.7% when he left.
As usual Bart ignores data that doesnt fit his notions
Nate,
I don’t recall saying anything about Trump…
For sure when it comes to a president, one is likely to see the guy on ‘my side’ more positively than they should and the guy on the other side more negatively. When it comes to an economy a president is given either too much credit or too much blame depending on the viewpoint.
The same thing goes for the climate change debate. Ones own viewpoint is pretty much going to determine how they see a set of data or view a publication or blog. I think that people on the AGW side are too myopic when it comes to recent data and are fixated on a fairly steady small rise in temperatures that could very well be mostly natural. Is it even possible for one of the current climate ‘models’ to predict cooling (we know it happens naturally…). But, I have tried to listen to viewpoints from the other side… something to effect of it’s better to be safe than sorry (precautionary principle). I get that…
But, as I’ve posed to you in the past… it really doesn’t matter much unless one has a solution that is ‘global’ (i.e. how does one get China to reduce their CO2 by say 80-90%, etc). I just don’t find many people discussing these higher level questions. It generally gets bogged down in tit-for-tat name calling ostensibly about the data and/or ‘science.’
Barry
Nate – 4.7% is a LOT of misery, and that’s not even counting the people who had given up looking, people who are now back to work in Trump’s economy.
Svante – the mortgage meltdown was a ticking time bomb, placed by the Democrats, that everyone knew would explode eventually. Saying Obama was not responsible does not cut the mustard. He had 8 long years to overcome it and failed. It was one of the worst recoveries ever that from an event that should have rectified within a couple of years. He was the first President ever to never see 3% or greater growth. He managed that feat by taxing success, and regulating everything in sight.
” the mortgage meltdown was a ticking time bomb, placed by the Democrats, that everyone knew would explode eventually”
This is the recipe.
Anything bad that happens under a R/D president was due to the work of previous or current D. Anything good that happens is all due to a current or previous R.
So somehow, some way, you’ll blame the nearly $T govt and trade deficits on Obama.
“regulating everything in sight”
Many causes of the financial crisis, but almost everyone agrees that the bipartisan effort to deregulate banks turned the dumpster fire of the housing bubble into a financial conflagration. One with lasting effects.
I am not an ideologue when it comes to govt, Im for doing things that worked and not repeating things that failed.
There is so much about Gordon and his posts that is perplexing.
And then there’s the fact that he’s a Trumpist/socialist??!
‘4.7% is a LOT of misery’
Oh ok whatever you say, Bart. But it was never below 5 under Reagan.
GDP growth Obama: 2.1 average.
Obviously includes early deep dive of great recession, 2009.
Hes in the middle of the pack of POTUS averages below 3: includes
Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush 1, Bush2
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2018-08-01/ranking-presidents-economic-records-by-gdp-growth
Nate, please stop trolling.
since the temperature is exactly the same as the last month there should be really no comments here as nothing new to say ,
except maybe the gap between the predictions and reality is a little bit bigger,
https://goo.gl/kWb2W7
This puts to rest the notion of a global average, which is more sci-fi and statistic than science. We had one of the coldest temperatures on record across much of North America during February, yet some higher than average temps in the south Pacific have created an upward blip in the average.
Anthropogenic global warming is one of the worst pieces of propaganda ever foisted on the world. Utter rubbish.
These variations are nothing more than normal, everyday weather on top of a recovery from the Little Ice Age.
Didn’t you notice that the Northern Hemisphere is 0.46 degrees C Above Normal?
Don’t you find that just a bit odd?
A.C….”Didnt you notice that the Northern Hemisphere is 0.46 degrees C Above Normal?
Dont you find that just a bit odd?”
Weather and ocean currents, not to mention the oceanic oscillations.
Besides, what does 0.46C above normal mean in a physical sense? I can tell you one thing, here in the banana belt around Vancouver, Canada, this has to be one of the coldest Februarys on record. And it hasn’t finished yet, it’s expected to carry on till around March 10th.
February in Europe was rather warm. As for the socialist achievements of the great country of Canada, I agree they are substantial. When are you going to abolish private property? I see you already started via real-estate taxes. Very smart. Noone caught on. What is the next step? We need to spread the revolution worldwide. We comm.. err.. socialists are so smart and stealthy. I tell you what next. We will “share” cars, and bicycles.
after warm comes cold et vice versa. luckily, the great country of Urope will spend many less euros on natural gas this winter, which means co2 emissions will drop. Everybody happy. Gas prices also drop. Very good. Very very good.
lieb…”Gas prices also drop. Very good. Very very good”.
Gas pricing is a game. The price of oil is manipulated by the stock market. It has nothing to do with supply and demand, every so often they throw us a bone to make us forget how much they rip us off in the long run.
If you haven’t seen hit video by Dr Spencer it is one of the best I’ve seen:
https://youtu.be/T2tzT4zBfzc
Thanks for sharing, “CO2”. I had not seen that before.
It is clear the quest for funding drives the AGW nonsense. No funding, no nonsense. It’s that simple. And it’s good to be reminded of “Climagegate”. We can’t forget that they got caught red-handed, and then investigated themselves to find “nothing”!
Also, the reference to President Eisenhower’s warning: “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
And, Dr. Spencer said it all in 15 minutes!
Thanks, quite illuminating.
CO2,
Many thanks. The pendulum, having swung thus far, maintains some momentum. Eventually it will stop, and reverse. As it did for phrenology and Lysenkoism.
I remain optimistic – it’s all part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
CO2….”If you havent seen hit video by Dr Spencer it is one of the best Ive seen:”
Yeah…I thought Roy’s presentation was powerful and to the point. Then again, I watched Roger Pielke Jr.’s testimony and he came across as an alarmist butt-kisser.
The Democrat querying him was offering him loaded and leading questions from the alarmist side and Pielke was going along like someone currying for favour.
There is something seriously wrong with the Democrats who are pushing climate change propaganda. They can’t talk about it intelligently without some emotional plea to the future of their children. Load of politically-correct idiots.
They should have had Pat Michaels there to set them straight.
Dr. Spencer, From a former Huntsville resident.
I have been a long follower and admirer of your work and think you are the most qualified to write an urgently needed paper or maybe a book with the following theme or title.
“Where, when and if global warming or climate change is occurring or may or may not occur”.
This paper or book should detail, with references, past and probable global warming (Tmin,Tmax and climate change) in every local area in the world. It would give detailed instructions for accessing existing data bases to verify for the readers satisfaction the changes in climate in their local area.
WHY THIS IS URGENTLY NEEDED:
1.Every day the news media reports something negative with the tag line “due to climate change”. Even cursory investigation shows there has been little or no change in that area.
2. All laymen I have met visualize global warming as causing hotter areas getting hotter in mid day. I have not met one person who knows that the record and forecast of warming show changes: “OCCUR MOSTLY TOWARD THE POLES, IN WINTER, AT NIGHT”. This is of course wonderful but is not well known. Even fewer know that extreme weather in most areas is improving not getting worse.
I would love the do this piece but I am old and not proficient in manipulating climate basses which is one your strength.
Please do the world a favor and do this!
On another thread, Entropic man asked:
” But why is the ocean warming?”
In my opinion this is the key question.
Atmospheric temps in the lower troposphere, necessarily follow ocean surface temps and not the reverse (heat always flows from hot to cold).
So warming oceans will of course lead to warmer air temps..
EM,s answer:
“Because something is forcing the Earth to radiate less energy than it receives.”
cannot be so. The Earth naturally develops systems to shed its energy in the most efficient way possible.. so that, over time, it will ALWAYS lose more energy than it receives
So lets consider some alternatives:
1. Meteor impact(s).
Im pretty sure we would have noticed impactor(s) of sufficient size to raise the ocean temp so we can probably safely rule this out
2. Waste heat from human activity being dumped into rivers lakes and oceans
While this is certainly not zero, i would be surprised if it was enough to significantly affect ocean temps. However it may make a significant impact on coastal water near large urban/industrial areas and perhaps near river estuaries that flow through highly populated areas…
3. Geothermal energy
The abyssal depths are only heated by geothermal energy (no sunlight penetrates to that depth). An increase in upwelling geothermal energy may be significant, but I don’t think we have enough observational data to determine if this is so.
4. increased a*b*so*r*p*t*i*o*n of solar radiation
IMO this is the mostly likely answer, but what causes that increase? Greater solar activity? less clouds? less ozone?… some combination of these and/or other things?
If I had to guess, I would probably suggest that increased UV a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n due to the grand solar maximum and thinning ozone layer are the most likely causes…
As the solar cycle has fallen since the 21st century began and the ozone layer has begun recovering, so too has the ocean temp stabilized. …
I believe I read somewhere that it is expected to take 100 years for ozone levels to recover to 1970’s values… thats a lot of extra UV being a*b*s*o*r*b*e*d by the oceans…..
Is one of these the culprit? Or some combination thereof? I couldn’t say… But I’m absolutely sure that a colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer ocean surface…
Bode, here’s a stat for you. I know how fond you are of temperature stats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/03/01/los-angeles-failed-hit-degrees-february-first-time-recorded-history/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4db4dba70468
I follow CLIMATE stats. Weather stats are only of passing interest.
And my name isn’t “bode”. Nor is that an abbreviation of my name.
Did you ever see the movie Point Break? I think Bode fits.
Also, you don’t seem to mind mentioning Australian weather stats.
If you’ve paid any attention, I mention warm weather only to counter someone mentioning cold weather. I typically begin with something like “while we’re cherry picking, here’s a little cherry picking of my own …”
And you think Patrick Swayze fits? Whatever takes your fancy.
B,
Why would you feel the need to “counter” anything?
What difference do you think it makes? For example, the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years to its present temperature.
No cherry picking there.
Counter away, it changes nothing at all.
Cheers.
.
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
❶①❶①
❶①❶① . . . One sandwich short of a picnic . . .
❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
.
[ this is a duplicate of a post from another thread, repeated here because it is important ]
Since 1980, scientists have been using satellites to monitor the number of sandwiches in the Arctic region.
Why do scientists monitor the number of sandwiches in the Arctic region, you might ask? The answer is quite simple. What do you think polar bears eat, when they can’t hunt seals, because there is no sea ice.
The number of sandwiches grows and decays with the seasons. There are more sandwiches in winter/spring (while the polar bears are eating seals). And there are fewer sandwiches in summer/fall (when seals are not available).
But scientists are concerned, because over the decades, the number of sandwiches is following a decreasing trend.
The number of sandwiches is obviously getting smaller. Not every year, of course. It does so in fits and starts. But the long term pattern (the trend), is clear. Deny it, and you are a sandwich denier.
A bitter argument has broken out, between the 2 scientists who have been monitoring sandwich numbers.
Dr Anne Alarmist, insists that sandwich numbers are falling rapidly, and may fall to zero within 10 to 20 years.
But her rival, Dr A Skeptic, claims that Dr Anne Alarmist is talking “poppycock”. Dr A Skeptic agrees that there is a decreasing trend, but claims that sandwiches will continue to be available, for at least 100 to 200 years.
Each scientist has plotted a graph of sandwich numbers from 1980 to 2018.
https://agree-to-disagree.com/one-sandwich-short-of-a-picnic
This is the least clever attempt at distraction I’ve read in a while.
September minimum arctic sea ice volume measure by PIOMASS dropped from nearly 17K km^3 in 1979 to under 4K in 2012. Shifting the Y axis doesn’t help.
Why not just say the data is wrong and there is no decline in sea ice volume?
OK, I will say it. All measurements of arctic sea ice are faked to show a linear trend towards an ice free summer minimum. Ice volume is actually increasing and has been for years.
See, so easy. Nothing to worry about.
Milton,
I am not trying to distract people.
If you can’t deal with the truth, then I suggest that you get professional help.
I am using the same data that Tamino (a rabid Alarmist), uses.
What do you expect me to do?
I assume that the data is correct. Even Dr A Skeptic admits that there is a decreasing trend.
Do you expect me to exaggerate the decreasing trend?
Sorry. I try to tell the truth. Go and see an Alarmist, if you want lies.
Tamino provides data about sandwiches? You are using unlabeled data to suggest that arctic trends are exaggerated.
Here is a graph provided by PIOMAS on the decreasing volume trend. They put the Y axis exactly as you want it.
https://tinyurl.com/hjsmxra
How long would you guess it will be before an ice free summer minimum?
Milton
Milton.
I expected that anybody who is familiar with sea ice extent, would know that my “sandwich” data was really “sea ice extent” data.
I find the debate over sea ice extent a bit boring. That is why I changed it to “sandwiches”. Sandwiches are much more exciting.
I think that the PIOMAS graph that you link to, with zero on the Y-axis, is a reasonable graph.
I am not willing to predict how long it will be before there is an ice free summer minimum. I will leave the guessing to the people who are trying to cause panic. I will wait, and continue to look at the data.
I am not particularly worried about there being an ice free summer minimum. If it happens, then it happens. The world won’t disappear in a puff of smoke. The Earth has been ice free before.
Technically, the Earth is still in an “interglacial” period.
An interglacial period is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years, that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial began at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago.
Polar bears survived the Eemian warm period. I see no reason why they won’t survive the current one.
Humans will survive the current warm period as well, as long as they don’t panic, and do something stupid.
I don’t deny there’s a sandwich shortage.
SPA,
Ah, yes, but a pseudoscientific climatological zealot would argue that at times that nothing is better than a sandwich, so that if offered a sandwich, a climate zealot will choose nothing, having been convinced that nothing is better than the sandwich.
Something like a reduced rate of cooling is really heating, Gavin Schmidt is a renowned climate scientist rather than an undistinguished mathematician, and Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate rather than not having won a Nobel Prize.
It’s all part of the new Climate Paradigm based on sandwiches (and the fact that sometimes nothing is better or more satisfying than a sandwich). Who could possibly deny it?
I’m with you.
Cheers.
Not a problem. You can go down to the beach where you can eat the sand which is there.
Entropic Man, please stop “dad-joking”.
After months of indecision, ENSO appears to have finally decided on another El Niño.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
For me, that’s double good news.
Good news, because my area benefits from the increased precipitation. More good news because it will hold global temperatures up for another year, or two. If a La Niño were to occur here, global would likely drop below 0C, effectively ending the AGW nonsense. So we get to enjoy the humor for another couple of years.
Sorry, “La Niño” should be “La Niña”.
(First cup of coffee.)
A powerful stratospheric intrusion in two days will bring a strong frost to the east US.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00980/e8hrz1s7dmol.png
Dr Spencer, your temperature chart shows a great deal of volatility. The ΔW/M^2 per ΔCO2 is constant for a given range. Would you write a blog post showing how CO2 and W/M^2 increased by X, and temperatures increased or decreased by Y? Here is an example post addressing not the ΔCO2 but tying ΔW/M^2 to temperature. What you will find is that temperatures can increase and decrease with increases in W/M^2.
Hockeystick Con Job; CO2 Cant Cause Temperature Dog-Legs
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/hockeystick-con-job-co2-cant-cause-temperature-dog-legs/
The difference between what people tell you about how cold it has been where they live, and what is measured at the same time by weather stations can be amazing.
So when you read ‘it was around us one of the coldest Februaries evah’, you evidently think it will have been really cold there.
But then you decide to collect all data from all the weather stations, and you wonder that February 2019 was so terribly, horribly cold there:
1950 1 -6.32
1916 1 -3.29
1937 1 -2.70
1907 1 -2.53
1969 1 -2.33
1930 1 -1.68
1909 1 -1.51
1949 1 -1.40
1936 2 -0.72
1957 1 -0.59
1929 1 -0.39
1943 1 -0.18
1993 1 0.17
1985 11 0.29
1913 1 0.30
1911 1 0.36
1979 1 0.41
1947 1 0.46
1954 1 0.46
1989 2 0.59
1963 1 0.70
1927 12 0.72
1983 12 0.77
1972 1 0.88
1984 12 0.89
1980 1 1.00
1922 12 1.01
1949 2 1.04
2019 2 1.04
No, no! These values above aren’t anomalies, that would confuse lots of people here. All absolute data!
December 1968 was a little bit colder indeed: 5 days in the ‘top 10 below 0’, all below -15 C.
The coldest day in Feb 2019 in the region mentioned was Feb 10 with -8 C… oh dear.
Warmistas are boring people, but their counterparts, the Coolistas, are no less.
The snowstorm moves to the northeast US.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00980/r1wq056vkja3.png
An interesting link for those who think incresed UV may be responsible for higher ocean temps…
http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/index.html
PhilJ
The Author of this blog, Dr. Peter Langdon Ward seems to have many of the same ideas as the skeptics.
I think the dude is a crackpot. He might be brilliant in his area of expertise but he seems clueless about what Feynman was saying and just making up goofy unsupportable physics.
Here is one example of crackpot physics. So many skeptics subscribe to this version of unsupported declarations.
The crackpot: ” If a photon has a certain energy (E), most scientists conclude that 20 photons have 20 times as much energy (20*E). While it may be correct to think of 20 photons as having 20 times the capacity for containing energy (E) as one photon does, the energy (E) of each photon and of the ensemble of photons always remains the same no matter how many photons with that energy you have, because thermal energy is not additive.”
No clue how he came up with that. I think maybe g.e.r.a.n and Dr. Ward are the same person. How could two different people come up with the same anti-science conclusion and make these unsupported declarations?
N,
What you quoted seems reasonable. Ice can radiate photons at the rate of 300W/m2. It doesn’t matter how many of these photons you have, even infinite numbers, you still cannot use them to warm a single drop of water. Pseudoscientific climatological nutters obviously believe otherwise.
Temperatures do not add. W/m2 is totally meaningless, unless a temperature is involved, and a relevant emissivity.
Carry on believing in the miraculous (yet strangely non-demonstrable) heating powers of CO2. Have you found a testable GHE hypothesis yet? I didn’t think so.
Cheers.
“No-Clue Norman” is back with more of his juvenile adoration of personalties.
At least he’s now comparing his hero ger.an to someone other than me.
Kids these days….
Mike Flynn and JDHuffman
Is it remotely possible that you two (who never contribute anything of value, and I mean “never” literally) can not torture my rational logical mind with your nonsense?
Neither of you has a lick of logical, or rational thought process. Mike Flynn you are a complete waste of time, a mindless robot that repeats the same things thousands of times and is incapable of understanding any responses. We have all told you hundreds of times what the GHE is. I am not sure you are an actual human, could be a program.
JDHuffman, all you ever do is tell people they are wrong and make stupid unscientific declarations that you learned from some stupid skeptic blog. You are about as useless as dirty toilet paper. Get a clue. No one really cares about your declarations or opinions. (with exception of your dear wife DREMT). Most know you to be a complete fraud that makes up stuff and can’t support anything and when asked to support anything you run away.
Case of point. You bring up Poynting Vectors proving fluxes don’t add. I have asked you for explanation of how that works. You have not done so to date. You are a fraud and phony and you like to troll.
Poor Norman responds the only way he can, with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
Norman is the perfect “Poster Boy” for the AGW pseudoscience. He can’t process facts and logic; he has no background in physics; and he believes linking to things he doesn’t understand makes him look smart.
JDHuffman
Can you post anything at all of value? Is it possible. I doubt it, you are a phony fraud that pretends to have studied heat transfer but you can’t grasp why a hot object CAN absorb IR from a colder body. It has to do with the number of surface molecules in excited states. The number is very small at room temperature.
Quit being such a phony jerk and produce some real and valid information. I think I can speak for most, they are very tired of your endless made up declarations and your phony arrogance pretending to be some real expert in physics.
There are people who post on this blog that have actually taken physics courses. YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THEM! Quit lying and being such a phony. It gets sickening to see.
I do not link to things to make me “look smart”. I link to support what I state, something you don’t do because you don’t know real science and fake your way through things.
You are the only one I know who brings up “Poynting Vectors” to appear smart. You are an arrogant fraud. Soon all will see how phony you are. The more you post the more people see what a fake you are.
Norman repeats his insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
He’s the perfect Poster Boy for the AGW pseudoscience.
Norman, I can’ imagine him having a spouse, poor soul otherwise.
Svante
He talked about his wife in a past post (over the Moon rotation nonsense). He is a total fraud on this blog but may treat his wife well. I had suspicions that J Halpless and DREMT are one and the same, his dear wife. They support everything he claims and neither know a lick of physics.
At least most are aware he is a lying phony that pretends to have studied actual physics.
Tim Folkerts is one that is the real deal. His posts are very informative and valuable. He does have lots of patience with the insulting arrogance of the two clowns on this blog. JDHuffman and Mike Flynn.
JDHuffman really does not know any physics. When you interact with him has he ever offered any proof at all his claims have merit? He never has with me. If you ask him for proof of a particular statement you get 20 nonsense posts of some insults, taunts and diversion. What a phony troll. I guess all blogs have them.
“No-Clue Norman” is back with more of his juvenile adoration of personalties.
He responds the only way he can, with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. He makes up stuff to attack others. He has no science, only his perverted opinions and his pseudoscience. He hopes that if he type out his opinions often enough, maybe they will come true.
Poor Norman, wasting his life away at a dead-end job. If he could do anything useful, he might have had a career that paid something. That way, his wife wouldn’t have to work and they wouldn’t be living in rundown slums.
Poor Norman, he could never learn.
Yes Norman, it’s always the same pattern.
Hapless/DREMT go into a loop on some semantic issue.
Flynn loops at once on his no-GHE molten rock theory.
JD goes from stupidity to insult.
Gordon has his ‘points refuted a thousand times’ and gish-gallop defense.
There are quite a few top-notch commenters: Tim, barry, Nate and Swanson to name a few. I’m glad MikeR is back too.
JDHuffman
Well for the first time you are not a lying phony troll. You have posted an excellent self-assessment. You speak accurately about who and what you are. Congrats! You see yourself clearly!
How you see yourself: “He responds the only way he can, with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. He makes up stuff to attack others. He has no science, only his perverted opinions and his pseudoscience. He hopes that if he type out his opinions often enough, maybe they will come true.”
Yes indeed that describes you very well.
However, Norman reads textbook material on heat exchange, understands the underlying concepts of heat exchange, can use the equations to calculate actual heat exchange. Makes claims and offers much support with numerous links so other posters can read and learn the material. Does not rely on his own unsupported declarations and will only insult those who first taunt and belittle him. So you have yourself well analyzed. I hope you can appreciate the fact that I am considerably ahead of you in knowledge of Heat Transfer. One thing I have going for me that you lack is logical rational thought process. These tools help you understand your flaws and correct a incorrect view. You are a troll so you lack these valuable tools which would help you if you had them.
Svante, it’s always the same pattern with you two clowns-all you’re interested in are personalities and pseudoscience. You’re unable to process facts and logic. You can’t think for yourselves.
Nothing new.
Norman,
“I think the dude is a crackpot”
Perhaps, or perhaps he’s a genius…
I don’t mean to imply that everything he says there is correct, but I find his idea of EMR as a continuous EM field generated by a transmitter, and that a photon of energy extracted from that field is dependent on the characteristics of the receiver and how it resonates with that field intriguing..
In any case his work on the effect of basaltic lava flows on ozone depletion seems solid..
And certainly if the amount of ozone in the atmosphere decreases then the amount of UVB reaching Earth’s surface increases.
With that in mind which of these do you think is more likely to add heat to the oceans:
An increase in exposure to UVB from a source at 5000+ K that penetrates some 40-50 meters into the ocean..
or an increase in exposure to IR from a source colder than the ocean that (at best!) penetrates a few mm ….
In light of the 2LOT that heat only naturally transfers from a hotter object to a colder object, the answer seems obvious to me.. and I would suggest that much more investigation of the effects of UVB on ocean temps is warranted… (anyone looking for a good idea for a Phd thesis? )
PhilJ
The part of his ideas that UV light could be the cause of ocean warming is not a bad idea and should be looked into. How much of an increase of UV reached the surface with the reduction of ozone?
I would like some research on this point.
I object to his ridiculous nonsense that if you have 20 photons you do not add the energy of the photons to find the total energy.
In one example he has different energy photons and concludes they do not merge into a higher energy level photon. I agree with that point but the energy will add in an absorbing surface. If you have 30 eV of energy absorbed by a surface it does not matter if it is by one photon, 30 or 3000. The end result is the same, the object increases by 30 eV.
N,
Try and figure out how to get water to absorb photons from ice emitting 300 W/m2.
Lots of energy available. How much hotter does the water get? What happens to the photons from the ice that impinge on the water?
Questions, questions, I know! I also know you don’t have any answers, do you?
Maybe you need to do more research. Let me know how you get on.
Cheers.
Norman,
“The part of his ideas that UV light could be the cause of ocean warming is not a bad idea and should be looked into. How much of an increase of UV reached the surface with the reduction of ozone?
I would like some research on this point.”
This is exactly the question that got me looking for material on UVB exposure at the surface…
I found lots of material describing the effect of increased uvb exposure on organisms, but nothing on the effect of uvb on ocean temps, except for Dr. Ward.
I find it astounding that there is nothing out there examining this, or that if there is, it is unavailable…
If you find something please pass it along…
Forthose who think that one cold day disproves global warming:-
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1321:_Cold
For those who think that EM can produce a testable GHE hypothesis . . .
Cheers.
If one cold day doesn’t disprove it, then one how days doesn’t prove it. Is that fair?
The Arctic air from the north falls to the US.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=ak&product=ir
Frozen air will reach even southeastern states.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00980/4tosr0u5vsyu.png
Frozen air will reach even southeastern states.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00980/4tosr0u5vsyu.png
23F in Dallas at 5:00 am.
Please read with my comments.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/hockeystick-con-job-co2-cant-cause-temperature-dog-legs/?fbclid=IwAR0aBr9uR7KwPUN1b0sDZVRXFxnkr-S8a_706nKiTb32JxS13gV71UVZbqQ
Good find ren, TSI for Holocene, that’s neat.
Svante, please stop trolling.
No I meant it, ren found an interesting scientific paper.
It has something I didn’t think I would ever see, a TSI estimate for the entire Holocene.
I have no reason to say it’s wrong, who does?
Yes, I meant it too. Svante, please stop trolling.
If my post of a few minutes ago ever appears – Please ignore it
Temperatures in some areas for the entire month of February have been close to 30 degrees below normal in Montana. During the first few days of March, the temperature departures have been even more extreme.
On Sunday, Great Falls, Montana, had an average temperature departure of 50 degrees below normal with a high of minus 8 and a low of minus 32. The average high and low for the city are 42 and 19, respectively.
Meanwhile, Britain just had its warmest winter days ever. There have been heatwaves in the past week in southern Australia, Europe and large parts of Asia. If you want to report weather instead of climate, how about you try some unbiased reporting.
B,
Meanwhile, climate remains the average of weather.
If you are determined to keep countering, how about you counter the tendency to trollish behaviour.
Cheers.
When it’s cold, the planet is cooling; when it’s warm, alarmists are at work.
ren
“The average high and low for the city are 42 and 19, respectively.”
You mean the yearly averages, of course.
“On Sunday, Great Falls, Montana, had an average temperature departure of 50 degrees below normal…”
That, ren, is wrong.
You have to calculate, for e.g. 1981-2010, the average temperature for March 2-3, and then you can subtract that average from the actual value. And then you have the correct departure aka anomaly.
Here are the 10 lowest GREAT FALLS records for March 2:
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1896 3 2 -32.8
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 2019 3 2 -31.7
USC00243753 MT GREAT FALLS WFO 2019 3 2 -28.9
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 1960 3 2 -28.3
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 1976 3 2 -27.8
USC00243753 MT GREAT FALLS WFO 2014 3 2 -26.7
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 1978 3 2 -26.7
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 2014 3 2 -26.0
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 2014 3 2 -25.6
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1930 3 2 -24.4
But… 50 C below normal ???
Btw, Here are the 10 lowest GREAT FALLS records for February:
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1936 2 15 -45.0
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1893 2 1 -41.1
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1936 2 17 -39.4
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1899 2 11 -37.2
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1936 2 14 -37.2
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1936 2 16 -37.2
USC00243749 MT GREAT FALLS 16ST 1936 2 18 -37.2
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 1939 2 9 -37.2
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 1989 2 3 -37.2
USW00024143 MT GREAT FALLS INTL AP 1996 2 2 -37.2
It’s very very cold there! I wouldn’t like to live in such a place.
1936 must have been quite a bit hard.
Bindidon says “But… 50 C below normal ???”
The GTF temperatures are in Fahrenheit, not Celsius.
This is not for the deniers, who will say its all rubbish, it is for those who accept that temperatures are rising, but dont want to do anything about it.
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/nclimate3013-f1.jpeg
The graph shows the various possibe tipping points as a function of temperature.
The question for you is “If these are realistic, how much temperature rise do you regard as acceptable?”
EM,
The question for you is “If CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, why has the surface cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so?”
Once you have answered that, another question might be “Why can’t anybody devise a testable GHE hypothesis?”
I have a few more, but you can’t even answer the easy ones, can you?
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
Both questions have been answered here, but you refused to accept the answers.
I suggest you crawl back into your cognitive dissonance cave and let the rest of us have a sensible conversation.
For the non-deniers, remember that we are already committed to the bottom of the Paris range.
EM,
No they haven’t. If they had, you would no doubt take great delight in posting copies here. You could have a good laugh at my expense!
Alas, your fantasies cannot change reality. No testable GHE hypothesis. No CO2 heating.
As usual, I decline to comply with your suggestion. I do as I wish, and there is precisely nothing you can do about it. Why do you waste your time endeavouring to bend me to your will?
Are you completely dim, or just extremely stupid and ignorant?
The world wonders.
Cheers.
E-man,
You flit and flitter around Dr. Spencer’s site and then you accuse someone else of cognitive dissonance. Very odd.
Flit/flitter = cognitive dissonance?
If that’s what you mean your comment is false.
If not, your comment is meaningless.
barry, please stop trolling.
Essentially I’m asking which tipping points you are willing to cross and which one you would prefer to avoid.
E-man, you appear to be at your own “tipping point”. Your question began with “If these are realistic…” Was that a Freudian slip?
In your pseudoscience, you can never use the word “if”. The “science is settled”. There is no “if” in cultism. Are you actually questioning the “realism” of pseudoscience?
Maybe the fog is lifting….
Just usual scientific practice. No scientist is ever certain.
Your certainty that I am wrong marks you out as a non-scientist.
It’s not my “certainty”, E-man. It’s the certainty of the relevant established physics.
“Institutionalized Pseudoscience” has corrupted your mind.
While North America experienced an unusually cold February, we had one of the warmest Februaries evah…
We enjoyed.
I remember the Februaries 1956 / 1963 / 1986 / 1987 / 2010, and think these guys were enough for my whole life.
Bindi,
Let me correct you. Coldest on record.
Anderson
“Let me correct you. Coldest on record.”
*
You? Correct me? Wow.
I just downloaded the newest GHCN daily data up to March 3, and generated the sequence of all days in the US with an absolute temperature below -30 Celsius since beginning in the XIXth century.
AK was sorted out because it’s cold anyway there.
The ascending sort of all this data gave on a search for 2019/2018
– 2 days between positions 11-100;
– 11 below position 1000;
– 192 below position 10000.
2 % of the 10000 lowest temperatures in Jan/Feb 2019, none in March 2019, none from thre entire 2018 ?!
Believe me, Anderson: if there had been anything ‘coldest on record’ this year or last year, then the list certainly would look quite different.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Hi Geoff,
The actual numbers using raw data from the BOM site for Macquarie Island show a trend value for the last 70 years of 0.1 C per decade for maximum temperatures 0.08 C per decade for minima.
Accordingly the maximum temperature has inceased by 0.7 C and minima by about 0.6 C since 1949.
The raw BOM temperature data for Macquarie Island can be found here.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=38&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=300004 .
It can be informative to fact check the many claims by commenters on this site. So many are total “taurus excreta”.
MikeR
This discussion about Macquarie Island sounds a bit strange, but… according to NOAA’s GHCN daily dataset, the trend there for the average temperature since Jan 1973 is… 0.00 C / decade (there is no data before).
The linear estimate for BoM’s minimum measurements since 1973 seems to confirm this: 0.02 C /decade. Thus the warming phase seems to have happened before 1973.
And indeed: the linear estimate for BoM’s data during 1949-1972 is 0.18 C / decade.
MR,
Have you read the BOM disclaimer at the bottom of the page?
Would you buy a used car (or anything else) from this organisation?
In any case, history tells you nothing about the future. Only the stupid and ignorant believe so, but luckily there seems to an inexhaustible supply of fools, so the future sellers can keep plying their silly trade.
Still no CO2 heating. Still no testable GHE hypothesis yet.
Cheers.
Still no brain under Flynn’s skullcap yet.
Are you the same Bindidon who said he was going to ignore me?
Or are you another Bindidon of the trollish variety, who resorts to pointless ad homs?
So many Bindidons, so few answers. Have you read the BOM disclaimer? Do you not believe the BOM’s reservations about its data?
Keep believing that you can predict the future from the past. Can you predict horse race winners? How about the stock market? Are you fabulously wealthy yet? No? I wonder why – (only joking, of course).
Cheers.
That is the reason why I use polynomial or running means instead of these misleading straight trend lines:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NvVhKls4BsDWqWe32euvcTNDyocguQUm/view
Sorry the above was meant to reply to Geoff Sherrington above see – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-343952 .
BoM’s data is correct, but your interpretation of their data is a bit dangerous.
B,
Not according to the BOM.
“the Bureau does not give any representation or warranty of any kind . . . in relation to the . . . accuracy, . . . quality, reliability or suitability for any purpose . . .”
Blow me down! According to you, the BOM doesn’t know as much about its data as you do.
Who to believe? I wonder.
Cheers.
Hi Bin,
I did not bother to convert to anomalies after seeing the Berkely Earth data which is in agreement. I went with a trendline from February 1949 until January 2019 so the end and start dates should not be an issue.
The Berkely Earth data shows for the mean temperature a trend of 1.08 C per decade (see http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/151586 ).
Having a bad hair day. The trend should be 0.108 C per decade of course. Sorry about that.
Hang on a second, climate is 30 years of weather 2019-1973=46 years so we have more than enough data to show that Macquarie Island is a AGW dead zone at 0.02C/decade.
Anyone care to explain or is this brushed aside with the obligatory CO2 causes cooling and warming and everything (zero trends) inbetween?
Snowfall in the southeast US.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00980/s6o7279r784e.png
Hi Krakar,
Yes if you choose to ignore the data before 1973 then you can get low trend values. If you use 47 years as your climatological criterion then are 25 such data sets starting for annual data for April 1949 to 1995 inclusive (data set 1) with the last for 1972 to 2018 (data set 25).
The values you get for these 25 data sets range from -0.018 to 0.14 degrees per decade so a cherry picker has many opportunities to select a 47 year period to suit their argument.
For example the 1973 to 2018 cherry pick gives a trend close to zero with an upper bound of 0.07 and a lower bound of -0.07 degrees per decade. The P value is 0.99.
Reminder for those with limited or no statistics the p value should be 0.05 or lower for statistical significance.
In contrast if you use all 70 years of data the trend is 0.09 degrees per decade with a lower bound of 0.05 and an upper bound of 0.13 degrees per decade. The p value is significant at 0.00004.
The 30 year climatological rule is probably appropriate for large data sets such as global data or data for large regions which have low ” noise”. For single stations and, particularly if the absolute value of the trend is small, then 47 years may not be long enough. In general the longer the better. Cherry picking shorter periods may give you your desired result but is a dumb idea because you are throwing away information. Shannon would turn in his grave.
MR,
You are right. Cherry picking periods shorter than four and a half billion years or so (the age of the Earth) is just stupid.
Over that period, the surface has cooled. Nothing stopped the surface cooling. Not CO2, not four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight. Nothing.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Just continual pseudoscientific assertions that CO2 makes thermometers hotter.
What nonsense!
Cheers.
Hi Mike,
If you have access to data for daily max and min temperatures at a resolution of 0.1 C for Macquarie Island prior to April 1948 I think you should provide it. It could settle these disputes, particularly if it goes back 4.5 billion years.
Do you have it on punch cards or paper tape?
Cheers and try to keep cool.
MR,
Actually, when the Earth’s surface was molten (four and a half billion years or so ago), the minimum temperature everywhere was above that of the lowest melting point of rock.
A large blob of molten rock in space (the Earth) gets colder, not hotter, as time goes by. Maybe you don’t believe it, but Newton’s Law of Cooling still applies, as far as I know.
Oh well, pseudoscientific silliness keeps me amused. More, please.
How about asserting that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer, makes the thermometer hotter! Look serious while you write it – that might turn fantasy into fact.
On the other hand, maybe not.
Cheers.
While I have yet to dismount my hobby horse, I think it might be opportune to point out to all those who frequent these comment sections, that a relatively constant forcing due to increasing C02 definitely does not imply that temperatures everywhere on the globe will increase (or decrease) uniformly and at the same rate.
I would have thought it would have been patently obvious that there are large variations spatially obviously due to a large range of geographic factors (witness the differential in temperature trends between equatorial regions the Arctic, Antarctica etc, etc.) . These factors include topography, insolation, proximity to sea , land, sea ice, ice on land, prevailing winds etc.. . Accordingly, anyone who claims that each region should respond identically to an increase in CO2 is either a fool or someone who is trying to run a straw argument.
Likewise, the idea that a constant forcing means that the temperature at a particular location or region must increase uniformly over time is propagating nonsense or skilled at constructing straw men (sometime overtly but often implicitly).
Only those who are blissfully ignorant of other factors that modulate or modify the temperatures, such as El-Nino, PDO, AMO (and the other quasi periodic factors denoted by a range of acronyms) , aerosols and volcanic activity, will fall for this kind of crap. I thought again, it would be obvious that sometimes the trend is less (even a pause or decrease is likely over some sub-interval) and at other times it will be greater than the average trend. Claims that this variation means that the global climate is unaffected by monotonically increasing concentrations of CO2, is to put it kindly, bizarre.
Today’s sermon is now over and I suspect that this will fall on deaf ears (or ears and eyes obscured by hands) and the usual suspects will continue to trot out their usual zombie arguments.
MR,
You still have to overcome one giant hurdle. It’s called physics.
There is no testable GHE hypothesis, because such a thing would involve magic.
Give it a try. First, you will have to properly describe the GHE. How hard could it be?
Good luck.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn
For the benefit of any lurkers.
The greenhouse effect is the reduction in outgoing infra-red radiation from a planetary atmosphere due to the presence of gases which absorb and reradiate in the infra-red.
You can see this in the outward radiation spectrum. The black line is the actual radiation. The red line is the spectrum you would see if there were no greenhouse gases.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXshisOUQAAroN7.jpg
EM,
Doesn’t work, does it? The surface cools every night. Overall, it has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. No longer molten, you should have noticed by now.
The other major problem with your pseudoscientific nonsense is that insulation works in both directions. Hence, the highest surface temperatures are found in arid tropical deserts, characterised by the least GHGs in the atmosphere. No trapped heat. No accumulated heat. You are as dim as Trenberth.
Carry on being stupid and ignorant. CO2 provides no heat. No “Hottest year EVAH!” due to slower cooling. No GHE.
Cheers,
E-man, just a few errors, so you can learn how they’ve corrupted your mind.
1) Your link is NOT the “actual radiation” from Earth. It is a computer model.
2) The computer model does not show the shorter (visible) wavelengths. Earth is definitely visible from space.
3) The red line represents 294K. Earth’s average temperature is 288 K.
4) Just because atmospheric gases can re-radiate does not mean they can warm the surface.
This is the real data.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
I’ve never seen that before, E-man. Thanks.
In a way, it is “data”. It is more data showing the AGW/GHE is nonsense. I stopped reading, due to laughter, when I got to this: “The dashed line represents a ‘blackbody’ curve characteristic of 300° K [sic]…”
Ignoring the fact that he uses the degree symbol (°) with “K”, thought out, he believes the curve is “characteristic” of 300 K. But the curve peaks at about 15 μ, corresponding to 193 K.
Maybe he also denies 2LoT, and believes 193 K can warm 288 K?
(Got anymore funny “data”?)
JDHuffman, MikeFlynn
It is curious how the theoretical models of outward and downwelling radiation look like the real data.
The theory describing the greenhouse effect is correct and you are talking bullshit!
E-man, it’s curious how you are so easily deceived. The models don’t match the real data, because there is NO real data. There are only some cherry-picked, possibly “homogenized” incomplete “picture”. There is NO continuous global measurement of Earth’s surface emission and there is NO continuous global measurement of Earth’s DWIR.
Sorry, but your belief system is nonsense. It might be time to think for yourself.
EM,
Unfortunately, Nature demonstrates that your explanation of the GHE as ” . . . reduction in outgoing infrared . . . ” is completely meaningless, as is your insistence that brightly coloured diagrams are meaningful.
In the long term (over four and a half billion years), the Earth has cooled.
In the short term (after the Sun has passed the zenith) the surface temperature falls – nighttime is an example.
Ira Glickstein wrote –
“Perhaps a better analogy would be an electric blanket that, in addition to its insulating properties, also emits thermal radiation both down and up.” More stupid analogies. Not just a blanket – an electric blanket with with an external power supply!
What a fool!
Try again. See if you can claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, while keeping a straight face.
Keep posting links to your “evidence” if it makes you happy. Have as many tantrums as you like, or throw a few obscenities around. It won’t help.
Cheers.
Em,
“The greenhouse effect is the reduction in outgoing infra-red radiation from a planetary atmosphere due to the presence of gases which absorb and reradiate in the infra-red.”
If you increase the emissivity of the atmosphere it will emit MORE IR at any given temp, not less…
“If you increase the emissivity of the atmosphere it will emit MORE IR at any given temp, not less…”
… but emission to space will be from higher/colder layers.
S,
On the other hand, the surface still cools, doesn’t it?
At night, for example. Temperatures don’t increase. They fall. It’s called cooling.
As to IR, satellites take pictures of the surface – through the atmosphere. Visible, IR, light of many frequencies goes straight through, doesn’t it?
You can even see the Moon and planets, stars as well. You feel the heat from the Sun – IR light.
Try to stop a big blob of molten rock from cooling. Hah!
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
No, you can not see the surface through the CO2 bands.
You see something that is 220 K.
It radiates much less than the surface.
Now there’s a testable GHE theory for you.
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
S,
And the surface has still cooled, hasn’t it?
No trapped heat. Your link to a modelling company’s product is irrelevant, isn’t it? Contains exactly no references to a GHE of any sort. As usual.
No testable GHE hypothesis, let alone any theory.
Keep up the pseudoscientific blathering. More pointless and irrelevant links, please.
Cheers.
Svante keeps linking to the MODTRAN computer model, that he can’t understand.
The model indicates a “ground temperature” of 299.7 K, for 400 ppm CO2. If you increase the CO2 to 4000 ppm, leaving everything else the same, the model indicates a ground temperature of 299.7 K. NO change.
Poor Svante. Even his beloved MODTRAN knows the atmosphere can NOT warm the surface.
JDHuffman,
1) Save the 400 ppm run to background.
2) Set 4000 ppm and tab out.
3) Adjust the temperature offset until the flux diff is zero.
4) See what ground temperature you get.
Don’t be scared, it has no feed backs and the impact is logarithmic.
And the resulting conclusion is that you can program a model to get any result you want.
Which was my point. Computer programs are NOT reality. You confuse reality with wishful thinking.
Try writing a program to increase my bank account by a factor of 10000.
It’s bound to work….
Yeah right, physics is wrong and the US Air Force created a program that doesn’t work:
http://modtran.spectral.com/
Physics is correct, pseudoscience is incorrect.
It’s important to know the difference, Svante.
Circulation on the Pacific does not correspond the El Niño conditions.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=ausf×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
That’s because it’s not an El Nino. According to BOM, the rising Pacific equatorial temperatures are just a transient and will be falling back to previous values over the next fortnight. But as you don’t trust BOM, you seem to have a bit of a dilemma.
B,
What’s your point? Are you trying to say that the BOM can predict the future, unless you don’t trust it?
Or are you just trolling?
What a fool – ignorant and stupid, to boot. Well done.
Cheers.
Within 36 hours, the Arctic air will attack both on the east and on the west coast of North America.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00980/7gyaa0m0x8y2.png
Ohhh … I see the relevance! JKS
B,
Do you really? Looks like you are just trolling, to me.
Cheers.
MikeR
I understand your position. But taking Macquarie I as example is wasting energy because an abrupt warming stop over 45 years should let you think that something special happened there.
Look for example at the situation in Norway in Northern Europe.
This is a chart showing temperature anomlies wrt 1981-2010 for 1880-2018:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T9eUy-1EgWhpK15T6pocaTUS2Y3nLyql/view
And this is one showing those for 1979-2018:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XSa6zSuSt1r0Zy8_Reaq-ACbNAxjyHXS/view
As you can see, the linear estimates follow the long time running means. There is
Estimates in C / decade:
1880-2018: 0.29 +- 0.01
1979-2018: 0.53 +- 0.06
2000-2018: 0.40 +- 0.17
and
2010-2018: 1.63 +- 0.55
Since 2000, around 100 stations are collecting data in that corner, within over 25 grid cells of 70000 km2 each.
That is the difference I’m talking about.
Maybe when I have some time I’ll generate a GHCN daily trend list, country by country.
So we could have a look at how the worldwide average estimate of 0.20 C / decade is spatially and temporally distributed…
The solar cycle is linked to both El Nino and the Southern Ocean temperatures. Use a 5 year moving average on the ocean temperature data and the link becomes very obvious. Basically, the frequency is the same, but the period start point is offset. (delay)What will the weakening sun and the magnetic field do to these cycles? Who knows, but yeah let’s keep Co2 front center and worry about 0.36 deg C of global warming when we should be worried about the Holocene abruptly ending similar to events seen in the proxy data. Also imagine a modern day Carrington event with a weak magnetic field and all this dependence on the grid. Where are our priorities?
Visible two centers of the polar vortex, compatible with the geomagnetic field, at the level of 500 hPa.
https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00980/78jbwkchc613.png
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif
Yeah I noticed that Ren first hand as I live right here in Michigan and I’ve watched that double vortex centered around the magnetic poles and El Nino trade punches. I was frankly surprised that the Feb data for USA48 came in where it did. I was expecting colder. The image shows for Detroit shows +2 deg C when the recorded temps averaged +0.2 deg F per NOAA. It’s just one spot check near where I live, and I understand it’s energy lost not the same as temperature but that is a large difference. As long as the methodology remains the same, we can use it to gauge the trends regardless. Around here summers are still getting warmer, but winters colder for 17 years now. I don’t believe NASA for one minute that there was no cooling from 1940-1980. I mean, it was public knowledge at the time things were getting colder with more ice, and they were worried about an ice age. How do they continue to get away with this? My friends and family are all brain washed! How to solve that is the biggest mystery. Anyways, the frustration is fresh for me because I really didn’t investigate this for myself until last October when I downloaded NOAA and HADSST data and checked for myself once and for all… and down the rabbit hole I went.
A new idea for a game to play with global warming alarmists:
#1 Have them pick any city in the US.
#2 You pull the NOAA data and show them there was cooling from 1940-1980 that NASA didn’t report it.
#3 You show them a near by small weather station chart to show them the heat island effect from cutting down trees and pouring concrete is greater than Co2.
Berkeley Earth found that 1/3 of all US stations went down.
It is only the average that goes up.
S,
Just as a matter of interest, Berkeley Earth is nothing to do with the University of California, Berkely, but chose the name of its non-profit organisation (to ensure exemption from some Federal income taxes) to give an aura of authority, I believe.
Currently, they seem more interested in convincing the Chinese to stop smoking, and giving China incentives to stop using coal.
You can donate money via PayPal if you wish. They received $417 in 2014 from online donations. Every little bit helps.
Cheers.
That’s right Mike.
Svante, please stop being Svante.
No, you misunderstand again, I meant it.
Mike was more or less right, for once.
No, I understood. Now, Svante, please stop being Svante.
He did not address the point, but what he said was not completely wrong.
Still being Svante…
Get ready for March 10.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/03/10/1200Z/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-92.05,44.27,3000/loc=-88.937,44.681
Spot on Scott. The ending of the holocene is going to be a bitch.
Chances are you never heard of this guy , but he can destroy the global warming idiocy in 20 minutes
https://youtu.be/7s2uI5gB85E?t=908
You’re right!
I’ve never heard of this guy.
Don’t feel too bad , he never heard of you either.
Dont feel too bad , he never heard of you either.
First chuckle of the day (-:
I like these ‘specialists’ who behave here as if they were the Science Pope in person.
https://www.arm.gov/capabilities/instruments/sirs
https://www.archive.arm.gov/discovery/#v/results/s/finst::sirs/fpmt::irradlwbbdn
https://www.archive.arm.gov/arm/Thumbnail2.jsp?datastream=sgpsirsC1.b1&startDate=01/01/2019&varName=down_long_hemisp_shaded
Click on a day, thus activating
https://www.archive.arm.gov/arm/Quicklook.jsp
and a new window appears showing the graphs you need (SWIR, LWIR).
It shouldn’t be too hard to find the corresponding data source.
I don’t need it actually, so I won’t search.
Denialism is really one of the most stupid behaviors.
B,
You don’t deny that the Earth’s surface has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, do you?
You don’t deny that the Earth’s surface cools each night, do you?
You don’t deny that the proposition that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, is an impossibility, do you?
You see, it’s easy to accept fact. No denial needed. No testable GHE hypothesis exists. No CO2 heating exists.
Keep trying to predict the future by looking very carefully at the past, if you wish.
Cheers.
Bindidon proclaims: “Denialism is really one of the most stupid behaviors.”
It ranks right up there with “rabid bloviation”, huh Bindidon?
Fun to watch: Ric Werme’s Ensometer at WUWT.
https://werme.bizland.com/werme/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
After a long stay below 1.0, and another long stay just above 0.5, followed by a couple of weeks at the top of the neutral region, the lazy guy feels spring coming and now goes back up to the yellows.
Klaus Wolter’s MEI is actually inactive:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
but should soon come back to us.
Two weeks ago, we saw on the Japanese El Nino page at the bottom of Fig. 2
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
a Nino/normal ratio of 60/40; the bottommost line is now again at 70/30.
Ein Schritt hin, ein Schritt zurück, ein Schritt hin. So ist unser Niño eben…
To add to the list of ENSO watchers:
For NOAA metrics, it’s likely a weak el Nino will be called for the last 6-7 months when March data come in. Their metric is NINO3.4 region sea surface temperatures at 0.5C or above for 5 consecutive 3-month blocks.
Data
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/detrend.nino34.ascii.txt
Forecast
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
BoM has a higher bar for a full blown ENSO event: 0.8 C above/below average for NINO3.4 SSTs. Here is their forecast.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Thx barry, I know these sources. But I prefer to keep near JMA and MEI, they were the most accurate all the time.
I can understand the preference for MEI – more factors contribute to the estimate – but I don’t know how you work out that JMI is ‘most accurate’, as there is not really a benchmark.
Bindidon, barry, please stop boring.
For the CORRECT PHYSICS about climate change view my 15 minute video at https://youtu.be/1BEN3iJzlrI as the information therein will blow your mind.
2LOT confusion again.
‘Scientist’ is none other than D*ug C*tton, who has been banned here multiple times, and is still peddling the same rubbish as usual – namely that gravity creates heat.
Here is a physics professor briefly answering that question:
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19799&t=does-gravity-cause-a-temperature-difference
So why was he banned?
Because he posted extremely long screeds saying the same thing over and over, and Roy Spencer didn’t want bad physics clogging up the blog.
We still have similar today from others, but the screeds are much shorter.
Anyway the banned one used sock puppets. This is his latest after a long hiatus.
Roy’s post on it was more genial…
https://tinyurl.com/zkuo33b
WUWT claims most of the skeptical blogosphere has banned him.
https://tinyurl.com/y4fsm9x3
People that find him interesting tend to be the complete ignorati, or other crackpots with similar ideas.
And a bit more from Roy.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/blog-comments-suspended/
barry, I remember Dxxg. He used to comment here regularly, and I’ve seen him on other blogs. He gets some of his physics wrong, but at least he knows CO2 can NOT warm the planet.
Like you, he tends to avoid personal attacks and has good written communication skills. And, also like you, he is relentless in forcing his beliefs ahead of the actual physics.
It takes all kinds….
And he has the same 2LOT misunderstanding as Huffman, Flynn, Gordon and DREMT, that a cold object can not influence the temperature of warmer object.
Svante, not that you clowns have any interest in accuracy, but a cold object can cool a warmer object.
Now you can go back to misrepresenting others.
There you are you see, it can cool it more or less.
If the cooling was in balance with a warming influence it can bring the warm temperature both up and down.
When you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, just ramble in circles.
Yes you do.
Nice misrepresentation, Svante.
You’re learning quickly to be a clown. Too bad you can’t learn some physics.
Svante doesn’t like reality, I point out that nobody has ever proposed a testable GHE hypothesis, and that the Earth is a big blob of slowly cooling molten rock.
Svante wrote –
“Flynn loops at once on his no-GHE molten rock theory.”
Not my theories. Just facts. Others may decide for themselves, of course.
Cheers.
At what rate is this big blob of molten rock cooling?
b,
Can’t you work it out for yourself? Is your main problem ignorance or stupidity?
Let me know.
Cheers.
Yeah, right, Mike
https://austhrutime.com/precambrian_ice_age.htm
It has warmed since the precambrian.
Many times, warmed, then cooled, warmed, then cooled.
bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
Wouldn’t an observation other than a warming troposphere simultaneous with a cooling stratosphere over a sufficiently long period of time falsify the GHE hypothesis?
No, to falsify the greenhouse effect, you would have to show that there are no gases that are active in the infrared spectrum.
That’s all you need to do.
Sure, that would certainly be one way of doing it. There other ways as well. But in terms of an experiment relevant to the UAH dataset an observation other than a warming troposphere simultaneous with a cooling stratosphere would go a long way towards falsification of the GHE hypothesis. It has the added benefit of satisfying skeptical concerns that this or that experiment hasn’t been conducted on an Earthly scale. Well, this is literally the experiment they’ve been calling for and it’s been going on now since the late 1970’s. Unsurprisingly the UAH observations are consistent with the GHE hypothesis.
bobdroege, bdgwx, please stop defending the GHE.
I’m just trying to help you guys out in falsifying the GHE.
Yes, you’ve been a great help with that, downthread.
JDHuffman and DREMT
You have an idea that all photons from a 300 K object would be rejected by a 500 K surface. Gordon Robertson is also a believer in this Claes Johnson opinion.
Now you can prove to the this blog world with actual tests. At least one of the three of you should be able to do it.
Get hold of a FLIR camera.
To set up a control, find an object with a distinct pattern that you can see when you reflect the image of a sheet of polished metal and will show up in the FLIR camera as this image so you can see what reflection looks like in such a device.
Should give you something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg8bA5zFV5Q
The IR energy from the person’s body is reflected from the glass and you can see his image.
Now once you get your control established with the target object,
Heat a surface to 500 K (don’t use an IR reflective surface for the test, use a material that absorbs IR well). Next take the object with a unique image and heat it to 300 K and bring it toward the 500 K surface. Hold your FLIR at some angle and based upon your physics you will see the image of the 300 K object reflected off the 500 K plate. If you do not see an image you are wrong. I would hope you could post the results on YouTube and put a link to the test for us to see.
I predict you will not see any image because the 500 K object is absorbing most of the IR the 300 K object is emitting.
Prove me wrong, you won’t be able to. My physics is based upon actual textbook physics. Yours is based upon blog science where people make up any idea they like and you think accepting them means you have a good open mind.
Science does not care about open minded state. It is about proof of ideas using actual observation, evidence, experiment.
Here’s your mistake, clown: “Hold your FLIR at some angle and based upon your physics you will see the image of the 300 K object reflected off the 500 K plate.”
You don’t have a clue about the relevant physics. You’d best stick to your childish insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. That’s all you’ve got.
JDHuffman
Maybe you should try to do an actual experiment and leave your taunting at home.
N,
Why do you keep demanding that others waste their time and effort?
Why not just do the experiment, and post your results?
I assume the answers to both questions are related to you being stupid and ignorant, with a bit of mental derangement tossed in, but of course you might be able to provide evidence to the contrary.
How about it, Norman? Where’s your evidence?
Cheers.
I have done an experiment like the green/blue plate experiment, two different times, two different tests not exactly the same.
You guys won’t believe the results, and that is why I would ask you to do the experiment yourselves.
First one.
I was measuring the temperature of a heater block in a Gas Chromatograph to verify the operation of the instrument.
I removed the column and some insulation and stuck a calibrated thermocouple into the heater block and measured the temperature. It was too cold and I could only get conforming results if I replaced the insulation that I removed, with no other changes, the addition of the insulation raised the temperature of the heater block that the thermocouple was measuring.
Second one, more like the plate experiment.
I put a pot on the stove, I taped a thermocouple to the botton of a plate and put it on the top of the pot. Low heat and waited until the temperature was stable. I then put another plate on top of the first, inverted so there was only contact around the rim of both plates, and made no other changes, and watched the temperature. It went up.
You guys should try your own experiments.
That is if you wish to remain skeptical.
Or hug your pseudoscience like Trump humps the flag.
bob, your experiments show that insulation works.
Unfortunately, they also show you don’t understand the issue.
Maybe you could explain it to me JD.
But only using empirically observed properties of matter.
Actually I showed that adding a cooler object causes a warmer object to become even warmer.
Empirical evidence that something cool can cause something warmer to become even warmer.
Which you would say violates the second law.
But it is evidence that you have no clue about said second law of thermodynamics.
Perhaps some study is in order.
bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
bobdroege says: on Mar.7 at 9:39PM “Actually I showed that adding a cooler object causes a warmer object to become even warmer. Empirical evidence that something cool can cause something warmer to become even warmer. Which you would say violates the 2nd Law.”
The fact that the warmer object becomes even warmer does not violate the 2nd Law.
What violates the 2nd Law is claiming that the cause temperature increase of the warmer plate is a transfer of thermal energy/heat from the cooler object.
The reality is that every single Joule of heat/thermal energy that caused the increase in internal energy and temperature of the warmer object came from the continuous thermal energy/heat source, and not a single Joule of thermal energy/heat came from a transfer of thermal energy/heat from the colder object.
The cooler object acts as a radiation shield and reduces the transfer of thermal energy away from the warmer object because the warmer object is transferring heat to a higher temperature object than the previous surroundings, which allows the thermal energy from the constant heat source to accumulate in the warmer object, and thus increase the internal energy and temperature of the warmer object.
Thus all laws of thermodynamics are satisfied.
Poor Norman believes “reality” is “taunting”.
You really can’t help someone like that.
1) I indicated where the error was in his latest pseudoscience. He just can’t understand it, as usual.
2) He keeps wanting others to do his nonsense experiments, but he runs from the simple $20 experiment that would prove him wrong.
Norman abhors reality, but excels at insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
N,
How about you perform the experiment yourself? Post the results on YouTube, with a link for us all to see.
Your predictions are not facts.
Here’s an experiment for you. Heat up some water. Put it in a freezer. Acoording to GHE nutters, the water must absorb photons from the walls of the freezer and get hotter. Post the results showing the water getting hotter on Youtube if you wish. Feel free to use as much CO2 as you like.
I don’t even know or care what your looney textbook physics says should happen. My prediction is that water put in a freezer will freeze.
Cheers.
“Heres an experiment for you. Heat up some water. Put it in a freezer. Acoording to GHE nutters, the water must absorb photons from the walls of the freezer and get hotter.”
You haven’t the foggiest idea how any of this works!
Of course, the water absorbs photons from the walls. But just a surely, the water — being warmer than the walls — will emit more photons than it absorbs. So the water cools. All according to the basic physics used by “nutters” like the military, physics professors, and actual practicing chemical engineers. People all the way back to Stefan, Boltzmann, and Kirchhoff had this figured out.
T,
It’s not a question of how many photons. It’s a matter of the frequency of those photons. Single photon detectors can determine the frequency of that photon. Your naive perception has some basis in truth, as generally emissions from the environment are not monochromatic in nature. Hence, laws such as Newton’s Law of Cooling.
However, the takeaway is that the water cools. No heating, and no amount of semantic contortions can change this.
Your references did much good work, but had no experience with quantum electrodynamics. Just as Carnot came up with the Carnot cycle, in spite of the fact he believed in the caloric theory of heat.
So your “basic physics” may be wrong, as well as irrelevant. CO2 provides no heat. There is no GHE which results in higher temperatures due to increased CO2 between the heat source (the Sun), and a thermometer. No heating. A colder atmosphere does not “add heat” to the surface, any more than colder ice adds heat to water.
Anybody who believes otherwise is a nutter, regardless of their qualifications, intelligence, or occupation.
Cheers,
Mike, Your posts are always a fascinating combination of simple truths, simple mistakes, and non-sequitors.
* Both the number and the frequency distribution matter. Since we are assuming a material with high emissivity, then we are — by diffinition — assuming a material that efficiently absorbs all frequencies of IR.
* Newton’s law of cooling is not based on light not being monochromatic.
* The frequency, speed, and wavelengths of light (including IR) was known to scientists in the 1800s. No single photon detectors need. Heck, you don’t even need to know about photons to determine these quantities.
* The takeaway is that water cools … and water warms! Whenever water (or anything else) gains more thermal energy than is loses, it warms up. Whenever water (or anything else) loses more thermal energy than is gains, it cools down. Cool surrounding do not provide heat — this is quite true. The cool surroundings DO impact how easily heat is lost. Hence they must have an effect of temperatures.
Tim says: “The cool surroundings DO impact how easily heat is lost. Hence they must have an effect of temperatures.”
Tim, you keep making the same mistakes. This goes back to the “plates”. The green plate does not affect the emission from the blue plate. The blue plate emits based on its temperature, nothing else. The green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.
The spinning airplane prop IS spinning. You can NOT claim it is not spinning based on some arbitrary frame of reference. You would lose another arm trying to prove such nonsense.
Learn some physics.
“Both the number and the frequency distribution matter. Since we are assuming a material with high emissivity, then we are — by diffinition — assuming a material that efficiently absorbs all frequencies of IR”
See, this is what I’m talking about further downthread. Once again, Tim is implying “all photons are always absorbed”, regardless of temperature. Most likely, if I pressed Tim, I would get back a lengthy discussion of all other possible factors which might affect photon absorp.tion, besides temperature. Which, incidentally, is exactly what happened last time. They will not go on record and say: “OK, all else being equal, the only distinguishing factor between two surfaces being temperature, here is why some photons will be rejected, and others absorbed, by the warmer surface…”
At least, I’ve never seen it.
“The green plate does not affect the emission from the blue plate. ”
Right. If the blue plate is at 244 K, it will emit 200 W/m^2 from its surfaces (left and right).
The point is that the green plate affects the ABSOR.PTION by the blue plate. IF the green plate is at 205 K and emits 100 W/m^2 toward the blue plate, those photons get absorbed by the blue plate. They must be absorbed if the blue plate is a blackbody (which was assumed for simplicity for the calculations in the initial problem). Kirchhoff showed how there could be violations of 2LoT if an object absorbed photons of a given wavelength differently that in emitted photons of that wavelength (including for non-blackbodies).
“IF the green plate is at 205 K and emits 100 W/m^2 toward the blue plate, those photons get absorbed by the blue plate.”
False. The blue plate is at a higher temperature.
“They must be absorbed if the blue plate is a blackbody.”
False. You do not get to violate the LAWS of physics with an imaginary object.
“Kirchhoff showed how there could be violations of 2LoT if an object absorbed photons of a given wavelength differently that in emitted photons of that wavelength.”
True. An object can not absorb photons with wavelengths that are too long.
Tim Folkerts says, March 6, 2019 at 3:49 PM:
Major mix-up of observational/descriptive levels, Tim. Power density fluxes (W/m^2) and photons as single entities do not exist within the same realm. This kind of chronic conflation is what causes all the confusion (of people like Norman) regarding the transfer of energy between hot and cold.
The cooler plate does NOT (!!!) emit 100 W/m^2 toward the warmer plate, Tim. The warmer plate emit [201-100=] 101 W/m^2 toward the cooler plate. We’re safely at the MACRO level here. If you move down into the quantum (MICRO) realm, you will see individual photons moving both from the warmer plate to the cooler AND from the cooler plate to the warmer, but what you observe, then, is an entirely different phenomenon, not at all a thermodynamic one.
Please try and keep the two levels separate to lessen the confusion.
Kristian
If you will pull my name up and say I am confused then accept my challenge and support your claims. You can’t and you never will.
EMR is not a single fluid or body that flows from one object to another. You have the old view of the caloric.
All bodies emit as unique objects they have no concern about any other objects around them. There is not fluid flow of EMR.
Prove you case, I have proven mine with many links. You only link to your own website. You are a trained geologist and you act like a King expert in Heat Transfer but you don’t even get the basic right and continuously ignore my requests you prove your position. You won’t because you can’t. Your position would make it impossible to see individual objects in room filled with many objects.
No one here is confused but you. You are using an outdated rejected understanding of heat flow. The more valid and correct version is that Radiant heat flow is the amount of energy a body emits MINUS the energy it absorbs from its surroundings.
You also can’t grasp that emission of EMR and the process of absorbing IR are two separate process. There is no dime in one hand taken out. You can have enormous emission from a hot surface and very little absorbing when the hot Moon surface first reaches night or any other combination. They are not one process but distinct separate processes.
I doubt you will put out the effort to defend your crackpot physics. You just make up unsupported declarations like other skeptics on this blog. Never even attempting to prove them.
You use your own blog as proof, JDHuffman uses his own cartoon for proof. Neither of you will ever go to valid textbook science for proof.
Norman, your comment to Kristian on Mar.7,2019 at 8:31PM was a delusional rant projecting your own failings ignorance and misunderstandings of thermodynamics, heat transfer, and physics onto Kristian.
– I’ve seen Kristian expose you 2nd Law deniers’ pathetic and wrong understanding of thermodynamics numerous times.
– None of you has ever refuted anything Kristian has posted.
– You make evidence-free claims that the temperature of an always hotter object increases further solely as a result of the transfer of heat/thermal energy from an always colder object.
– You can’t cite or quote thermodynamics or heat transfer textbooks to support your crackpot physics and your anti-thermodynamics nonsense.
– You can’t give any real world evidence or examples of your anti-thermodynamic nonsense. Your claimed examples do no such thing. My heat transfer example proves that every Joule of energy that increases the internal energy/temperature of the always hotter object comes from the constant heat source, not from the always colder object. That example proves that you are 2nd Law deniers.
– You are hopelessly confused and conflicted, denying fundamental thermodynamics and heat transfer.
– You fail to grasp the fact that even the century-ago physicists recognized that the heat/thermal energy exchange process between two radiating bodies is unidirectional because “the cooling of a hot body and the cooling of a cold body happening simultaneously as part of the same phenomenon, and we describe this phenomenon as the passage of heat from the hot body to the cold one”- Maxwell. You wrongly believe that there are two separate phenomenon, heat/thermal energy being transferred from the hot body to the cold body AND heat/thermal energy being transferred from the colder body to the hot body. No such bidirectional heat/thermal energy transfer has ever been observed, detected or measured. The only thing that has ever been measured is the net radiation, which is the unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer.
Like Kristian has, I have also exposed you and your fellow 2nd Law deniers’ anti-thermodynamics nonsense in the Australian heat blog article, and years ago here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2017-0-54-deg-c/#comment-270274.
Tim continues his pseudoscience: “Of course, the water absorbs photons from the walls.”
Tim, whenever you make such a statement, without the clarification that the freezer walls could never raise the temperature of the water, you are practicing pseudoscience.
Learn some physics, and clean up ypur act.
What else do you need me to clarify for you?
* That the freezer is plugged in and actually cold?
* That it is not salt water that is already colder than the freezer?
* That there is no heater inside the water keeping it warm?
* That there is not a perfectly reflecting layer around the ice preventing transfer of radiation?
There are infinite other things that COULD be happening. Warmer materials always have net radiation flows to cooler materials around them. Kirchhoff stated that more than a century ago. It is not a surprise, nor something that I need to repeat in every post I make!
Tim, AGAIN, whenever you make such a statement, without the clarification that the freezer walls could never raise the temperature of the water, you are practicing pseudoscience.
Learn some physics, and clean up ypur act.
JDHuffman
You look extremely ignorant compared to Tim Folkerts. The difference is he actually studied real heat transfer and you have not. You have read blog posts by fringe crackpots that offer zero evidence for their declarations (hmmm that is what you do all the time) and post this material as if it were experimental physics.
You are wrong in your unsupported anti-science declaration. This one is not even remotely logic.
YOUR CLOWN PHYSICS: “Tim, AGAIN, whenever you make such a statement, without the clarification that the freezer walls could never raise the temperature of the water, you are practicing pseudoscience.”
Freezer walls can raise the temperature of heated water if the freezer walls have an increase in temperature. Your declarations are lame and devoid of rational thought.
You should take your own advice: “Learn some physics, and clean up ypur act.”
Not that you ever will. You are not able to read well enough to learn actual physics. Some short blog articles are hard enough for you to process.
“that the freezer walls could never raise the temperature of the water”
I am curious — do you apply this principle to conduction too? Suppose I plug in my coffee pot (with a constant heater) and put it in my freezer @ -30 C. The water in the coffee pot will reach some warm temperature — maybe 50 C.
Then I adjust the thermostat on the freezer to only -1 C. Are you proposing that the coffee will stay at 50C? What if the walls of the freezer warm to 49.9 C? Will the coffee pot stay at 50 C?
Tim, conductive heat transfer works with ΔT. Radiative heat transfer does not.
Norman, you are just as clueless as usual.
MiHow about you perform the experiment yourself? Post the results on YouTube, with a link for us all to see.
N,
How about I post an imaginary response to your demand that I perform your imaginary experiment?
In what fantasy do you imagine that I would willingly dance to your tune?
Your stupidity is possibly matched by your ignorance. I have no way of knowing. If you had a testable GHE hypothesis, it could be tested. But you haven’t, so it can’t.
The Earth has cooled. No GHE. Cools every night. No GHE.
No CO2 heating – no GHE. Annoying, but true.
Cheers.
Mike, I would be fascinated to hear why you are so focused on the core and mantel. Everyone acknowledges they have cooled over the past 4 billion years.
But we are discussing *climate* — temperatures and weather patterns affecting people and plants and animals at the surface. This area has clearly cooled and warmed numerous times over the past 4 billion years. So yes, there has been periods of global warming and periods of global cooling.
Once we acknowledge the actual question at hand, then we can start to address why this warming and cooling might occur.
Tim, I would be fascinated to hear why you are so focused on the perversion of physics.
Why do you keep promoting the falsehood that “cold” can warm “hot”?
And don’t try to deny that is what you’re doing.
You need to learn some physics, and clean up your act.
JD, Let’s try some physics and ignore semantics for now. After all, we care about how the universe behaves, not what words people happen to use.
A sphere with an area of 1 m^2 is placed in a vacuum chamber (no conduction or convection). The surface of the sphere and the interior surfaces of the chamber have an emissivity of ~ 1. There is a 500 W heater inside the sphere. The walls of the chamber are cooled to 4.2 K (liquid Helium). What temperature will the sphere be once it stabilizes?
[306 K]
Warm the walls to 195 K (dry ice). What temperature will the sphere be once it stabilizes?
[318 K]
Warm the walls to 273 K (ice melting point). What temperature will the sphere be once it stabilizes?
[346 K]
Warm the walls to 293 K (room temperature). What temperature will the sphere be once it stabilizes?
[357 K]
Is there anything here you disagree with? Does the sphere warm up as the walls warm up?
Tim asks: “Is there anything here you disagree with? Does the sphere warm up as the walls warm up?”
Yes.
No.
Tim, we’ve been here before. This is just the “plates” in a new format. The colder walls can NOT radiatively warm the warmer sphere. The green plate cannot warm the blue plate.
You need an indepth study of radiative physics, heat transfer, and thermodynamics.
So what temperature do YOU think the sphere will be? 306 K in every case? What calculations do you base that on?
“So what temperature do YOU think the sphere will be? 306 K in every case?”
Yes.
“What calculations do you base that on?”
The equation from S/B Law that you used correctly.
The “equation from S/B Law” that I used correctly was the equation that tells us that the sphere will be different temperatures!
P/A = (sigma) (T_h^4 – T_c^4).
This is the equation in every physics and engineering text covering radiation and heat transfers.
Tim, your equation: P/A = (sigma) (T_h^4 – T_c^4). is NOT the S/B Law.
That’s just one of your mistakes.
The S/B Law is: P/A = σT^4
JDHuffman says, March 7, 2019 at 1:26 AM:
Indeed, but in this particular case it tells us nothing.
What we want to find out is whether or not the rate of heat loss (P/A) from the heated sphere to its surroundings changes as those surroundings warm.
Then we need to take the surroundings into account. Hence, the radiative HEAT TRANSFER equation:
P/A = (sigma) [T_h^4 – T_c^4]
What it does is calculate the rate of heat transfer between the object and its surroundings. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is simply the equation above set in an ideal situation where the surroundings are so much colder than the object that they can simply be disregarded – they’re essentially zero:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/docs/documents/431/heat_radiation_from_black_surface_absolute_zero.pdf
But as those surroundings grow warmer, that second term can no longer be ignored, and the net transfer from the object to the surroundings becomes less than the maximum potential.
This becomes a problem for the object once it is already constantly heated by a third body/region, a heat source, like our Sun, or Tim’s 500W internal heater.
You see, the amount of internal energy [U] inside an object is set at the balance point between its heat INPUT and its heat OUTPUT. Our sphere’s heat OUTPUT is its radiative emission flux to its surroundings, while its heat INPUT is constantly provided by its internal heater.
Once the sphere’s surroundings become warmer, the sphere’s radiative emission flux (P/A) to those surroundings becomes smaller, and an imbalance between the sphere’s heat INPUT (constant) and its heat OUTPUT (reduced) arises: Q_in > Q_out => +Q_net => +U => +T. Energy naturally accumulates inside the sphere as a result, which makes it warm. This process will continue until the heat balance is finally restored: Q_in = Q_out => Q_net = 0.
Same thing applies at Earth’s top-of-atmosphere (ToA): heat flux IN from the Sun (ASR) minus heat flux OUT from the Earth (OLR) equals net heat flux. If the ToA net heat flux (ASR-OLR) is zero, then no energy accumulates within the Earth system, and there is no overall warming. If there’s a positive imbalance (ASR>OLR), however, then there will be warming (+U => +T).
Kristian, an object emits based on its surface temperature. Nothing else matters. The surroundings don’t matter.
You appear to be confusing heat transfer with emission.
JD, you missed the point, what happens if heat in > out?
No Svante, I didn’t miss the point. You did!
I was correcting Tim on his physics, again. He did not know what the S/B Law stated. There is no “in > out” involved.
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman says, March 7, 2019 at 8:32 AM:
Sure. As long as its surroundings are so much colder than the object that they can be effectively neglected (as in the case of Earth’s heat loss to space (the OLR) at the top of the atmosphere (ToA)). That’s the condition in which the S-B equation was originally empirically discovered and defined (and later mathematically derived).
But the HEAT LOSS from an object is NOT based solely on its own surface temperature (except under the ideal conditions above). And it’s the final balance between an object’s heat GAIN (from its heat source) and its heat LOSS (to its heat sink) that determines its temperature. And temperature is specifically what we’re discussing here.
The heat loss from a warmer object is based on the temperature DIFFERENCE between itself and its cooler surroundings. The smaller that temperature difference, the smaller the heat loss. This is Thermodynamics 101.
When it comes to heat transfer between an object and its surroundings, the surroundings don’t just matter; they make all the difference.
Hehe, not at all. Rather, you appear for some reason to want to divert our attention away from the issue at hand, which is whether or not the surface temperature of a constantly heated object will rise as we make its thermal surroundings grow warmer.
It will. By thermodynamic necessity. The working mechanism is called ‘insulation’. You might’ve heard of it …
“((An object’s) surroundings are so much colder than the object that they can be effectively neglected is) the condition in which the S-B equation was originally empirically discovered and defined (and later mathematically derived).”
Not so Kristian, if you actually walk/drive over to the library, or internet hunt for the original empirical discovery experiment papers, then find the object’s surroundings were also much warmer than the object not “so much colder” as you write.
The radiant energy from a warmer object is NOT based on the temperature DIFFERENCE between itself and its cooler surroundings, the ideal radiant energy emitted at each wavelength (sometimes per steradian when meaning luminous intensity) is solely based on the object’s equilibrium temperature.
This is where Kristian’s confusion from incorrectly using the heat term causes Kristian to make errors in practical atm. thermodynamics. When used correctly, heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
“JDHuffman and DREMT…You have an idea that all photons from a 300 K object would be rejected by a 500 K surface…”
Woah there, Norman. Steady on. Now, as we’ve seen further upthread, you’re a little bit obsessed with me, and you’re entirely obsessed with JD – but there’s no need to just make stuff up. JD made the statement that all photons from a 300 K object would be rejected by a 500 K surface, in the comments under an older article, not me. He then stopped commenting under that article. Others there were still commenting, expecting a response, and acting as though the lack of response meant something (trolls being trolls, what do you expect?). So, I did what members of the group of professional sophists who have completely overwhelmed this blog through weight of numbers and are here specifically to defend the GHE month after month (yourself included, Norman) would NEVER do to one another – I put JD on the spot, on a more active thread where he was currently commenting. I brought it up, because I was interested in the discussion. I could have left it, leaving JD to “get away with” saying it without having to defend it, but I didn’t.
It’s not my idea and I’m not saying it’s right, or wrong. What I noted at the time it was discussed in more detail was, those asking others to be skeptical about “all photons being rejected” because of the temperature difference were not asking others to be skeptical of the other end of the scale, that “all photons would be absorbed” despite the temperature difference. All their arguments seemed to imply that there was no temperature-based limit on absorp.tion of photons. This struck me as suspicious.
“I predict you will not see any image because the 500 K object is absorbing most of the IR the 300 K object is emitting.”
OK, finally, “most of”. So at least you are acknowledging that there is some temperature-based limit on absorp.tion. So, maybe I can get a straight answer for the first time from one of you guys: by what mechanism is “some of” the IR from the 300 K object rejected by the 500 K object?
DREMT, I didn’t mean to leave your question unanswered. I think I have answered a similar question before, but will do so again.
A 300 K black body will emit a spectrum with the peak energy at a wavelength of about 9.7 μ. The 500 K black body will have a different spectrum with the peak energy at about 5.8 μ. Black bodies, at different temperatures, will have different spectra.
The two spectra will overlap. That is, some of the photons arriving the 500 K BB will actually have enough energy to be absorbed. That is confusing to clowns, because they believe “absorbing” translates to “raising the temperature”. That’s why I changed the ΔT, trying to make it less confusing.
They just don’t understand the relevant physics, and can’t learn. If you try to teach them with simple examples, they just get frustrated and start hurling their slime.
The 500 K BB absorbing SOME photons from the 300 K BB does NOT translate to “cold” warming “hot”. It is analogous to pouring a liter of 20 C water into a 100 liter bathtub of 40 C water. Energy has been added to the 100 liter vat, but the temperature did not increase.
Again, I apologize for missing your question. I always try to reapond to responsible questions.
Not a problem, in fact when I raised the point at the more recent article you were commenting under, you did provide a straightforward answer at the time, in response to Chic.
I would like to hear from Norman, about his statement about how the 500 K object is absorbing “most of” the IR from the 300 K object. This implies he agrees that at least “some of” the IR is rejected. I’d like to know whether the mechanism he proposes for “some of” the IR getting rejected is actually just the same as what you explained to Chic, in the first place. I have never seen a straight answer, from any of the GHE defenders, on a temperature-based reason why ANY IR would be rejected rather than absorbed. It simply is not something they seem to want to go on record as discussing (perhaps because it does away with their “intelligent photon” straw man that they like to bash).
I’ll give you a straight answer to this.
“I have never seen a straight answer, from any of the GHE defenders, on a temperature-based reason why ANY IR would be rejected rather than absorbed.”
It will either be reflected, ab.sorb.ed, or transmitted.
Which doesn’t depend on temperature.
At least I am not aware of any experimental evidence for temperature affecting how a material reacts to light.
You could melt a mirror and say, look, it stopped reflecting light, but that is not what we are discussing.
So I can go on record saying the infrared from the CO2 in the atmosphere is ab/sorbed by the surface of the earth and this is the greenhouse effect, which slows the cooling of the surface.
Is that what you wanted?
“Which doesn’t depend on temperature”
Well thanks bob, it’s nice to have the extremist viewpoint so openly and straightforwardly declared. Was actually hoping to hear from Norman, but I guess you’re all the same, and speak with one united voice on every subject. So, cheers.
bobdroege says:
Yes, there is no temperature factor in an ab.sorb.ptance table, is there?
https://tinyurl.com/yy6rjd4b
Having said that, I think Norman found a description of such an effect a couple of years ago. It occurred at several thousand degrees if I remember correctly.
Dremt,
I did notice that you are using rejected when the common term is reflected so I think you are not playing in the right ballpark.
It’s a two color problem, if you are not in the Dremt and JD camp, commonly referred to as the ****** (a small French coin) camp, then you are an extremist.
I would say the greenhouse effect is responsible for making the environment on earth comfortable and suitable for life, that wouldn’t be an extremist position or would it.
“It’s a two color problem, if you are not in the Dremt and JD camp, commonly referred to as the ****** (a small French coin) camp, then you are an extremist.”
No, I actually thought I’d made it pretty clear that I considered “all photons rejected” or “all photons absorbed” the extremes. “Rejected” is the term Norman used, and I was attempting to talk to Norman.
Optical properties of surfaces are vastly complicated when you get into the nitty-gritty.
How well light gets reflected (not “rejected”) or absor.bed from a surface depends on (among other things).
* the bulk material
* oxidation, etc at the surface
* surface roughness
* the wavelength of the incoming light
And yes, the temperature of the surface can make some difference too (but not in he way many seem to think).
Emissivity is one step more complicated. We need to integrate absor.ption over all the wavelengths that the surface could emit at its current temperature. For instance, silica absorbs nearly all IR below 4 um, so room temp silica would have an emissivity very close to 1.0, since rm temp materials can emit very little EM radiation at wavelengths below 4 um. But heat the silica to 1000 C and now it can emit in the visible range. But in this range, the absor.ption is poor, so the emission is poor, so the emissivity would drop well below 1.0.
Basically, the details are complicated! ALL of these values are functions of many variables, including temperature.
OK Tim, I guess Norman will stand corrected on the “rejected” term, but it doesn’t particularly bother me what words people use, when we’re talking about the same thing in any case. I’d say that’s pretty much the response I was expecting from you, although you did surprise me by including any place at all for temperature in your explanations. A bit more honest than bobdroege or Svante. Thanks. More input awaited.
I accept what Tim says, so now I’m a bit more honest too.
Great! Keep working on those basic human qualities.
Svante
Here are a couple links demonstrating the change in emissivity based upon temperature. One is of GHG and the other a solid surface.
Both decrease with an increase in temperature. My research from statistical thermodynamics is that as the object gets hotter more surface molecules are in excited states and will not absorb incoming photons.
Gases:
http://fchart.com/ees/gas%20emittance.pdf
One solid surface:
https://www.irsm.cas.cz/materialy/cs_content/2016_doi/Zhang_CS_2016_0023.pdf
Norman and Tim have stumbled on why the green plate can NOT warm the blue plate.
Let’s see if they can learn from their findings.
Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team:
The reason I chose the term “rejected” over the term “reflected” is because of the nature of the point.
A highly reflective material will remain highly reflective regardless of the temperature.
In JDHUffman’s original post was an object of high emissivity (which would also have an equally high abs.or.b.iti.vity.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-342738
That would mean the 500 K object is not a very reflective object at all so I am indicating the difference by stating the surface must them be “rejecting” the photons.
Dr. Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Here is a link to a calculator that will determine the fractional amount of molecules that are in an excited state for a given temperature and energy threshold.
I am not sure how to use it properly. I believe if you figure it out it should help.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/popfrac.html
Norman,
Yes, the emissivity of CO2 and H20 decrease as they get hotter. This is primarily due to the bands or IR that they can absorb, combined with Wein’s Law. (Not some sort of saturation of molecular vibrations)
For example, CO2 emits well near 14-16 um. If the CO2 is ~ 190K, then Wein’s Law tells us that the peak wavelength is near 15 um. The CO2 is trying to produce IR near 15 um (due to temperature) and it can produce IR near 15 um (based on molecular vibrations), so it emits efficiently, ie the emissivity is high.
If the CO2 is ~ 500K, then the peak wavelength is near 6 um, but CO2 cannot produce IR near 6 um (based on molecular vibrations), so it emits poorly, ie the emissivity is low.
If the CO2 is ~ 1000K, then the peak wavelength is near 3 um, and CO2 can produce IR in a couple bands near 2.5 um & 4.5 um, so it emits efficiently, ie the emissivity is high.
If the CO2 is ~ well above 1000K, then the peak wavelength drops below 2 um, and there are no more strong emission bands for CO2 below 2.5 um, so it emits poorly, ie the emissivity is low.
These exact features are seen in the graph you linked to! Emissivity is high at low temperatures, dips around 500K, rebounds around 1000 K, and then tails off at higher temperatures.
************************************
The same approach works for H20 in your link. It has more IR bands and wider IR bands, so overall the emissivity is higher than CO2. When you get to higher temperatures and shorter average wavelengths where H20 has fewer, weaker bands, the emissivity tails off.
Tim Folkerts
Thanks for the intelligent reply. Yes I think I grasp your point.
As the peak EMR emission of a blackbody (what an emissivity is compared to) moves with increasing temperature the gases emissivity goes down in comparison to the blackbody curve since they can’t emit at those wavelengths. Thanks for correcting my thought.
Tim Folkerts
Let me know if my path of understanding is correct on this one.
file:///C:/Users/Norm/Downloads/Chem350%20notes-5-20111%20(2).pdf
If all the vibrational levels are filled because of a high temperature, the surface will emit a massive amount of IR but can it then absorb external IR or would it then reflect off since all the possible vibrational states of the molecules are filled?
In this paper it shows that for temperatures we talk about (300-500 K) most molecules are in ground states can can absorb all energy that will move the molecules to the correct vibrational state.
I am not sure I am correct in my thinking on this but I want the correct information.
Norman,
Molecules vibrate with quantized energy levels. As you noted, at low temperatures, most are in the ground state. There are multiple excited states, each with an energy h-bar * omega higher than the previous. So even if the atom is in the first excited state, it could still absorb a photon (or get hit my some other molecule) and get bumped to the 2nd excited state.
Norman,
All you need to use that calculator is the energy levels of the bending and stretching modes of the CO2 molecule.
And the temperature.
The energy of the bending and stretching modes can be calculated from the CO2 spectrum, 15 um gives 0.08 ev and 4.3 um gives 0.29 ev.
Plug the energies and temperature in and away you go.
Tim “teaches”:
“…combined with Wein’s Law.”
“…then Wein’s Law tells us…”
Tim, if you’re going to pretend you know some physics, it’s best to get the spelling correct.
WIEN’S
Norman, as I explained, I was not remotely concerned by your use of the word “rejected”. Fine by me. The people who seemed bothered by it enough to mention it were bobdroege and Tim. Tim, the person who said upthread, “JD, Let’s try some physics and ignore semantics for now. After all, we care about how the universe behaves, not what words people happen to use“.
Thanks for your link to the calculator.
Now, you stated that “most of” the IR from the 300 K object is absorbed by the 500 K object. This implies that you think at least “some of” the IR is rejected. What is the mechanism by which you think the 500 K surface rejects “some of” the IR, whilst absorbing the rest? Assume the only difference between the two surfaces is temperature.
DRsEMT, You are tossing out a bogus hypothetical question to add to the confusion. As bobdroege and others have pointed out, there’s no material which exhibits a surface with a complete absorp_tion of a blackbody. But, those photons which aren’t absorbed don’t simply vanish, they will be absorbed by another surface or head out to deep space. If you had read Holman’s section on radiation heat transfer, you would be aware that the geometry of the situation determines where those reflected photons end up. And, there’s the possibility for multiple reflections between 2 bodies, such as parallel planes, which makes the math more interesting.
There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that those photons carry any “memory” of the temperature of their source, besides their wavelength within the emission spectrum. Thus, there’s no reason, based on physics, to claim that the thermal IR EM radiation from a colder body can’t be absorbed by a hotter body.
“DRsEMT, You are tossing out a bogus hypothetical question to add to the confusion.”
Incorrect, Swanson, I am referring to Norman’s statement, that I quoted in my initial comment at March 6, 6:13am, and asking him to explain himself. I am trying to cut through the confusion that others, including yourself, are deliberately adding.
This was the statement:
“I predict you will not see any image because the 500 K object is absorbing most of the IR the 300 K object is emitting.”
Swanson, even if a few photons from the colder body were absorbed by the hotter body, they would not raise the temperature of the hotter body. You keep trying, but reality isn’t your friend.
Why do you so obsessed to pervert physics?
DRsEMT, I’m just trying to be sure that you don’t take off on another wild goose chase, like your repeated claims about the insulating effect of the anodized coating on my Green and Blue plates. In that exchange, you never presented any analysis (as in math), to show how large that effect might be. You only posted a reference to a figure in a report that you dredged up somehow, which you completely misunderstood. When I did the calculations, the effect turned out to be trivial. Troll on…
You can’t blame me for being skeptical, Swanson, considering those red flags. I’m not sure calculating the thermal resistance of a material with varying conductivity through the surface is as straightforward as you think. Plus, why would a company selling anodized aluminium claim its product does not conduct heat well? Still not sure about it, and I’m continuing to look into it.
Anyway, back on topic…
And yet, as Swanson pointed out, insulation in the green plate does not change the conclusion.
The green plate is still colder than the blue, but has a positive influence on the blue plate temperature.
Cold warms hot.
How difficult is it to just get a response from one particular person to one specific question!? Wow.
DRsEMT, You aren’t being skeptical. You are denying the science when you tossed out a red herring lacking any analysis to support your conjecture. Calculating the thermal resistance isn’t that difficult, as I demonstrated. Of course, a more accurate assessment is possible, but my back-of-the-envelope calculation shows it’s a small factor. Furthermore, your link to the metal finishing company doesn’t provide any data to support their statement regarding the insulation properties.
Not to mention, you still haven’t come up with an explanation for the warming of the Blue plate after the Green plate is moved. Now that your red herring’s been trashed, where’s your skepticism when it counts?
Swanson, please stop trying to change the topic due to your being butthurt by the massive holes pointed out in your experiment. I think people selling a product are likely to be aware of the properties of that product. Perhaps they, you know, actually tested it? Let me know once you have calculated the thermal resistance going through your plate due to: One layer of paint, thickness and thermal properties unknown. One layer of anodic coating, thickness unknown, conductivity extremely low. One layer of unspecified aluminium alloy, conductivity unknown. One layer of anodic coating, as previously. One layer of epoxy adhesive, thickness unknown, conductivity extremely low. One layer of anodic coating, as previously. One layer of unspecified aluminium alloy, as previously. One layer of anodic coating, as previously. One layer of paint, as previously.
DRsEMT, You are doing it again. You wrote:
If you are really a “skeptic” you would provide some evidence to support your claim that there are “massive holes” in my demonstration. You offer a rather detailed list of the layers on surface of the Green and Blue plates, perhaps to support your contention that these really are “massive holes”. Of course, being a denialist troll instead of a scientist or engineer, you haven’t as yet provided any analysis to back up your claim. Pointing to a graph in a report, which you incorrectly interpreted in claiming it “proves” the anodized layer has a major effect, is not analysis.
It seems that you’re apparently unable to provide a physics based reason for the warming of the Blue plate. I’ve claimed all along that it’s the “back radiation” from the Green plate, which agrees with the text book description from Holman and others who actually work in industry. I hope that you at least agree that radiation shields really do work as described.
Anyway, back on topic…
Norman, you stated that “most of” the IR from the 300 K object is absorbed by the 500 K object. This implies that you think at least “some of” the IR is rejected. What is the mechanism by which you think the 500 K surface rejects “some of” the IR, whilst absorbing the rest? Assume the only difference between the two surfaces is temperature.
As an interesting aside, on my comment directly above, I’ve seen some claim that emissions from a colder object can actually cool a warmer object. That is interesting because if it were true, it would mean the cooler atmosphere can cool Earth’s hotter surface.
Interesting, but hard to prove.
I just pointed my handheld IR thermometer at the sky (high haze). The reading was -52 °F. Pointing the thermometer at the ground, +40 °F.
The AGW clowns tell us the sky warms the ground.
You just can’t help stupid.
JDHuffman
YOUR STRAWMAN: “The AGW clowns tell us the sky warms the ground.”
NO that is NOT what they actually say. It is only what you think they say. I think most have tried to be extremely explicit with you on the correct point, I don’t think it helps you at all.
The actual point is that the cooler sky is much warmer than the much cooler space (in terms of the IR the surface can absorb from each source). With a constant solar input to the surface the Earth’s surface will be warmer with an IR active atmosphere emitting IR toward the surface than if no such atmosphere existed.
Norman, without the atmosphere, the surface would be much colder AND much warmer.
Quit trying to alter reality to fit your perverted opinions.
JDHuffman
That would depend upon the rate of rotation of the body. If the body rotated fairly rapidly it would get much closer to the equilibrium temperature of 255 K over most the sphere. It would be warmer at the equator and colder at the poles unless you added a rapid wobble so the poles would receive more energy.
ibid.
JDHuffman
You are not logical or scientifically knowledgeable to even remotely hope to understand my last post so you can only respond with an empty comment.
Maybe ask gallopingcamel he did some work on this issue.
Not that it would help you. You made up physics is failing you so you only can respond with empty posts.
Pretend you studied physics. Pretend you know heat transfer. Ball4 is right, keep the comedy flowing. Your wacky made up ideas can amuse people. I don’t really have to try to protect science against someone like you. I just can sit back an be entertained at your funny attempts to pretend to know physics. Post on give us a laugh!
Well clown, you got it all in there: Insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.
You even managed to mention two of your idols.
Why grow up when you can stay a child forever?
JDHuffman
Are you being intentionally dense?
You keep bringing this point up. I keep explaining it. You don’t understand my explanation and then bring it back up again.
YOU: “It is analogous to pouring a liter of 20 C water into a 100 liter bathtub of 40 C water. Energy has been added to the 100 liter vat, but the temperature did not increase.”
Because you do have more energy added but you also have increased the mass of the water. You had 100 kg of water and after adding you have 120 kg. Now you take the additional added energy and spread it around the greater mass and the temperature drops some.
Bad analogy. You seem to favor the fantasy physics of Claes Johnson over the actual physics of statistical thermodynamics. Your choice, don’t pretend you studied real physics. I have read the crackpot work of Claes Johnson. Bad physics, he does not know what he is talking about.
No Norman, you can’t misrepresent my words to fit your perverted reality.
Adding 20 C water to the larger body of of 40 C water is the analogy to a hotter body accepting photons from a colder body. The temperatures of the larger body of water, and the hotter body, would not increase.
Now, twist reality some more.
Norman, I believe 1 kg of water plus 100 kg of water equals 101 kg of water, not 120 kg. But you’re the expert.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I had misread the post I thought he said add 20 liters to the 100 liters. Doesn’t matter though. You still are increasing the mass along with the energy.
JDHuffman
Your analogy does not represent how the atmosphere would work in the Earth/Sun system. Your analogy would be comparable to adding a cold atmosphere to a non-heated, but currently hot, planet and the surface and atmosphere would reach a colder temperature.
In the real system we have a constant input and output of energy. You make the same mistake all the skeptics seem to make. You are dealing with NON-HEATED objects.
In your bathtub analogy it would be like you heat 100 liters of water to a certain temperature but you have water continuously being added so there is an overflow port on the side. In the first case you have 1 C water continuously added to the heated tub of water. It reaches a certain equilibrium state. In the next case you use the waste of the heated water to heat the cold water before it is added to the tub. You are not adding new energy but reclaiming energy that had already been added. Now the cold water added is 20 C (warmed from 1 C to 20 by the waste from the tub overflow). Do you not see that the tub of water in the second case will reach a higher temperature than in the first case. No new energy was added.
I do not think your mind is capable of understanding the logic of the GHE no matter what analogy is used, no matter what textbook data is given to you and no matter what actual experiments are performed showing you how it works. You refuse to even listen yet you think you possess an open mind and are able to think.
Your thoughts are isolated to only radical unscientific denier blogs. Science deniers like Joseph Postma and Principia Scientific and others. Nothing will change the deep state you are in. Almost like a hypnotic effect I would think, some mantra chanting.
Well, I did ask clown Norman to “twist reality some more”.
And, he did a great job.
My analogy was not about the Earth/Sun system, so his straw man burns off immediately, contributing more valuable CO2 to the atmosphere.
Next he tries to conjure up some imaginary bathtub system that can heat water with “no new energy” being added!
Then, he reverts back to his usual false accusations, insults, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
So you are saying that the water in the bathtub will not be warmer in the second case? Yes or No. I want other posters to see how you respond.
NO EXTRA ENERGY IS ADDED. There is a continuous supply of new energy but no more, above the amount already added, is needed to increase the water temperature.
You are a simpleton phony, you can warm the water with insulation wrapped around it and not add any extra new energy. I gave you one that would be similar to the GHE.
Clown, your example is so poorly worded anyone could make whatever they wanted out of it. You don’t have the ability to understand, or even communicate properly.
All you can do is insult, make false accusations, and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
What portion of my bathtub analogy are you unable to process? I read it again and it is rather clear.
I think the error is on your ability to comprehend, not my ability to communicate.
No clown. You believe you have a picture in your head, but you can’t put it in words.
Try drawing the picture on paper, if you can. Then, provide a link.
JDHuffman
Since you were not able to explain what parts of my analogy you could not understand it would indicate that you have very poor reading comprehension (which is why you can’t read textbook material or posts more that 10 words long) or you are just a troll. I hope it is the former but suspect it is the latter.
The words are fine, your inability to read well is your problem not mine. Perhaps you should consider the flaw is on your end.
If you are able to point out which parts of my analogy are giving you difficulty in understanding I can work to clear it up. I am certain you are not really interested. The only thing that seems to activate you is trolling.
Just as I suspected, clown. You are unable to draw your “picture”, much less put it in clear words.
Nothing new.
Another wave of Arctic air reaches the Great Lakes.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00980/u6fqkc4t869v.png
Still harsh winter in North America.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=us&product=ir
https://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/glsea/cur/glsea_cur.png
At last the riddle of climate change has been solved with 21st Century physics supported by overwhelming evidence on Earth and throughout the Solar System. This video presents a whole new paradigm in climate science showing why surface temperatures are not determined by radiative forcing from the cold atmosphere, but rather by gravity forming a stable non-zero temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere, this being the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which thus allows a most surprising heat transfer from cold to hot and yet still in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics because entropy is increasing. See my new 15 minute video at: https://youtu.be/bT1iFhGKOI8
Footnote: Also watch my 7 minute talk to scientists and others outside Parliament House, Canberra…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ihaY_1KSrE
PS: There’s still on offer since 2013 a US $10,000 reward for the first to prove me wrong in open debate where I have right of reply.
Oh! Quel bonheur!
Do_ug Cot_ton (or his newest representative) is back again. Welcome on board!
Please note that I will not respond to comments from those who have not watched these two videos in full (15+8 minutes) and asked genuine questions about the content.
(Independent unpaid researcher into atmospheric and sub-terrestrial physics for Earth and other planets since 2010)
Britain has had it’s warmest winter days ever. That is misleading the MET office temp records don’t go back all that far, so what the temp was before then we don’t know.
UK Ian Brown
This is the top 10 list for the monthly average anomalies wrt 1981-2010 of single UK station measurements for 2018-12 till 2019-02:
UK ___BOURNEMOUTH________________ 2019 1 -2.32
UK ___CRAIBSTONE_________________ 2019 1 -1.56
UK ___LYNEHAM____________________ 2019 1 -1.46
UK ___WATTISHAM__________________ 2019 1 -1.32
UK ___HEATHROW___________________ 2019 1 -1.31
UK ___MANSTON____________________ 2019 1 -1.03
UK ___LERWICK____________________ 2019 1 -0.92
UK ___WICK_______________________ 2019 1 -0.86
UK ___LEUCHARS___________________ 2019 1 -0.71
UK ___SHAWBURY___________________ 2019 1 -0.64
And this is the top 10 list f since 1880-01 (!) :
UK ___WALLINGFORD________________ 1963 1 -8.47
UK ___BUDE_______________________ 1963 1 -7.98
UK ___OXFORD_____________________ 1963 1 -7.88
UK ___LYNEHAM____________________ 1963 1 -7.87
UK ___HURN_______________________ 1963 1 -7.78
UK ___WELLESBOURNE_______________ 1963 1 -7.59
UK ___LECKFORD___________________ 1963 1 -7.53
UK ___WICK_______________________ 1947 3 -7.42
UK ___HAYLING_ISLAND_____________ 1963 1 -7.38
UK ___LYONSHALL__________________ 1963 1 -7.35
Tells us a lot.
Unfortunately, Manley’s work on CET is behind paywall.
I looked at
https://tinyurl.com/y2dpe36z
for older records, but there is only a video.
Ooops I overlooked a line:
UK ___WARRINGTON_________________ 1946 1 -8.82
All data fron NOAA’s GHCN daily record (106 UK stations till 2016, only 22 now).
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Central Arctic totally froze in March.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00980/yaqq2h5angub.png
barry
You asked the Flynn blogbot upthread:
“At what rate is this big blob of molten rock cooling?”
And as always, the blogbot answered:
“Cant you work it out for yourself? Is your main problem ignorance or stupidity?”
Flynn the specialist in insulting is himself by far the most stupid and ignorant idiot ‘commenting’ here on this blog.
Compared with him, Do_ug Cot_ton is a very intelligent and above all respectable person.
*
Now back to your question. The estimate for Earth’s actual rate of cooling is:
55 K per billion year, i.e. 0.000000055 K per century.
OK?
For further info, look at Verhoogen’s “Energetics of the Earth”,
page 95 ff.
https://tinyurl.com/yydvnysg
Thanks Bindi, we knew the Earth was cooling.
Who the heck is ‘we’ ?
This blog’s Alt-Right group?
B,
We = realists, non-pseudoscientists, followers of the scientific method . . .
You get the general idea.
Cheers.
Oh yes, with Robertson as the ‘gullible follower in chief’ of the pseudoscientific method…
People denying even time dilation! So what.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
B,
You might have misinterpreted what you read somewhat. I did not see any references to rate of cooling of the surface.
However, other calculations for the surface give a figure roughly similar to yours – up to about 4 millionths of a K per year. Or you could take the average so beloved of pseudoscientific climatological types, and assume an initial molten temperature of say, 5000 K, and an age of four and a half billion years.
Anyone who can average weather records to produce climate should have no problem.
Any similarity to a proper calculation, taking into account decreasing radiogenic heat sources, non-linear cooling rates, and such things is purely coincidental.
It doesn’t matter. As you point out the Earth is cooling – not getting hotter. Thanks for referring to real science for a change. It is appreciated.
Cheers.
Water vapor is a ghg. It increased about 7% 1960-2002. During that time, atmospheric WV increased 5 molecules for each CO2 molecule added to the atmosphere. The level of WV in the atmosphere is self-limiting. Except for the aberration of el Ninos, WV appears to have stopped increasing in about 2002-2005 as did GW. CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
Stop with the crushing facts Dan. Leftists don’t like crushing facts.
The level of WV in the atmosphere is limited by temperature, and is completely unstable unless non-condensing GHGs gives it some backbone.
Svante, the WV will remain an invertebrate, just like your AGW nonsense.
And just like all anonymous clowns.
Is that the GHG’s are the backbone to WV theory?
That’s right, WV is a feed back.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0485.1
Svante, please stop trolling.
Dan Pangburn
Take some time to translate this document
http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf
and read it carefully.
I’m not a fan of this stupid ‘It’s CO2!’ but I’m open to such ideas as well.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bin,, Sorry I missed this earlier. I dont read French but could tell there is an abstract in English below the French one. One of the things I take issue with is the statement that CO2 increases the ghe. I list 8 cases of compelling evidence it does not in Section 2 of my blog/analysis. This is in spite of CO2 being a ghg. My explanation for this apparent contradiction is that the slight increase in absorbers at the surface from the added CO2 is compensated by the added emitters above 10 km or so.
Dan Pangburn says:
“the slight increase in absorbers at the surface from the added CO2 is compensated by the added emitters above 10 km or so”.
This can do the math for you:
https://tinyurl.com/pg3bd8p
Dan, please stop enabling.
Scott
You wrote upthread:
A new idea for a game to play with global warming alarmists:
#1 Have them pick any city in the US.
#2 You pull the NOAA data and show them there was cooling from 1940-1980 that NASA didnt report it.
*
Not NOAA is the problem here: your lack of knowledge is.
You can’t simply pick up some stations out of the database and think you’ll find what you were looking for.
This has beeen shown years ago to Heller aka Goddard, as he tried to show bad NOAA data on the base of a few GHCN stations (whose data he moreover incorrectly analysed).
*
There WAS a cooling between 1940 and 1980, it HAS BEEN recorded by NOAA’s stations, and it IS visible in its processing of that raw station data.
BUT… you don’t see it in local records. You must look at the global CONUS record to see it.
Here are NOAA’s graphs for CONUS’ maximal, average and minimal temperatures between 1900 and 2019, with a linear trend for 1940-1980:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1utWaPYOQ6DIscsZOdU-8qCFqtjge9jmQ/view
As you can see, the cooling trends per decade for this period are 0.18 F, 0.14 F and 0.08 F respectively.
The graphs were obtained from this source:
https://tinyurl.com/y6gfj5kx
Bindi,
You might want to tell James Hansen.
Not my job and interest.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Bobdroege wrote –
“So I can go on record saying the infrared from the CO2 in the atmosphere is ab/sorbed by the surface of the earth and this is the greenhouse effect, which slows the cooling of the surface.
Is that what you wanted?”
That will do. No heating. No temperature rise. No “Hottest year EVAH!” Good enough for me.
Cheers.
Find out how the surface temperature rises on the sunlit side of planets like Earth and Venus in my new 15 minute video at … https://youtu.be/bT1iFhGKOI8
Also watch my 7 minute talk to scientists and others outside Parliament House, Canberra at …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ihaY_1KSrE
I only respond to genuine questions about the content of these videos from those who have spent 23 minutes watching them in full.
That was your falsifiable greenhouse effect hypothesis.
Have at it.
b,
You haven’t actually provided a testable GHE hypothesis, but no matter.
You say that CO2 in the atmosphere does not raise the temperature of the surface. Slowing the rate of cooling is still cooling.
I agree.
Cheers.
But if something is being heated at a constant rate and you reduce the rate of cooling, the net result is that the object gets warmer.
So the net result is heating.
bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts wrote –
“Mike, I would be fascinated to hear why you are so focused on the core and mantel. Everyone acknowledges they have cooled over the past 4 billion years.”
Tim has decided he can ignore what I wrote, and instead tell me what he thinks I should have written – as usual.
No direct quotation of what I wrote – as usual.
It is accepted by most people that the surface lies between the core and outer space. Its temperature lies somewhere between say 6000 K and around 4 K. Assuming that neither the core nor outer space increase in temperature, the surface as a whole cannot get hotter. I merely point out from time to time the Earth is a big blob of mostly molten rock. Cooling slowly, as Nature decrees.
Tales of the surface heating spontaneously seem far fetched. No plausible physical reason is ever advanced for repositioning the surface along the thermal gradient.
Cheers.
Interglacial periods are the earth’s surface warming between glacial periods within an ice age. So you can either a) deny that ice once covered much of North America and Asia as a “far-fetched tale” or 2) accept that the surface has gotten warmer since 20,000 years ago.
T,
Maybe you could quote me, instead of creating straw men.
Obviously, if the Antarctic reverts to its previous ice free status, it has apparently warmed. However, this is the same as saying that because day is warmer than night, it is due to the GHE.
Nothing to do with any supposed GHE, unless the GHE causes the entire surface of the Earth to become covered with ice, just so when the ice goes away, you can claim it was also due to the GHE.
What reason could you advance for the creation of a snowball Earth? Would the oceans also freeze over? There are a few other problems with your snowball scenario, as well.
If you have a stab at a rational GHE explanation, you’ll need to include the snowball aspect before anybody will believe you. How hard can it be?
Cheers.
MF, In earlier epochs when the Antarctic was warmer, it’s location wasn’t at the South Pole. Then too, the Earth’s climate changed, beginning about 3.3 million years BP, slipping into the period of Ice Ages with short warm periods which we now enjoy. Your Snowball Earth appears to have happened long before that and may have more than more than once.
The GHE does reduce the diurnal temperature range.
Snowball Earth would have been unavoidable for much longer stretches of time had it not been for the GHE since the Sun is ~1% dimmer for every 120 million years in the past.
Paleoclimate is consistent with the GHE hypothesis. It’s much more difficult to solve paleolimate issues like the faint young Sun paradox or the more recent glacial/interglacial cycles if you selectively ignore the GHE.
bdgwx says, March 7, 2019 at 7:50 AM:
Hehe, no. All you need is a difference in total atmospheric mass (weight, density, pressure, viscosity) and a difference in global cloud cover (fraction and distribution), wind/circulation and precipitation patterns.
Simply compare Mars and Venus.
Swanson, bdgwx, please stop defending the GHE.
bobdroege says, March 6, 2019 at 3:12 PM:
No. The surface-heated (warm) ATMOSPHERE “is responsible for making the environment on earth comfortable and suitable for life”. IOW, “the atmosphere” and “the greenhouse effect” are essentially interchangeable phenomena.
The atmosphere is heated by the surface in three ways, conduction, convection, and radiation.
You need all three, and the most predominant is the radiation, because that can heat the whole atmosphere as per the Trenberth diagram and is responsible for 80% of the atmospheric heating.
bobdroege says, March 7, 2019 at 9:24 AM:
No. The three ways in which the atmosphere is heated is by way of 1) the transfer of latent heat of vaporization (evaporation=>condensation), 2) radiation (net LW), and 3) conduction.
Convection only moves energy/heat around inside the atmosphere, not to or from it.
Er, no. You just revealed your utter lack of thermodynamic understanding, bob.
The main single “heater” of the atmosphere is the transfer of latent heat from the surface: 88 W/m^2. Second is the incoming solar heat (net SW): 75 W/m^2. A distant third is the radiative heat from the surface (net LW): 33 W/m^2, and in fourth place is conduction: 24 W/m^2.
Atm. heat IN: 88+75+33+24 = 220 W/m^2
Atm. heat OUT: 220 W/m^2 (by radiation through the ToA)
So the Earth sheds more than 90% of its heat (220 out of a total 240 W/m^2) to space from the atmosphere and less than 10% from the surface.
The atmosphere can ONLY be cooled through radiation to space, but can be heated by both the release of latent heat of vaporization, conduction AND radiation (incoming from the Sun (net SW: ~70%) and outgoing from the surface (net LW: ~30%).
So the atmosphere’s radiative properties in isolation (its ability to reflect/scatter, absorb and emit EMR) act – on balance – to strongly COOL the atmosphere, not heat/warm it.
Kristian tries to make the case: “The cooler plate does NOT (!!!) emit 100 W/m^2 toward the warmer plate, Tim. The warmer plate emit [201-100=] 101 W/m^2 toward the cooler plate.”
Kristian’s statement when applied to atm.: The cooler atm. does NOT (!!!) emit 220 W/m^2 toward the warmer sun, Tim. The warmer sun emit(s) [220-220=] 0 W/m^2 toward the cooler atm.
Then Kristian tries to tell readers: The cooler atm. DOES emit 220 W/m^2 toward the warmer sun, Tim:
“Atm. heat OUT: 220 W/m^2 (by radiation through the ToA)”
Heat is not radiation and all this confusion over heat term in Kristian’s writing is thereby shown by Kristian telling two opposite stories.
Heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE. End of story.
Ball4 says, March 8, 2019 at 8:12 AM:
Hehe, no, troll.
The Earth emits [220+20=] 240 W/m^2 (net LW, OLR) to space, not the Sun. It absorbs 240 W/m^2 (net SW, ASR) from the Sun.
This is pretty elementary, wouldn’t you say so, troll?
Sorry. I’ll go again:
Ball4 says, March 8, 2019 at 8:12 AM:
Hehe, no, troll.
The Earth emits [220+20=] 240 W/m^2 (net LW, OLR) to space, not the Sun. It absorbs 240 W/m^2 (net SW, ASR) from the Sun.
This is pretty elementary, wouldn’t you say so, troll?
Yes, to space, troll. To space. Not to the Sun.
Cold reservoir. Hot reservoir. Space. Sun. Got it?
All radiation definitely isn’t heat [Q], but NET radiation transferred from a hot to a cold object is indeed the radiative heat [Q_rad] between the two.
Nope. That’s the object’s “internal KE” [U_ke]. U and Q are not the same.
“The Earth emits”
“The Earth” is not the “cooler atm.”
The relevant rest of Kristian’s 11:46 comment supports: “Atm. heat OUT: 220 W/m^2 (by radiation through the ToA)” and abandons “The cooler plate does NOT (!!!) emit 100 W/m^2 toward the warmer plate, Tim. The warmer plate emit [201-100=] 101 W/m^2 toward the cooler plate.”” which Kristian 11:46 shows is wrong.
“All radiation definitely isn’t heat [Q], but NET radiation transferred from a hot to a cold object is indeed the radiative heat [Q_rad] between the two.”
No radiation is heat, and Q can be +/- where heat is always a positive number as measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE. Q is a rate of energy transfer in/out thus +/-
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Kristian,
The release of the latent heat of vaporization doesn’t provide any heat to the atmosphere, it just moves heat from the surface where the water is vaporized to higher up where the latent heat is released.
The longwave from the surface is the predominant heater of the atmosphere, there is no net unless you have two directions of heat flow.
bobdroege says, March 8, 2019 at 10:31 AM:
Hahaha! Please tell me you’re joking.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/jra25_atlas/column-1/hatm_ANN.png
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/jra25_atlas/surface-1/rain_ANN.png
Do you notice any kind of correlation here?
Besides, what does this even mean? “[I]t just moves heat from the surface where the water is vaporized to higher up where the latent heat is released.
Er, yes. And this is called heat transfer. From “the surface” (as you write) to “higher up” (as you also write), which is … inside the atmosphere.
Are you really this ignorant? I think you should stop embarrassing yourself, bob, and go pick up a book on this subject.
No, bob. Just no. If you seriously think that the UWLWIR from the surface is the radiative HEAT transferred from the surface to the atmosphere, then you are less informed than what even I initially gave you credit for.
So, tell me, do you also believe that the DWLWIR from the atmosphere to the surface constitutes radiative HEAT from the former to the latter?
You NEED TO go back and think this through properly, bob, before you return with another reply on this one …
There are NEVER “two directions of heat flow” within one and the same heat transfer. The heat IS the net flow.
IOW, the radiative heat from the warm surface to its cooler thermal surroundings (the atmosphere+space) is the UWLWIR minus the DWLWIR, the net LW.
“Net heat” is Q_in minus Q_out. But those are distinctly two separate heat transfers. The first is from the hot reservoir (heat source) to the object, the second is from the object to the cold reservoir (heat sink).
It’s photons that are doing the heat transfer and they don’t interact with each other.
No. It’s HEAT that’s doing the heat transfer, bob. Phenomena such as heat, temperature, pressure and power density fluxes (W/m^2) do not exist in the quantum realm, while photons do not exist in the thermodynamic realm.
Heat is a thermodynamic (macroscopic) quantity. As is temperature. You can’t heat something by throwing photons at it, bob. Heat is something else, something more …
You apparently don’t get the distinction.
So why not pick up a textbook on basic thermodynamics and learn something? Rather than just keep posting replies without substance.
“No. It’s HEAT that’s doing the heat transfer, bob.”
Photon’s do not possess heat; only massive objects possess a measure of their constituent particle KE. Anyone can increase the temperature of sufficiently illuminated massive object by throwing (Kristian term) photons at it through a vacuum (like the Sun/Earth) this is termed a heating process.
Two things Kristian,
First,
There is no macroscopic realm and no quantum realm, there is jsut the world and if you attack a problem using either scientific discipline, you have to get the same answer.
If you get different results using macro thermo and quantum mechanics, you are doing one of them wrong.
Second, how is the Earth heated by the Sun if not by photons?
Heat is just energy the way I was trained, others may restrict it to only energy in transit.
I still remember my high school physics teacher jumping up and down
“joules equals joules equals joules”
bobdroege says, March 10, 2019 at 4:51 PM:
Of course there is, bob. In the sense of them being vastly different observational and descriptive levels. They simply represent fundamentally different aspects of reality. Heck, there are even different kinds of physics describing the processes that go on in each realm. We separate between them in pointing out how temperature is distinctly a MACRO (thermodynamic) phenomenon and a photon or a molecule is distinctly a MICRO (quantum) phenomenon. Basic stuff.
Of course there is just “the world”. No one’s claiming otherwise. But that’s not the point. It seems to me you don’t WANT to get this.
Do you know the tool that physicists use to tie the micro and the macro realms together, bob? It’s called “statistical mechanics”. You go from chaos and randomness to consistent patterns and order by using statistics (probabilities). There is no other way.
Have you heard of “the thermodynamic limit”? Do you know what it is and what makes it relevant to what we’re discussing?
Nope. You can’t use quantum mechanics to figure out changes in temperature of objects and the direction and magnitude of heat fluxes, bob. For that you need statistical mechanics. To average disordered quantum phenomena into an ordered thermodynamic process.
You don’t get this, bob. READ A BOOK ON THE SUBJECT!
It is heated by … HEAT !!!!!!! Photons themselves don’t heat anything!
Please, bob, read a book. Come back when you’ve learned what HEAT and heat transfers are really all about.
*Facepalm*
All heat is energy. All energy is NOT heat. So what exactly is heat, bob?
But, dear bob. This is where you fail completely. Heat isn’t just any “energy in transit”. It is a very specific KIND of transfer of energy.
Hint: UWLWIR from and DWLWIR to the surface both represent “energy in transit”, but neither of them constitutes HEAT! Why do you think that is …?
Kristian,
I don’t need to read any books, you do.
Maybe I am being sloppy with the use of the term heat. Everybody does that when they use the term heat transfer. If it is already in transfer adding the term transfer just adds confusion.
But maybe I need to repost the link to the CO2 laser melting steel.
“It is heated by HEAT !!!!!!! Photons themselves dont heat anything!”
Retract this statement as it shows how little you understand.
Photons are the particle that transfers the energy from the sun to the earth.
“Hint: UWLWIR from and DWLWIR to the surface both represent energy in transit, but neither of them constitutes HEAT! Why do you think that is ?”
I think the engineer’s toolbox disagrees with you on what constitutes heat.
“Heat transfer due to emission of electromagnetic waves is known as thermal radiation”
I think you don’t understand that because you want to believe their is no greenhouse effect.
Belief is not reality.
Where we see that modern climatology is a regressive science emerging from the setting aside of thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics is necessary part of climate studies. All the way back to at least Lord Kelvin who introduced the notion of thermal movement in a paper. Even Fourier applied what became thermodynamics to the atm.
Phi,
No one is setting aside thermodynamics, just incorrect interpretations of thermodynamics get the rubbish bin.
bobdroege says, March 11, 2019 at 8:06 AM:
LOL!
So he refuses to read. Fine with me. Long live stubborn ignorance!
You’re all the same …
No. Not sloppy. You don’t know what heat is, bob. So you use it INCORRECTLY. And you believe the conceptual blackbody emission from the surface up (the UWLWIR), mathematically derived directly from the surface temperature, to be the radiative HEAT flux to the atmosphere.
How ignorant is that …!!???
No. Just people who don’t understand what heat is use it incorrectly. People who understand basic thermodynamic principles use the term consistently and correctly.
No. The term “heat transfer” describes a process. The term “heat” describes a quantity.
Why? To show me how heat heats!?
Indeed. But it is the solar HEAT that heats the Earth. Not the photons emitted by the Sun.
See if you can figure out the distinction … What constitutes the solar heat, bob? What’s the quantity? The Q_sw?
No. It doesn’t. The thermodynamic definition of heat [Q] is universal. It is but one thing.
Read the whole article. They’re a bit sloppy with the terminology, yes, but it’s still pretty clear what they mean:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
You can also read this one. It might clarify. If not, I don’t know what will …:
https://iiserbbookstore.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/heat-and-themodynamics-by-mark-waldo-zemanskyrichard-dittman.pdf (pp.98-99)
“It should be noticed that the word “heat” has not appeared yet. If there is a temperature difference between a body and its surroundings, then, in a given interval of time, the body loses an amount of internal energy [U] equal to the energy radiated minus the energy absorbed, whereas the surroundings gain an amount of internal energy equal to the energy absorbed minus the energy radiated. The gain of the surroundings equals the loss of the body. The gain or loss of internal energy of the body, equal to the difference between the energy of the thermal radiation which is absorbed and that which is radiated, is called heat [Q]. This statement is in agreement with the original definition of heat, since a gain or loss of internal energy by radiation and absorp.tion will take place only if there is a difference in temperature between a body and its surroundings. If the two temperatures are the same, there is no net gain or loss of internal energy of either body or its surroundings, and there is, therefore, no transfer of heat.”
Are you starting to get it now?
The sun transfers enthalpy from the sun to the earth by using photons as the transfer mechanism.
The earth then transfers enthalpy away from the earth to its surroundings using photons of lower energy than received from the sun.
The CO2 and other greenhouse gases ab/sorb some of these photons, slowing down the transfer of enthalpy from the earth to its surroundings.
The CO2 and other greenhouse gases then transfer some of this enthalpy back to the surface of the earth using photons of specific wavelengths.
This is the so-called greenhouse effect, responsible for raising the surface temperature of the earth to levels higher that would be without the presence of the CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
There is that reasonable, so we can get to your real objections to the greenhouse effect, namely whether or not the radiative properties of the atmosphere make any difference or not.
Bob, that’s reasonable, give or take.
Kristian quotes Zemansky: “The gain or loss of internal energy of the body…is called heat [Q].”
Original copyright 1937.
Zemansky by 1969* had advanced beyond the concept of heat being called such a thing: “I admit that, at times, I have been guilty of watering down the explanation of internal energy…It is incredible that writers and teachers are still referring to the “heat in a body”…There is no such thing as the “heat in a body.””
*Paper delivered at a meeting of international physics experts in Copenhagen.
When used correctly in modern day, heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE.
The use of enthalpy (h) is even better, more meaningful in thermodynamics.
bob,
The only reason I’m still addressing you at all is because of your initial inane response where you stated: “(…) and the most predominant is the radiation, because that can heat the whole atmosphere as per the Trenberth diagram and is responsible for 80% of the atmospheric heating.”
Which quite frankly reveals a staggering level of ignorance. It shows how you believe, apparently in earnest, that the radiative HEAT (!!) from the surface to the atmosphere is simply the UWLWIR, the temperature-derived 390-400 W/m^2 blackbody emission flux of the surface.
IT … IS … NOT !!!
Right there and then you basically disqualified yourself from any further discussion on the topic of what warms the surface (which is first and last a THERMODYNAMIC problem) … before properly educating yourself on it. Instead, though, you just dug your heels in and have been waffling on no end about photons and heat and CO2 lasers ever since. And you’re still at it …
bobdroege says, March 11, 2019 at 9:34 PM:
Hehe. Kind of. And kind of not. I see your confusion and how you refuse to let go of it.
The Sun sends out photons into space. Some of those photons reach Earth, and of the photons reaching Earth, some are absorbed by the Earth system, while others are not – they are rather directly reflected back to space.
The total amount of photons from the Sun that is absorbed by the Earth system is the net SW, also known as ASR (‘Absorbed Solar Radiation’) or … the solar HEAT to the Earth [Q_in(sw)].
The average intensity of this flux is about 240 W/m^2. That’s the average heat input from the Sun to the Earth system, and consequently the flux that the Earth system needs to balance through its heat output to space. Earth’s heat output to space is called the OLR (‘Outgoing Long-wave Radiation’) or Q_out(lw).
The heat balance at the top of Earth’s atmosphere (ToA), then, looks like this:
Q_in(sw) – Q_out(lw) = Q_net
Q_net is the net flux everyone’s talking about. Whenever it is positive (Q_in(sw) > Q_out(lw)), net energy accumulates inside the Earth system, and we get overall warming. And whenever it is negative (Q_in(sw) < Q_out(lw)), the Earth system is drained of internal energy, and we get overall cooling.
“There are NEVER two directions of heat flow within one and the same heat transfer. The heat IS the net flow. but:
1)Atm. heat IN: 88+75+33+24 = 220 W/m^2
2)Atm. heat OUT: 220 W/m^2 (by radiation through the ToA)
Kristian first writes 2 heat directions then never 2 heat directions. Kristian still demonstrates confusion by not understanding the classic definition of heat.
Heat has NO direction, heat is always positive. Heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE.
Some sophist Ball have 4 ways but Heat have only one : Sun -> Earth -> Space
Or Sun -> Earth -> GHGs -> Space.
Svante,
Right. Sun -> Surface -> GHGs -> Space. But GHGs -> Surface; does not exist.
Or sun -> Earth -> GHGs -> Earth -> Space (increasing Earth, GHGs, & space entropy)
Or even sun -> Earth -> space -> sun (reflected from Earth back to sun, increasing sun entropy)
Or sun -> Earth -> space (scattered from earth, increasing space entropy)
Lotsa’ real processes, all increasing entropy.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
How long before ice-free Arctic…? Well, since the trend over the last 10 years has been roughly flat, its hard to say. But I predict that the Northwest Passage will be blocked again this year, given the current ice buildup, so maybe never?. At least until after the next ice age when serious warming will return.
Also, by ice free I assume you mean less than 1 Wadham (sp?), correct?
https://tinyurl.com/y4xypwjw
Svante, please stop trolling.
The next wave of the Arctic air moves to the northeast US.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00980/508e9y4lhaw7.png
Busting pseudoscience is so much fun.
Clowns believe the green plate can raise the temperature of the blue plate. They use perverted physics, and phony “experiments”, to “prove” it. When faced with the reality that the plates, in exact contact, would have exactly the same temperature, they just ignore the facts.
Here’s some more facts they can ignore.
Position a second green plate on the left side of the blue plate, close but not touching. Instead of radiatively warming the blue plate with 400 Watts, warm it electrically with 400 Watts. Everything else remains the same.
Of course, all three plates would have the equilibrium temperature of 244 K. But, that destroys the pseudoscience that the green plates can warm the blue plate.
Busting pseudoscience is so much fun. And so easy to do….
(Just mentally add another green plate to the left of the blue plate. All arrows would be the same as shown. I’m too lazy to do another diagram.)
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
JDHuffman
You are a really ignorant poster. You are completely wrong. Do your own experiment and show the world how ignorant you are. Worse than ignorant (which can be corrected by learning) is that you have this smug arrogance based upon nothing. You have a severe case of Dunning-Kruger. You don’t have any real physics knowledge but think you are smarter than all the scientists out there.
If you were not as arrogant as you are you might think “Hmm, everyone is thinking like this and I am thinking like that…maybe I am wrong”
You are such a funny clown. Keep posting for the amusement of people that know science. It is like hearing science ideas from 1st graders. Normally cute with small children.
The first clown to deny reality is Norman. He can’t process facts and logic, but he can insult, falsely accuse, and misrepresent.
No surprise.
Here’s a diagram for the other clowns.
(Special note to Chic: Temperatures are indicated below each plate.)
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
Something is wrong with your diagram, JD.
It’s pseudoscience.
Then what would the temperatures be, in your fantasy world?
JDHuffman
Your response is hilarious! Keep amusing the blog. We need your clown knowledge for some good belly laughs! Thanks!
I’m waiting for Norman, Swanson, Tim, fluffball, Nate, bobdrug, and the other “plate warmers” to show how the green plates warm the blue plate. What do they believe the temperature of the blue plate would be now?
With two green plates, they must believe the temperature would be even higher than their bogus 262K, with just the one green plate. But, that won’t work!
See why they abhor reality?
The blue plate warms because it absorbs radiation from the green plate.
Confirmed by experimental evidence.
(Another clown denies reality!)
What’s the temperature of the blue plate, with two green plates, bob?
Surely you have an answer.
Add me to the list please, it will be higher with two green plates.
It depends on the geometry of the blue plate.
Can we assume the blue plate is no longer a plate and shaped like a prism, so that we can have 3 equal areas to emit and absorb the radiation?
You haven’t got the right answer to the original problem, so I am not going to give you an answer until you do get the right answer.
Remember, it’s a black-body problem, no reflection allowed.
JDHuffman
The correct answer for you situation would have a steady state temperature for both green plates of around 244 K while the sandwiched blue plate would rise to 345 K.
It is well known working physics is you look at heat radiant shield physics. Each shield lowers the amount of heat lost by an object. If it is not heated it cools slower, if heated it will reach a higher temperature (as in your case).
You need to learn some physics and I really mean it.
Why not send you cartoon physics to an actual physics department for evaluation. Tell them you are having a hard time convincing people that this physics is valid and real. Let us know their responses to your nonsense made up funny stuff. You won’t do it will you?
Well, we’re getting some early returns in. Not all the “plate warmers” have voted yet, but already the pseudoscience is amazing.
Svante has no clue be just “believes” the blue plate will be warmer. Poor bob tries using a prism! But there appears to be some disharmony among the clowns. Bob tells us a black body must absorb everything, but Norman tells us a black body is a “heat shield”!
Then, Norman uses bogus math to support his bogus physics. He doesn’t understand that you can solve an equation, but the equation might be wrong. Norman has the blue plate at 345 K, and can’t understand why that is WRONG!
Busting pseudoscience is so much fun.
JDHuffman
Just because you reject established science and physics equations only makes them bogus in your own mind. Primarily because you are not rational or logical and can’t grasp the concepts behind the equations.
Anyway I am correct and you are wrong. If you add more plates on the outside of each green plate you will increase the blue plate even more.
Unfortunately, since you are not rational or logical, you can’t understand an analogous situation. If you had some internal heating device for the blue plate but surrounded it with really good insulation you don’t think the blue plate will increase in temperature? The mechanism is different but the effect is identical. The green plate reduces the HEAT FLOW of the blue plate (net energy loss, the amount of energy emitted by the blue plate minus the amount the blue plate gains from the green plate). Insulation reduces the heat flow. Both reduce heat flow. Different mechanism, same overall result.
You have to make up fake physics to support your unscientific conclusions, primarily that photons from the green plate to the blue plate will be reflected. Goofy physics not supported by anything. An idea made up by Claes Johnson with zero evidence to support it. That you blindly believe it is factual indicates you are an ignorant person.
I believe that’s the definition of a blackbody.
An ideal emitter and absorber of radiation.
Norman and bob, how about this? Define a black body to be a perfect absorber, and a “heat-shield”, and an insulator. That way, you can bend reality to fit your pseudoscience, even easier.
Note that the real solution doesn’t require constantly changing definitions. The plates are the same temperatures, whether together or pulled slightly apart.
More facts later, after the polls close.
JD,
What’s the difference between a black-body, an insulator and a heat shield?
We are not constantly changing definitions.
How did you do in this class?
Did you graduate?
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/144044888051667210
bob now denies that they are changing definitions, as he questions his own definition.
Busting pseudoscience is such fun!
Liar liar pants on fire
We are not changing definitions.
Care to provide your own definitions of blackbody, insulator and heat shield?
Then we can see if we are not using the standard definitions of those terms.
An insulator reduces the flow of something, could be heat, could be current, or could be radiation.
A heat shield is a thermal insulator, either heat or radiation.
Maybe you have different definitions, but a blackbody can certainly act as an insulator or a heat shield.
Clown, you get to argue with yourself:
“Remember, it’s a black-body problem, no reflection allowed.”
Heat shield
Heat shields protect structures from extreme temperatures and thermal gradients by two primary mechanisms. Thermal insulation and radiative cooling, which respectively isolate the underlying structure from high external surface temperatures, while emitting heat outwards through thermal radiation. To achieve good functionality the three attributes required of a heat shield are low thermal conductivity (high thermal resistance), high emissivity and good thermal stability (refractoriness).[1] Porous ceramics with high emissivity coatings (HECs) are often employed to address these three characteristics, owing to the good thermal stability of ceramics, the thermal insulation of porous materials and the good radiative cooling effects offered by HECs.
Insulation
Most common insulation materials work by slowing conductive heat flow and–to a lesser extent–convective heat flow. Radiant barriers and reflective insulation systems work by reducing radiant heat gain. To be effective, the reflective surface must face an air space.
Reflection is only a portion of it.
bob, it’s amazing how you lose even when you’re arguing with yourself.
JD,
I never said a black-body reflects, that’s your argument based on your incorrect understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
Any matter can be an insulator, some things of course being better than others, even black-bodies can reduce the rate of heat transfer.
You are losing, give it up.
No clown, I win by watching you lose your argument with yourself.
Hey JD,
Are you employed?
I could help you get out of your mama’s basement if you want a entry level low pay third shift STEM job.
Me being a corporate trainer, I could help you out.
Responding two days late?
You couldn’t even help yourself, clown.
Huffingman, Your two plate cartoon is just that, a fiction. You show the Blue Plate with 200 W going to the left and 400 W going to the right. As you’ve been told repeatedly, for thermal IR EM radiation, the same amount of energy must leave each side if they have equal emissivities and temperature. Drawing a couple of extra arrows in your cartoon doesn’t change the physical reality.
Busting pseudoscience is so much fun.
Yeah Swanson, when you don’t understand the relevant physics, and you can’t think for yourself, it can be confusing. That’s why the fluxes are color-coded. It’s somewhat like playing with your crayons. The blue arrows are emitted from the blue plate. The green arrows are emitted from the green plate. The green arrows from the blue plate represent flux that is reflected. Everything is accounted for.
Glad to help.
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Except flux doesn’t reflect from blackbodies. If you think it does, find a single textbook on radiation and/or thermal transfer that supports your position.
Also, the 2Lot tells us that heat only flows from warmer areas to cooler areas. You violate that principle as well!
Armless Tim joins the fun!
So, here’s the tally so far:
Tim–BB is NOT a reflector
Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator
bobdrug–BB is a not a reflector, until I change my mind
Swanson–BB is a reflector, insulator
Busting pseudoscience is such fun!
This is what’s so funny. Radiative insulation is via reflectivity. A black-body is the perfect polar opposite of a radiative insulator. I’ve tried to make this simple point so many times. They need the BB plate to be an insulator, AND a black-body. Two completely opposing things, at the same time. Their minds must be so contorted by the cognitive dissonance. That explains the endless abusive outpourings…
Yes DREMT, they’ve painted themselves into a corner again.
And I don’t know if you’ve read all the comments, but they are now claim adding a second green plate will raise the blue plate to 345 K!
I’m waiting to see if any more clowns chime in before addressing the 345 K nonsense.
The 345 K was a magic moment.
😊
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
YOU: “A black-body is the perfect polar opposite of a radiative insulator.”
Just because the irrational troll posts dishonest points:
“Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator”
I have never claimed a black-body is a relfector, that is what JDHuffman claims it can be. I have said it could act as a heat shield. I do NOT use the word insulator for the radiant effect.
I have stated many times the IR from the Green plate is emitted and absorbed by the blue plate. The combination of this energy will cause the blue plate to reach a higher temperature. I am not making other claims or defining it as something else.
The blackbody green plate DOES not have to be an radiative insulator. A blackbody would make the worst material for a heat shield and yet it would stop ALL the radiant IR emitted from a hot object from going through the opposite side. Hence it is a shield for the outgoing IR of a hot object. The energy that is emitted from the opposing side is the energy the green plate emits, all the blue plate IR is gone, absorbed.
I really don’t know how to clear it up. I think Svante explained your posting nature. You get into these semantic points that go on and in and ignore the underlying concepts discussed.
The green plate IR will cause the blue plate to reach a higher temperature. A second green plate will cause the blue plate to reach even a higher temperature. If you continue to add plates the heated blue plate will continue to reach higher temperatures.
Here read this it might help you. I have given up hope for the troll JDHuffman.
http://fireflylabs.com/disted/courses/m262(2014)/docs/Will-Week10/m262-radiantHeatTransfer-RadiationShields.pdf
Note: “Therefore, when all emissivities are equal, 1 shield reduces the rate of radiation heat transfer to one-half, 9 shields reduce it to one-tenth, and 19 shields
reduce it to one-twentieth (or 5 percent) of what it was when there were no
shields”
Now if you look at the original problem this is exactly what is going on. The blue plate emits 200 w/m^2 toward the green plate, the green plate emits 100 watt/m^2 to the external world, the rate of radiation heat transfer with the green plate is reduced by a half on the side with the green plate. Just as the real and valid physics says.
Use just a little bit of logic and reasoning. If you are adding energy to an object and by adding more plates reducing how much heat the object can lose why don’t you think it will get warmer than if there were no plates? Put numbers in the equations for yourself and you will see that only JDHuffman is wrong. The rest of the posters understand real physics, he cannot. Are you going down his rabbit hole? Are you Alice?
Wow Norman, that’s a lot of rambling just to say you didn’t say what you said. I know you get so frustrated. Maybe this will help you out of your confusion:
One green plate:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Two green plates:
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
Three violations of the laws of thermodynamics.
By none other than JD. That’s actually hard to do JD, many commenters at least do SOME work to get their comments consistent with the basic laws. JD doesn’t bother. At all.
There are NO violations of laws, fluffball.
That’s why you were unable to identify any.
Just more or your immature fluff.
One: JD destroys energy violates 1LOT (both objects same T)
Two: JD shows object entropy not increasing violates 2LOT
Three: JD shows a blackbody reflecting all incident radiation, violates Planck/S-B laws.
JD fails the basics, typical for an entertainment specialist. Please continue the humor JD, blog readership enjoys it.
fluffball, study this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344640
Don’t worry if you can’t understand it. Some people are just born to be typists.
One: JD destroys energy violates 1LOT (three objects same T)
Two: JD shows 3 object entropy not increasing violates 2LOT
Three: JD shows 3 blackbodies reflecting all incident radiation, violates Planck/S-B laws.
Nothing new in entertainment specialist JD’s pseudoscience, no experimental backing. Something illuminated by 400 W/m^2 isn’t the same equilibrium T as same something illuminated by 200 W/m^2.
Show us the 345K calculation you call bogus JD, or readership will continue to know you haven’t actually seen any such calculation.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Huffingman wrote:
, For real surfaces, the emissivity (e) represents the fraction absorbed and (1-e) equals the fraction reflected. You can’t have it both ways, unless you fabricate a selective absorber, such as that used for solar thermal collectors. For those surface treatments, the SW is absorbed but the LW is reflected.
That does not apply if both plate surfaces have high emissivities (including black bodies) in the wavelengths produced form temperatures in the Green Plate Effect. The Blue plate can’t both reflect all the Green plate’s emissions and emit anything while at nearly the same temperature.
The green plate MUST absorb all flux from the higher potential blue plate, if it is a black body.
It can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.
JDHuffman
The thoughtless one. You really do like to show your ignorance don’t you. No shame.
Mr. anti-science YOU: “The green plate MUST absorb all flux from the higher potential blue plate, if it is a black body.
It can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.”
Yes you are correct, the green plate absorbs all the flux from the blue plate. But now what. Does the green plate just stay cold, it is absorbing energy but not changing?
Clown, the green plate will increase in temperature as it absorbs the flux from the blue plate. As it warms it will emit greater amounts of its own IR (in fact a black-body curve of emission based solely on its temperature).
The energy from the green plate is emitted and the half that faces the blue plate is absorbed by the blue plate. It has an external source of energy input and the added input of the green plate EMR emission. It is NOT reflected. The energy adds to the internal energy of the blue plate and it reaches a higher temperature until it radiates away the same amount of energy it receives. Please learn some physics. I give you many links. Your ignorance might be bliss to you but it is annoying to others.
No Norman, you still can’t understand. The green plate will warm to 244 K because it has to be able to emit 200 Watts/m^2.
Maybe a diagram will help.
One green plate:
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
Two green plates:
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
JDHuffman
About the dumbest cartoon physics I have seen. Why not send it to a Department of Physics for evaluation. Any idiot can make up anything they want. Your cartoons are worthless nonsense. Learn some physics you make yourself look really ignorant.
By the way, what are your cartoons based upon, do you have any textbook material that would support your nonsense? An experiment. Nope? Didn’t think so.
Just study the diagrams, Norman. And do some experiments.
Maybe someday you could even take a high school level physics class….
Experiments have been done confirming that a cold object can make a warmer object warmer.
You JD, are the one denying reality.
Yes bob, it’s called “pseudoscience”.
You should try an experiment yourself JD,
Otherwise you have no standing just opinions unsupported by evidence.
I have experimental data supporting what anyone knowledgeable on heat transfer knows as fact.
Cold objects can make warm objects warmer by slowing the heat loss from the warmer object.
Your opinions don’t matter, empirical evidence wins.
You have none and won’t even try.
You have no standing.
bob, “slowing the heat loss” is not the same as “raising the temperature”.
Right JD,
It’s not the same
One is the result of the other
You lower the heat loss and that raises the temperature.
First Law of Thermodynamics.
Of course you don’t understand it, you never took any classes in Thermodynamics.
Experimental evidence is better than your unsupported opinions.
You keep tripping on the facts.
bob, when you turn on an incandescent light bulb, it will get so hot it will burn your fingers, if you try to grasp it. When you turn it off, it will start cooling. You have “slowed the heat loss” from when it was at its peak. But the bulb will NOT increase in temperature.
“Slowing the heat loss” is not the same as “raising the temperature”.
Want another example?
An ice cube at 270 K emits about 300 Watts/m*2. Put the ice cube in a freezer until it is at 290 K. You have “slowed the heat loss”, but the temperature went down.
Want another example?
Put an object at 400 K into an insulated box. Measure the time it takes for the object to fall to room temperature, about 300 K. Then start over with double the insulation and the object again at 400 K. It will take longer for the object to reach 300 K, because you have “slowed the heat loss”, but the object never went above 400 K.
JD,
Those examples are not representative of the issue.
You are changing the problem if you turn off the heat source.
Try wrapping a light bulb with aluminum foil and see if it gets hotter.
While it is still on.
Wrong again bob. Those examples are right on target, showing that “slowing the heat loss” is NOT the same as “raising the temperature”.
You’re just having a hard time dealing with reality, as usual.
bob, JD’s physics are so outrageously uninformed, JD does not even realize JD’s colder object (room temperature double insulation) increased the temperature of the warmer 400K object over the object in the case with single insulation at each time increment (Law of Cooling).
That is the effect of added insulation; like E. Swanson’s experimental effect of adding the green plate where results showed an increased blue object temperature over the blue object temperature with no green plate.
JD is simply an uninformed commenter here only for entertainment purposes.
Okay fluffball, we’ll add you to the tally:
Tim–BB is NOT a reflector
Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator
bobdrug–BB is a not a reflector, until I change my mind
Swanson–BB is a reflector, insulator
fluffball–BB is an insulator
Busting pseudoscience is such fun!
Blackbody objects do not exist to insulate, reflect, shield anything JD, you are uninformed on the subject.
Or perhaps JD means other commenters are discussing the black body on their cars which can insulate, reflect images, shield engine heat.
More entertainment please JD, you are delivering well today by remaining uninformed – doing no actual experiments and no text cites aid your entertaining efforts.
Now, fluffball wants to revise his vote.
(Revisions from the clowns are permitted. It just shows they don’t have a clue, and their failed efforts just add to the humor. Note that the correct plates solution has not been revised, evah.)
Tim–BB is NOT a reflector
Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator
bobdrug–BB is a not a reflector, until I change my mind
Swanson–BB is a reflector, insulator
fluffball–BB is an insulator, but it does NOT insulate, reflect, or shield anything.
Busting pseudoscience is such fun!
That’s a bit of improvement JD, you are learning a little, try harder your science is as yet not exactly correct. Don’t try too hard though, by actually doing an experiment for example, we wouldn’t want JD to lose all JD’s entertainment value.
Thanks for reminding me of your phony “experiments”, fluffball. Like the time you got caught trying to claim a surface at 1452 K would radiate 400 Watts/m^2. Someone told you that was wrong, but you claimed it was “from experiment”!
Just more of your fluff, as usual.
That was the perfect ploy to get JD to admit JD knows that JD’s cartoons are bogus. Great entertainment JD, more please. Cartoons breaking all 3 thermo. laws are hard to find without JD as a source.
“Ploy” would be the word fluffball would choose, to cover up his incompetence and subsequent deception.
That’s why “fluff” fits him so well.
My ploy motivated two-time loser JD to do the S-B law calculation correctly, not as shown incorrectly in JD’s bogus cartoon.
JD really does full well know 400 W/m^2 illumination and 200 W/m^2 illumination of identical BB black objects won’t achieve same 244K equilibrium temperature as shown in JD’s bogus cartoon because JD CAN do the calculations correctly when JD is motivated to do so.
For fun, JD falsely continues to show readers the bogus cartoon: “Did you notice the ACTUAL correct answer?”
JD is great entertainment. More false science please JD, your antics continue to amuse the blog readership.
More incoherent fluff from fluffball.
Nothing new.
E. Swanson
I you still have your set-up available from the experiment, that JDHuffman and his blog physics overwhelm his thought process, he can’t understand what is going on so he only can say “bogus”, maybe you could show this blog how incredibly ignorant JDHuffman really is.
Heat the blue plate with some internal heater coil and then have two plates brought up on each side. I know it would not do JDHuffman any good. He is a solid clown. It might be more work than you want to do.
If JDHuffman would put money on it, it might be worth it to you.
How about JDHuffman pay E. Swanson $1000 if he sets up an experiment in a vacuum with a blue plate and two green plates on each side to see the blue plate increases. First move one green plate to position and wait for steady temperature and then move the next green plate up.
The stipulation to the payment is JDHuffman only pays if the blue plate gets warmer with the second green plate in place.
Norman, Sorry, I can’t do that. I would need to fabricate new plates, since the ones I have are initially held together with pop rivets which make it impossible to put them together. Also, I would need a new mechanism to move them the way you want. Besides, my back woods rig couldn’t achieve a really strong vacuum, as would be desirable. I’ve taken it apart to try some ideas with a heated plate in the freezer and an ice sheet…
Anyway, I’ve about had it with these clowns. They clearly have an agenda and aren’t interested in physics.
E. Swanson
I already know the outcome. I do not blame you for not wasting time with agenda driven trolls. You proved Eli plate thought experiment was correct.
Sounds like a losers’ pity-party.
Oh well, better luck next time, clowns
PS Often learning some physics will help increase your luck.
JDHuffman
The best thing is to ignore an ignorant troll like you. I do try to but when I reply to rational skeptics with interesting points, I go back to see how the flow of thought goes and you have to inject your troll comments until I play with you.
I play with you a while, it means nothing goes nowhere, I can pull up posts from the past and they are the same.
I really wish you would never respond to any of my posts. That is a dream I will not enjoy. There is nothing you say that interests me in the least. Sometimes I hope for DREMT. You are a worthless blog troll only interested in provoking responses with insulting taunts.
Your pretend knowledge of physics is pathetic. You are about as smart as the noodle heads that post on Joseph Postma site. None have the slightest idea of physics but they post like they all have PhD’s and are smarter than the entire body of scientists. You belong with those clowns.
Just more typing practice for poor Norman.
He never adds value.
Ok JD, as usual you declare an answer, but how did you solve it? You cannot say.
The point of using real radiative heat transfer physics is to be able solve any problem.
It cannot be the case that in every problem all objects end up the same temperature, as you declare.
If so, the universe would be a boring place!
Show your work, or no credit!
No Nate, every problem would not have objects at the same temperature. But every problem obeys the Laws of physics, except in your pseudoscience.
‘obeys the Laws of physics’
But your answer doesnt, at all.
Violates 1st law: Green plates receive 200, but radiate 400. OR Blue is both an excellent emitter and excellent reflector, violating Kirchoff’s Law.
Violates 2nd law: NET heat of 200W/m2 cannot flow between objects at the same temperature.
Violates Rad Heat Transfer Law: sigma(Tb^4-Tg^4) = 0. Not 200 W/m^2
How exactly does your answer obey ANY laws of physics?
Nate, for reference, here’s the latest diagram, with two green plates. It’s the funniest one, since you clowns must believe the blue plate will shoot up to 345 K, after slightly separating the green plates.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
Both green plates receive 200 Watts from the blue plate, and emit 200 Watts out. They transfer NO energy back to the blue plate, as indicated by the two opposing arrows. (If you had been paying attention to the discussion, you would know the term for the two opposing arrows.) There are no violations of any laws.
You are confused by the energy flow from blue to green. You believe there cannot be energy flow because the plates are at the same temperature. You just don’t understand the relevant physics.
Here, the plate temperatures are NOT establishing energy flow. You are confusing radiative heat transfer and conductive heat transfer. In this situation, the energy flow establishes the temperatures. The blue plate MUST emit 200 Watts in both directions. But, since the green plates can NOT send energy back to the blue plate, they must rise in temperature to the point they can radiate 200 Watts.
And again, if you had been paying attention, you would know that the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus. As in this case you clowns end up with ridiculous results, like causing the blue plate to rise in temperature over 180 °F (over 100 °C), just by a 1 mm separation!
Enjoy your ridiculous and hilarious pseudoscience. We certainly do….
“There are no violations of any laws.”
JD is so uninformed, JD does not realize his bogus cartoon violates 1LOT, 2LOT, Planck/S-B laws. Just a normal day’s work for JD. Such free entertainment is very hard to find. More please.
No violations, fluffball.
Find an adult to explain it to you. Then, get the adult to phase any responsible questions.
Otherwise, have fun playing with yourself.
‘They transfer NO energy back to the blue plate, as indicated by the two opposing arrows. (If you had been paying attention to the discussion, you would know the term for the two opposing arrows.) There are no violations of any laws.’
Kirchoffs law says an excellent emitter like the blue plate, cannot be an excellent (or even good) reflector. You are somehow exempt from this law? Nope.
“Here, the plate temperatures are NOT establishing energy flow. In this situation, the energy flow establishes the temperatures. ”
Gobbldegook does not let you violate Radiative Heat Transfer Law and Second Law. There is no mechanism other than radiant heat at work here.
“The blue plate MUST emit 200 Watts in both directions. But, since the green plates can NOT send energy back to the blue plate, they must rise in temperature to the point they can radiate 200 Watts.”
Doubling down on Kirchoff Law violation.
“you would know that the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus.”
Physics! We don’t understand physics! You constantly spout such things.
Yet here you are tossing out a perfectly valid Law of Physics. Again, inexplicably, you are exempt.
Nate, even clowns try to compose a coherent comment.
Are you moving to some lower level?
Very simple JD, you violate several laws of physics, as clearly explained. You weirdly declare another one is bogus, with no reason given.
And you seem to think that’s all just no problem.
If your sole aim is to troll, then you are right, no problem.
Again Nate gets caught making a comment he can’t support, more than 24 hours after I have left.
It’s almost like he’s afraid to deal with reality….
JD,
Prove you are not a troll, by answering peoples legitimate questions.
1. How do you get your answer? Show your methods.
2. Why are you exempt from valid laws of physics: Kirchoffs Law, Radiative Heat Transfer Law, Second Law.
3. As Tim says, your physics is different from standard physics. Show us a source, ANY source, any textbook, on-line course, that agrees with you that Kirchoffs Law and RHT law do not apply.
Nate, please stop trolling.
JD, we need you to clarify “your physics” since it seems to differe from everyone else’s physics.
Google “radiative heat transfer” and look at the equations.
Open any textbook on radiative heat transfer and look at the equations.
In every case, you will find that for radiation from a hot blackbody object with a temperature Th and an area A to cool blackbody surroundings with a temperature Tc, the power of the net transfer is always given as
P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) A
Do you agree with this universally accepted equation? Or do you have some other equation that you use?
Tim, that equation is invalid. It assumes all flux is always absorbed. That’s an invalid assumption. You can see the ridiculous results it produces, as demonstrated by the “plates” nonsense.
Much like a “black body”, that equation is used in pseudoscience to pervert reality.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Hilarious!! You blatantly reject established physics and an equation that is used all the time in heat transfer engineering. Let you in on a secret JDHuffman, the equation works it is valid.
Man you are funny. The funny thing might be that you actually believe you studied physics somewhere, you think you know what you are talking about related to science. You argue with Tim Folkerts who has forgotten more physics than you have ever learned.
What a hilarious clown you are. Continue to amuse the blog.
JDHuffman
You funny phony.
Here is a link from heat transfer equations used by actual engineers who design heat transfer items (something we are all glad you never were, you would be fired day one for total incompetence).
Look at the equations used in the radiant heat transfer section. Boy you are one ignorant poster. Most would not continue after being wrong so many times on so many things. You are not smart enough to see how ignorant your ideas are.
https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/heat_transfer_table_content.htm
No Norman, you get it wrong, again. I reject pseudoscience, not established physics.
And I see you’ve found another link you can’t understand.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Hilarious! You say the same thing every time I link to a website.
YOU: “And I see you’ve found another link you can’t understand.”
So funny you make me laugh. You have zero explanation of what I don’t understand but you are very confident I don’t. That is really a funny thing to say from a funny poster.
When you get tired of being a funny clown to make people laugh, try and explain what I don’t understand.
JDHuffman
LOL!
YOU really are hilarious. Funnier than when you went by g.e.r.a.n.
YOU: “No Norman, you get it wrong, again. I reject pseudoscience, not established physics.”
Your established physics come from deranged lunatics like Joseph Postma, crackpots like Claes Johnson. All pseudoscience! Your clown cartoon is complete pseudoscience. You don’t even try to support it with any evidence. All fabrications you made up.
When you get good established textbook physics you reject it all.
The equation Tim Folkerts posted is the established radiant heat transfer equation. What did you say about it? Oh you forgot already?
Here: “Tim, that equation is invalid. It assumes all flux is always absorbed.”
It is correct for a blackbody which we are debating in your example. Lord you hate physics with a complete passion.
Have you sent your brilliant idea of No Moon Rotation to a University Astronomy Department for evaluation?
Have you sent your stupid cartoon physics to a University Physics Department for evaluation?
No you haven’t. You hate physics so much you want to remain in the dark. Such sources would show you how ignorant you really are. You can’t have that can you. Much better to pretend to be this genius. Sorry you are not the next genius to be discovered. You need to have rational and logical thought to qualify.
Poor Norman. His made up world just doesn’t jive with reality. He can’t even get the other clowns to agree on the definition of a hypothetical black body. His rambling, derogatory comments just make hiim look desperate.
It must be so frustrating for him.
JD,
Certainly that equation is an idealization because it assumes perfect absor.ption and emission. In the same way that frictionless surfaces are an idealization.
These are simplifications for beginners. For real surfaces, we can introduce real emissivities. We can introduce view factors. These are minor corrections on the equations.
The point is that all scientists agree that the equation I presented works for the idealized case. And they agree that a slightly modified version will work for non-ideal cases.
So we are left with one of two choices:
* all scientists are wrong, and engineers are completely lost when they are calculating heat flows for actual factories and space craft and power plants. Not just a few percent off because of idealizations or simplifications or rounding off, but not even in the right ballpark. (And engineers who are not even in the right ballpark are fired, so there would be no engineers hired to calculate temperatures anywhere).
* JD is wrong.
Tim, 4 hours to come up with that nonsense?
How about a third possibility, that never even entered your corrupted head?
* Engineers working on real-world problems use real-world physics, not some fraudulent pseudoscience. JD is right.
JDHuffman
Yes Engineers use real-world physics. They do not use your made up nonsense. I gave you a link to real world physics. Why not learn it and quit being a disgrace to the Climate Skeptic community. There are many good posters here that understand the correct physics yet doubt the dire claims of the alarmists. Your made up physics and endless debates are not aiding the cause of skeptics. People believing you are a valid skeptics (not the troll that you really are) might start associating your horrible physics with the skeptic movement.
Norman, if you left out all your insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations, you wouldn’t any way to practice your typing, would you?
Keep practicing.
That’s the thing, JD. The equation I gave (and slight variations on it) IS the “real world” equation used by engineers!
You are basically saying “You have to use the equations that engineers use to solve problems, but that equations is wrong.”
Tim, you’re not making up things again, are you?
You’re running short of limbs to lose.
Also, don’t forget that according to Eli’s math, these equations that supposedly all scientists and engineers use:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
“Eli has not said anything about how the heat is being transferred, radiation, convection or conduction but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature, the temperature of the blue plate must increase as more plates are added.”
Just add more plates each side of the sandwich! We’ve got 345 K just by having 2 plates, 1 each side. I wonder what they think the temperature of the blue plate would be, if they had 10 plates each side?
Adding the second green plate was their “Waterloo”. It showed that they have to redefine a black body, to fit their pseudoscience.
You can raise the temperature of the blue plate with insulation. For example if you insulated both sides, so that only a total of 0.01 sq. meter was allowed to radiate the 400 Watts incoming, then the outgoing flux would have to be 40,000 Watts/m^2. And that would mean that the blue plate would have to have a temperature of 916.5 K.
So, they need the green plate to be some type of specialized insulator, but keep the blue plate a black body.
It’s called “pseudoscience”.
That’s not how insulation works JD,
It doesn’t reduce the area, it reduces flux.
You really stepped in it this time.
Give us your equations JD. What real-world problems have you solved? What results do you have that show how engineers are wrong?
Tim and bob try to misrepresent me.
Their failed efforts only show they know they are wrong.
JD, you keep tell us to “learn some physics”. Yet, when we ask for more details, for more information, you evade.
P = (sigma)(Th^4 – Tc^4)A *is* the basic physics. This is the introduction in every textbook and every thermodynamics course. Often this is used as the springboard to more advanced equations for more general cases — but always those equations reduce back to (sigma)(Th^4 – Tc^4)A for simple blackbodies radiating to a uniform environment.
If you think you know some other physics, then point us too a reputable source. If you think “blackbody” means something other than “perfectly emits and absorbs EM radiation at all (applicable) frequencies, show us a book that agrees with you. Show us an equation for calculating which wavelengths are not absorbed.
Tim, again, this has already been discussed. That equation is bogus. It is NOT “the introduction in every textbook and every thermodynamics course.” You are imagining things.
Why don’t you just come out and admit you don’t believe in the 2LoT? Some other clowns are doing that. Why try to keep denying 2LoT, yet not admitting to it? Look at Norman’s comments, and bobdrug’s. They no longer fake any interest in truth or reality. You should join them.
Come out of that closet.
“That equation is bogus.”
That equation is the 1LOT. It is JD and JD’s cartoons that are entertainingly bogus.
Keep up your act JD, your outrageous physics are a three ring circus. Glad JD has not been banned yet again.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention fluffball. He’s been out of the closet for a long time. He’s a great example for you, Tim.
Of course he hides behind his cowardly screen name, but you’ll get there, Tom….
JD,
You said something wrong, ie, this
“You can raise the temperature of the blue plate with insulation. For example if you insulated both sides, so that only a total of 0.01 sq. meter was allowed to radiate the 400 Watts incoming,… ”
Insulation doesn’t work by reducing the area allowed to radiate.
You are incorrect
I worked to insulate super-conducting magnets with aluminum foil, and no, we didn’t reduce the area, we reduced the flux with 60 layers of aluminum foil.
And you claim I am misrepresenting you.
Are those not your words I quoted above.
JD says to lean some physics about radiative heat transfer … so google ‘physics radiative heat transfer equations’ at .edu sites
Top hits include:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Heattransfer.html
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1153&context=physicskatz
http://pages.mtu.edu/~fmorriso/cm310/lectures/2015heatlecture10-11.pdf
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-050-thermal-energy-fall-2002/lecture-notes/10_part3.pdf
http://physics.ucsc.edu/~joel/Phys5D/13Phys5D-Lecture5.pdf
All of these mention
P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) in one for or another.
JD says this equation is ‘bogus’.
I guess we can now make our own call about whom to trust to teach us physics.
* Do we trust some random dude in the internet who appeals to his own authority?
* Or do we trust every university teaching thermodynamics (across multiple continents; in both physics and engineering)?
bob, thanks for quoting me exactly. That’s always a smart thing to do.
Either 1) you are confused about the point I was making, or 2) you don’t believe that insulation can insulate.
I’m content, whichever of the two it is.
Tim, I see you are still having trouble with that bogus equation. Just because it is used in teaching examples, does not mean it has applications in the real world. As you’ve seen here, it can lead people down the wrong path.
You may be confused because ΔT is important in CONDUCTIVE heat transfer, but does not carry over to radiative heat transfer. When a surface emits a photon, it does not consider where the photon will end up, AT ALL.
So again, you’ve missed the best option:
* Learn some physics, and think for yourself.
JD,
Perhaps you can clarify how you think insulation works.
Does it work by reducing the area of heat transfer or by reducing the amount of heat transfer.
Why bob, just in your last comment you were telling us what an insulation expert you are. Now you’re trying to actually learn?
The first thing you might want to learn is that insulation insulates.
Glad to help.
JD,
I was trying to figure out how much you actually know and give you the opportunity to admit you made a mistake.
Lets parse this statement of yours
“You can raise the temperature of the blue plate with insulation. For example if you insulated both sides, so that only a total of 0.01 sq. meter was allowed to radiate the 400 Watts incoming, then the outgoing flux would have to be 40,000 Watts/m^2. ”
You made a couple mistakes
One, according to the green plate effect, it’s 400 w/m^2, so if you reduced the area to 0.01 sq. meter, the outgoing flux would be 4 watts, not 40,000 and it would still be 400 w/m^2.
Second, insulation doesn’t work by reducing the area, it works by reducing the flux, that’s why I asked you to explain how insulation works.
Apparently you don’t know so you project that lack of understanding on me.
Maybe you could explain yourself.
bob says: “One, according to the green plate effect, its 400 w/m^2, so if you reduced the area to 0.01 sq. meter, the outgoing flux would be 4 watts, not 40,000 and it would still be 400 w/m^2.”
400 Watts divided by 0.01 equals 40,000 Watts/m^2.
bob says: “Second, insulation doesnt work by reducing the area, it works by reducing the flux, thats why I asked you to explain how insulation works.”
For an object to emit the same energy, the outgoing flux must increase if its surface area decreases.
JD,
It’s 400 watts/m^2
So according to your math it’s 400 watts/m^2 divided by 0.01 m^2 which comes to 40,000 watts/m^4.
Got it?
The problem starts with 400 watts/m^2 not 400 watts.
you say
“For an object to emit the same energy, the outgoing flux must increase if its surface area decreases.”
You would have to compress an object by a factor of 100 to do that.
How?
You don’t understand insulation.
No bob, you don’t “got it’! It’s 400 Watts (not Watts/m^2) divided by 0.01 m^2.
“You would have to compress an object by a factor of 100 to do that. How?”
No bob, you would not have to compress the object. You could restrict the effective emitting surface area by using a suitable radiative insulator, as you attempted upthread by wrapping the light bulb in foil.
Or, do you need to argue with yourself, again?
Doesn’t work that way JD
The suitable radiative insulator doesn’t reduce the area that is emitting.
That’s why radiative insulation is usually done in layers.
Many layers.
Clown, are you telling me that putting layers of radiative insulation on one side of a flat plate won’t reduce the effective radiating surface area of the plate?
You need some adult help.
Yes that’s exactly what I’m telling you.
The area that the flux is going through never changes, or at least never gets smaller as you add more layers of insulation.
Been there done that.
Experienced radiative insulator, one super conducting magnet cooled by both liquid nitrogen and liquid Helium, 60 layers of aluminum foil.
Well that’s interesting, bob. NASA will be fascinated to know that space equipment can not be protected from the Sun.
(See why you need an adult to review your comments?)
‘If you think blackbody means something other than perfectly emits and absorbs EM radiation at all (applicable) frequencies, show us a book that agrees with you. Show us an equation for calculating which wavelengths are not absorbed.’
Tim, Norman, me:
I have made similar requests many times. He is never able to offer any source. He simply ignores facts and logic.
JD has no desire to honestly debate or be taken seriously. His goal is simply to troll.
I suggest that unless he changes his ways, we need to stop responding to him and thus feeding the troll.
I concur with your suggestion, anonymous Nate. Stop with your nonsense. If you don’t understand the physics, it is not my fault. It is not my job to teach you, especially if you are not able to pose a responsible question, in a timely manner, so I don’t have to accidently run upon your comment when I’m looking for something else.
Sheeeesh.
JD,
this statement
“Well thats interesting, bob. NASA will be fascinated to know that space equipment can not be protected from the Sun.”
Never said anything like that, I think NASA knows how to insulate their space equipment, and it’s not by reducing the area, it’s by reducing the flux.
‘pose a responsible question, in a timely manner’
‘Timely’, however arbitrarily defined by you, is just an excuse to avoid accountability.
Whether timely or not you don’t answer or take seriously the key questions from me or Tim or anyone.
Of course for pure trolling, you dont need to answer.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Guys, JD is just gas lighting here with his alternative facts, and getting attention he desperately seeks…
Obviously anonymous Nate has not studied the issue and has nothing constructive to offer. Just another uninformed, closed-minded troll.
Nothing new.
JD,
More lies from our trolliest of trolls.
I have offered you the correct physics many times, and each time you dodge, distract, deny facts, and finally depart..
Nate, when you clowns resort to “L” words, it indicates you have lost.
But, I can understand your frustration. You don’t understand the relevant physics, and you see your fraudlent belief system being shattered right in front of your eyes. That explains your anger.
I’m here to help. The correct physics:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344640
Go find some other suckers to troll. Or just play in traffic.
Play in traffic? There’s no need to wish harm on someone just because they’ve debunked the Green Plate Effect.
…but anyway, back to my point: Play in traffic? There’s no need to wish harm on someone just because they’ve debunked the Green Plate Effect.
DREMT,
JD has debunked his own solution, by not explaining why it is exempt from several laws of physics.
I am also puzzled why YOU have never claimed the Radiative Heat Transfer Law is ‘bogus’ or does not apply, as he does. Do you agree with him?
As I recall, DREMT, you spent a long time arguing that Eli did not use the Radiative Heat Transfer Law to solve the GPE, and therefore his solution must be wrong.
To be self-consistent you should argue that JDs solution is also wrong, because he fails to use the Radiative Heat Transfer Law.
Not only does he not use it, his solution violates it! And thus he claims the law is bogus.
Whoops!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345070
How old are you?
Clearly trolling doesnt require you to be consistent with yourself or even make sense.
…but anyway, back to my point: Play in traffic? There’s no need to wish harm on someone just because they’ve debunked the Green Plate Effect.
Here’s old DREMT:
“Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 29, 2018 at 1:02 PM
To find ‘the rate of heat flow from the sun to the blue plate, and the rate of heat flow out from the blue plate and the green plate’ you need to use the radiative heat transfer equation between the sun and the blue plate, and between the plates (your Q12), and your Q23.”
New DREMT: JD has “debunked the Green Plate Effect.”
Here’s JD ‘debunking’ his solution of GPE:
JD “if you had been paying attention, you would know that the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus.”
because his ‘solution’ doesnt satisfy the RHT equation.
Nate, the debunk involves having a blue plate powered by an electrical source, and adding an additional green plate to the left of the blue (plus additional green plates as necessary). It’s an extension of the GPE logic, designed to show the absurdity of the conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum. Try to keep on topic. Currently, the topic is:
Play in traffic? There’s no need to wish harm on someone just because they’ve debunked the Green Plate Effect.
Good try at dodging.
The issue is a law of physics, the RHE, must be satisfied, as you correctly pointed out in November. And neither the ‘debunk’ or original diagrams satisfy it.
You think the law is now bogus? Or JD is exempt?
Good try at dodging, Nate. Stop trying to change the topic from the debunk.
Congratulations!
You are promoted to full Troll status.
Nate, please stop trolling.
The “plate-warmer” clowns determined that adding a second green plate would raise the blue plate temperature to 345 K. If all three plates start out together, all three would have an equilibrium temperature of 244 K. So the clowns claim that slightly separating the plates causes the middle (blue) plate to rise to 345 K!
Now NONE of the clowns understand the relevant physics. In fact, most don’t even understand their own pseudoscience. I have to explain it to them often. But, it gets worse. They are unable to think for themselves. This is another perfect example.
244 K corresponds to -29 °C, -20.5 °F. 345 K corresponds to 72 °C, 161 °F. These are pretty extreme temperature changes, just from slightly separating the plates. People that can think for themselves would realize that there is something wrong. But not our clowns.
Just some more reality….
JDH,
It doesn’t make any difference really. When the heat lamp is turned off, all the different coloured plates become the same temperature.
Just like the Earth’s surface after sunset. The plates all lose their colour as well. No heat trapping at all.
Much ado about not much at all. I suppose the idea was to show that CO2 can make the Earth hotter from year to year (as in “Hottest year EVAH!”, but this is just lunatic nonsense, espoused by deluded nutters!
Some of the nutters even agree that the Earth has cooled, but claim that because it is now cooling very, very, slowly, that really means it is getting hotter!
Bizarre.
Cheers.
This “plates” nonsense has been amazing. The clowns have to believe it, but many know it is a bust. Some have left the discussion, while others will likely go down with the sinking ship.
It’s been a blast!
The spontaneous temperature rise and fall of the plates through separation and pushing them back together is the now infamous “Accordion of Pseudoscience”. Even Eli had to draw the line at that, as we saw in his more recent GPE article.
With 3 plates, we now have the “Pseudoscience Sandwich”. Just over 100 K of temperature increase simply by adding two plates with zero insulative properties either side of a powered object.
There has to be a limit to what they can swallow, or expect others to, surely!?
They always get themselves wrapped up in their own web. They can’t decide how to define a black body, to fit their pseudoscience. Is it a perfect absorber, or a reflector, or a heat shield, or an insulator, or a banana?
The humor never ends.
What kind of object can provide zero insulation?
Is there something that is transparent to all wavelengths, has zero thermal conductivity and does not block convection?
Hmmmm,
What is this mystery material?
No real objects provide zero insulation, because no real objects are perfect conductors, with zero reflectivity. Unlike the unreal black-body plates in the thought experiment, two of which you claim would increase the temperature of the powered blue plate by 101 K.
Don’t forget what you’ve got to sell, this time. A 101 K temperature increase. Enjoy your sandwich!
That temperature increase is because your diagram has 800 watt/m2 coming to the blue plate, remember it’s a blackbody problem, no reflection allowed.
From Norman:
“JDHuffman
The correct answer for you situation would have a steady state temperature for both green plates of around 244 K while the sandwiched blue plate would rise to 345 K.”
That’s “the correct answer”, bob. Can’t argue with that. Mmmm…tasty pseudoscience.
JDHuffman
We can all think fine. You are the one lacking in rational logical skills.
You don’t have enough knowledge of heat transfer to grasp that when together they have a heat exchange mechanism called conduction. If you could think for yourself you would realize there is much difference between plates that are in contact vs plates that are not. Since you lack logical thought process you come to the absurd conclusion that plate separation has no effect.
Why not do an actual experiment. You will see the heated blue plate does get much hotter and the others cool off.
JD…”Now NONE of the clowns understand the relevant physics”.
The G/B plate nonsense was started by Eli Rabbet, who has a degree in physics and teaches chemistry. I can see why.
He co-authored a paper as a rebuttal against Gerlich and Tscheuschner, two experts in thermodynamics who have debunked AGW and the GHE. They argued, in part, that real greenhouses do not warm by trapping IR, as CO2 is claimed to do, but that the greenhouses warm because they trap warmed air molecules with the glass. Further, there is little or no convection to carry the heat off.
As part of the rebuttal, there were two, Rabbett (Halpern) used the same silly arguments as in the green plate / blue plate thought experiment. When G&T claimed a heat transfer from hot to cold only was permitted, Halpern et al argued that would mean one body was not radiating.
Doh!!!
In their rebuttal, G&T had to point out the obvious, that the 2nd law applies to heat and not radiation (EM). They claimed only quantities of heat can be summed and that summing IR does not qualify in determining the direction of heat transfer outlines by the 2nd law.
Where this silliness came from, I don’t understand. Certain modernists have altered the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to make it allegedly satisfy the 2nd law by introducing a pseudo-scientific notion of a net balance of energy.
We are not talking about energy per se in a generic form, we are talking about two different energies, EM and heat, which have diametrically-opposed properties. Furthermore, Rabbett et al are confusing black-body theory with real world applications, which do not coincide.
Gordo, No, we aren’t talking about “energy per se in a generic form”. We are talking about the effects of radiation shield(s) on a heated body’s temperature. In you referenced paper by G&T, they simply assert that the CO2/Greenhouse Effect on temperature can not be an increase because that would violate the 2nd Law without any analysis of the energy flow. They didn’t address the parallel case of radiation shielding of heated solid bodies, which is standard engineering practice.
You are arguing against text book engineering and experience, which says that the heated body will experience a temperature increase when shields are added, a result repeated in my Green Plate demo.
So far, for almost a year, in all your comments, you have stubbornly failed to explain these results.
Swa,, You apparently understand this stuff. Of course there is a GHE and your experiment demonstrated it. The deeper understanding comes from discovering why, in spite of being a ghg, CO2 has little if any effect on climate and water vapor, also a ghg but inherently self-limiting, does. It is explained at http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com or click my name for the whole story.
DP, Sorry to say, I can’t be considered an expert on the intricate details. I’ve not worked with MODTRAN, so what follows may not be correct.
That said, I think you should also consider that the water vapor absorp_tion is also thermalized, which puts a kink in your suggestion that there’s one way a transfer from the CO2 molecules to the WV molecules. Also, the emissions from any molecular constituent happens in random directions, which works out to half leaving a layer in the upward direction and the other half moving downward.
Furthermore, above the tropopause, there’s almost no WV, so the emission-absorp_tion reverts to the CO2 in a column. The lower level shown for CO2 in your graphs may be the result of the net outward flux from elevations above the tropopause, which occurs at a lower emission temperature, thus the apparent “dip” in your graphs.
Should you wish to dig deeper, try Goody and Yung, Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, which gives the intricate details. I have a copy of the 1989 edition which I need to study, but I get lost in the math. Just skimming it so far, I’ve picked up lots more understanding of the physics.
ES,, I am fully aware that the energy absorbed by WV is thermalized, in fact, the energy is thermalized in ALL molecules that absorb photons. The energy is distributed/shared by thermal conduction in the surrounding molecules in the gas. The process of absorbing and emitting is continuous throughout the atmosphere. Absorbing tends to increase the temperature of the gas and emitting tends to lower it. Although individual molecules emit in random direction, the steep population gradient of WV molecules, progressively with altitude, favors radiation from them getting all the way to space. The population gradient in WV molecules goes from an average of about 1000 ppm at surface to about 32 ppm at 10 km. The population decline accompanies the temperature decline to about -50 C at 10 km.
The concept of one-way transfer is misleading and I will try to improve the wording to avoid any appearance that I am suggesting it. Emission in the range wavenumber 600-750/cm can be absorbed by CO2 keeping CO2 molecules participating below 10 km. Realize emission in the range wn 50-600/cm can only be absorbed by other WV molecules and, because of their population gradient, much of it, eventually all of it, gets all the way to space. The result of all this is the NET flow of absorbed energy in the wn range 600-750/cm is absorbed by CO2, shared with all the surrounding molecules, a lot of the emission from WV molecules, eventually nearly all, makes it to space. The notch demonstrates the NET flow of energy.
If you look closely in Fig 2 notice that the notch is deeper at 20 km than it is at 50 km. This corroborates CO2 dominance above the tropopause. The NET flow of energy above the tropopause favors CO2 because, at this high altitude, CO2 molecules outnumber WV molecule about 410 to 32.
Thanks for suggesting the book. I would be cautious about any text that far back, a lot of this stuff had not been sorted out yet. Avoid allowing the physicists to get you mired in the minutia.
“the energy is thermalized in ALL molecules… emitting is continuous throughout the atmosphere.”
These statements are inconsistent Dan. If all the excited molecules are de-energized by collision (thermalized), then there are no excited molecules left to emit (de-energized by photon emission). A better statement is some molecular absorbed energy is thermalized and some emitted.
“Realize emission in the range wn 50-600/cm can only be absorbed by other WV molecules”
All atm. molecules absorb/emit in the range wn 50-600/cm, the only difference is the measure of luminous intensity of each species.
“Thanks for suggesting the book. I would be cautious about any text that far back, a lot of this stuff had not been sorted out yet. Avoid allowing the physicists to get you mired in the minutia.”
More recent texts are Bohren 1998 (atm. thermo.) and Bohren 2006 (atm. radiation). In spectroscopy, the detail minutia IS where the important stuff is learned. Bohren 2006 cites Goody & Yung with admiration by the way.
DP, Things become complicated when one considers the tropopause because of the vertical circulation process.
As I understand things, warm, moist low density air is lifted in the atmosphere by the hydrostatic pressure from the surrounding cooler, densier air, moving upward where it cools, eventually cooling to the point that the vapor begins to condense into clouds. While condensing, the heat released warms the air mass, which promotes further upward motion. Further condensation may result in ice particles or snow. Both effects result in a cloud layer, thru which IR EM will not be transmitted. Above the cloud layer and the tropopause, there’s little water vapor to emit IR EM.
The now cooled air mass will sink back toward the surface, which results in dry, low water vapor areas which will emit little IR EM in the WV bands while allowing IR EM from the surface to go directly to space via the atmospheric window. In those instances my presumption is that the CO2 column absorp_tion/emission would provide a larger fractional component than in the moist air situation. I’m sure that the math to sort all this out becomes quite messy, which must be done using models.
Swanson, Dan Pangburn, and anonymous fluffball, when you clowns have finished pretending you know physics, deal with this reality:
Adding the second green plate results in the blue plate temperature of 345 K, if you believe in your pseudoscience.
So if the 3 plates are together, they all are at 244 K, at equilibrium. Your pseudoscience indicates that separating them by only 1 silly millimeter causes the blue plate to rise to 345 K.
At 244 K, the blue plate might cause frost bite to human skin. Separating the plates could cause burns to human skin.
Where has such nonsense been seen, in the real world?
And, we haven’t even mentioned entropy yet….
Busting pseudoscience is so much fun.
“So if the 3 plates are together, they all are at 244 K, at equilibrium.”
Given the initial Eli conditions view factor 1, that is ONE plate at 244K equilibrium. Add a plate for two plates, the blue plate goes to 262K equilibrium. Directionally same as confirmed by experiment. From where did JD get the 3plate 345K?
“As I understand things, warm, moist low density air is lifted in the atmosphere by the hydrostatic pressure from the surrounding cooler, densier air, moving upward where it cools, eventually cooling to the point that the vapor begins to condense into clouds.”
Not all the time, actually observed not most of the time. Convective available PE (CAPE) determines the initial lifting velocity of the air warmed above ambient; when it rises to equilibrate with ambient the rise stops and diffuses laterally in a mostly hydrostatic atm.
If not enough CAPE to get to saturation, doesn’t form a cloud. A lot of CAPE (which is unusual, summer storms are an exception) means momentum can get the rising air to burst through the tropopause and cauliflower out into stratosphere.
Funtionally incompetent fluffball is unable to even follow blog discussions:
“From where did JD get the 3plate 345K?”
Clowns provide so much entertainment.
JD has no idea about the 345K, I understand. Typical for an entertainment specialist.
Wrong again, fluffball. I just wanted you to confirm your incompetence.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344427
Like I wrote, JD has no idea where the 345K came from, JD is arguing against something JD hasn’t even bothered to understand. Typical for an entertainment specialist.
fluffball continues to display his incompetence.
He probably doesn’t know how to follow the link I provided:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344427
If he did, he probably couldn’t understand the bogus math Norman used to arrive at the 345 K.
These clowns are hilarious.
Show us the bogus 345K math JD. Prove JD is not just an entertainment specialist.
fluffball, you admit you’re so incompetent you don’t even know your own pseudoscience, then I will show you how your syncophant, Norman, calculated the 345 K.
I await your admission of incompetence.
Not going to work JD.
Blog readership knows you are calling the 345K calculation bogus when you haven’t even seen the calculation, typical in that JD just makes up stuff. Or show the bogus 345K calculation if you are right and are not just an entertainment specialist.
I agree, clown. Your tricks no longer work here.
Admit that you don’t know how the bogus 345 K is calculated, and I will show you.
You don’t even want to learn your own pseudoscience!
Hilarious.
I’ll go with experimentally confirmed science JD.
I’ll leave the pseudoscience & bogus cartoons to JD where JD shows NO experiments. JD can’t even show the 345K calculation JD calls bogus. A three ring JD circus. Great entertainment JD, and it’s free! More please.
ES,, I discuss vertical circulation at the end of Section 4 in my blog/analysis (click my name) and understand it apparently the same as you. Remember, clouds exist all the way from fog at the surface to cirrus and my assessment smears all this into a global average. The radiation stuff is in parallel. Working with global averages is comparatively simple and that is all I do. In the process, I have identified what is important as demonstrated by a 98+ % match with measured 1895-2018. The GCMs will not get better until they stop blaming CO2, input measured WV, and account for ocean oscillation.
Bal,, It appears we are not on the same page with understanding of thermalization. Thermalization is the process of absorbing radiation and sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules. The collisions are all elastic so there is no net energy loss. The energy of the molecule that absorbed the photon is shared so its energy drops down becoming part of the average for the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution which is exhibited as the temperature of the gas. This all happens as the molecules bounce off each other with the average time between impacts for a molecule being less than 0.0002 microseconds at stp. The average time between absorbing and emitting a photon is about 5 microseconds so the chance of emitting a photon before another molecule is contacted is zilch. All absorbed, thermalized energy is eventually emitted.
As to the difference in luminous intensity, I became aware of that working with Hitran. IMO the species participating several orders of magnitude below the significant energy involved with ghg can be ignored with negligible error in understanding climate.
MODTRAN output compares acceptably with TOA measurements showing the notches. I wonder how Bohren explains the notches.
The plate problem, as defined without edge issues, is trivial. Eli got the correct answer in spite of his mistakes because they perfectly compensated. In his 2018 update, the first equation with two plates should be a equals 2bprime minus c for plate 1.
Fluffball is unable to understand his own pseudoscience. His one fan, Norman, will be so disappointed.
Norman has a lot to learn about teen idols. They come, they go, but never anything of substance.
Nothing new.
Dan Pangburn, are you here to face reality or promote your blog?
If you want to face reality, here it is:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344669
“All absorbed, thermalized energy is eventually emitted.”
The air molecules excited one level above their base quantum level cannot both emit a photon and thermalize that energy by collision back to base level. All atm. molecular energy one level above the quantum base level is eventually emitted OR thermalized by collision. Not both.
“IMO the species participating several orders of magnitude below the significant energy involved with ghg can be ignored with negligible error in understanding climate.”
O2 and N2 are in such high quantity they are observed emitting in the spectroscopy through the entire depth of earth atm. Also, “can be ignored” is different, more accurate statement for some species, than the statement “Realize emission in the range wn 50-600/cm can only be absorbed by other WV molecules”.
Bal,, Your statements at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344730 appear to be true, but IMO they look a lot like minutia with little, if any, illumination on why CO2, in spite of being a ghg is not a significant contributor to GW.
In my view, it is true that added CO2 ppm is not a significant contributor as you write. The issue is over what is meant by “significant” earthian added sky radiation at the surface & the time period.
Some might call CO2 added ppm delta ~0.7C in global median T observed over ~75 years significant. Others, including Dan, might call .009C/year not a significant contributor to GW. It is really hard to see .009C each year/year in the top post graph. There are both advantages and disadvantages to added sky radiation & CO2 that are rarely summed.
To me, anyone writing .009C monotonic increase this year 2019 over last 2018 on global median temperature being solely responsible for any sort of a so called “heat wave” or major storm damage is a bit of an exaggeration. The low all-time temperature in Illinois was ~.009C higher than what it would have been had it happened last year.
I’m mainly in this wild west discussion to be able to form my own more informed data-based opinions on what the general news media publishes on the subject of GW. Oh, and the humorous entertainment provided by some blog commenters is worth the effort.
DP wrote:
MODTRAN output compares acceptably with TOA measurements showing the notches. I wonder how Bohren explains the notches.
AS I understand it, those “notches” to which you refer are the narrow absorp_tion “bands” at specific wavelengths for the various species of greenhouse gases. That’s the way it is described by Goody and Yung. I think Craig Bohren agrees with that interpretaton. The earlier spectroscopic work which showed wide “bands” because the resolution of the instruments couldn’t resolve the narrow bands and the effects of pressure broadening added to the width at surface pressures.
I read most of your long post and came away a bit confused. I would need to read it again but I think you should remember that your graphs of MODTRAN results are mostly for clear sky conditions. What happens above clouds would seem to be different, given that clouds would tend to emit a nearly continuous spectrum similar to water. As you note, there’s almost no WV above the tropopause (you use 10km as your reference). Above the clouds, CO2 becomes a much larger fraction of the GHG emissions.
Another thing which bothered me was your computation for human caused emissions of WV. I didn’t notice a comparison with the amount WV provided by from natural cycles, especially as the Earth is roughly 72% covered with H2O. Also, as I recall, irrigated agriculture has been around for quite a while, especially for farming rice. The aboriginals in pre-Colombian Central America also took advantage of irrigation.
BTW, Goody and Yung, Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, 2nd ed. was reprinted in 1995, at least, that’s what I think happened, since the newer release is still a “2nd edition”. It’s still available as a paperback at your favorite mega national book seller.
Obviously not interested in facing reality.
Hilarious.
MF, JD, DREMT all high-fiving over their collective self delusion.
Guys, why don’t you share some cool-aid to celebrate.
101 K, Nate. Enough’s enough.
tim…”In every case, you will find that for radiation from a hot blackbody object with a temperature Th and an area A to cool blackbody surroundings with a temperature Tc, the power of the net transfer is always given as
P = (sigma) (Th^4 Tc^4) A ”
Wrong!!!
This is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which determines the radiation for a body of temperature Th to its environment Tc. IT IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF NET TRANSFER, WHATEVER THAT MEANS.
S-B describes a one way process in which heat is dissipated in a hot body as it radiates to a cooler environment. It’s a one way process.
Stefan’s initial equation had no Tc factor in it. He was caluclating the radiation from a hot body only. It was Boltzmann who later added the Tc factor.
The data used by Stefan initially came from an experiment by Tyndall in which he heated a platinum filament wire electrically till it glowed. As he increased the current, the wire glowed different colours. Someone else calculated the theoretical temperatures corresponding to each colour level from which Stefan deduced a T^4 relationship between the temperature of the body and the emitted radiation.
That does not describe a net heat transfer nor does it describe a net EM transfer. It is simply a measure of the radiation density itself.
Some modernists have incorrectly added to the S-B equation to theorize a two way transfer between bodies.
Utter pseudo-science.
[I thought I had replied earlier, but it didn’t seem to come through. ]
Gordon, lets skip the semantics (“photons flying both ways” vs “thermal IR” vs “heat” vs “EM radiation”) for a moment and see if we can agree on numbers. After all, that is the ultimate goal — to be able to calculate how the universe works.
It seems we can agree that the equation P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) A “determines the radiation for a body of temperature Th to its environment Tc.” I bet we can agree on these two applications.
1) A sphere with A = 1 m^2, T = 300 K, emissivity = 1 (“a body) radiating to a room with T = 280 K, emissivity = 1 (“its environment”) will result in
P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) A = 111 W
going from the sphere to the room.
2) A flat panel with A = 1 m^2, T = 300 K, emissivity = 1 (“a body) radiating to a nearby flat panel with A = 1 m^2, T = 300 K, emissivity = 1 (“its environment”) will result in
P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) A = 0 W
going from the the first panel to the second (ie there is no power transfer at all).
Tim, please stop trolling.
Sorry. Here goes again:
Ball4 says, March 8, 2019 at 8:12 AM:
Hehe, no, troll.
The Earth emits [220+20=] 240 W/m^2 (net LW, OLR) to space, not the Sun. It absorbs 240 W/m^2 (net SW, ASR) from the Sun.
This is pretty elementary, wouldn’t you say so, troll?
Yes, to space, troll. To space. Not to the Sun.
Cold reservoir. Hot reservoir. Space. Sun. Got it?
All radiation definitely isn’t heat [Q], but NET radiation transferred from a hot to a cold object is indeed the radiative heat [Q_rad] between the two.
Nope. That’s the object’s “internal KE” [U_ke]. U and Q are not the same.
I have never figured out this objection, Kristian. In the same paragraph you say:
“The cooler plate does NOT (!!!) emit 100 W/m^2 toward the warmer plate”
and
“you will see individual photons moving … from the cooler plate to the warmer.”
If the cooler surface emits 10^22 photons per second per m^2 and each has an average energy of 1e-20 J (ie an average wavelength of about 20 um), then it emits 100 W/m^2. It does BOTH! Simultaneously.
I understand that it can be *convenient* to focus on either photons or on net EM radiation; to focus on either microscopic or macroscopic. I understand that some people might be confused if they don’t already understand both perspectives. But simply shifting focus does not negate the existence of the other perspective.
Tim, it is Kristian that has to figure it out, not you. There is no line separating micro and macro. If there is, where is it? IMO Kristian’s confusion originates in the misuse of the heat term.
Tim Folkerts says, March 8, 2019 at 1:57 PM:
It has never been an objection on fundamentals. I also wrote, after all: “Please try and keep the two levels separate to lessen the confusion.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344391
I always try to make this point absolutely clear, Tim, when making this specific objection to something you’ve written. Strange how you seem to miss it every single time.
It’s all about keeping notions and ideas (about how things really work and how specific effects come to be) straight, in order to avoid confusion on matters such as physical mechanisms and cause and effect.
When people like you state that a cold object emits a separate power density flux to a hot object, and the hot object ends up even hotter as a result, it – most likely unintentionally – comes across to less educated people (such as Norman and barry) as if what you’re effectively saying is that the cold object is an independent energy source to the hot object, just like any other HEAT source.
But the cold object does NOT act as a heat source to the hotter object. The mechanism by which it forces the hot object to become hotter still is a DIFFERENT one.
By using this kind og imprecise language, you’re perpetuating the myth that the atmosphere somehow makes the surface warmer by ADDING EXTRA ENERGY to it, which is exactly what the Sun is doing, that is: as a heat source, heating it.
So you’re not saying the atmosphere heats the surface some more, and you don’t mean to either, I’m sure. But the WAY in which you describe the process makes OTHER people think that’s what you’re saying; it ends up being, whether you like it or not, the message you convey to most people.
Why do I always have to explain this to you?
Kristian
You are one arrogant poster. You claim “comes across to less educated people (such as Norman and barry)!
So you studied and worked in geology. Big deal. Do you have extensive experience working and designing heat flow equipment.
Your superior attitude to others is not warranted.
Tim Folkerts nor textbooks confuse me at all. Each object is a separate emitter of IR if it has some temperature. That is the established physics. There is no one unique flow of energy that moves in just one direction. I have asked you to support you claim.
I accept what Ball4 says about you. You are dealing with the caloric, the fluid that transfer heat in a flow from hot to cold. That idea is no longer accepted.
Here arrogant one.
“It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
You are the confused one, you are trying to bring back the caloric theory. Sorry better luck with the less informed.
Again I challenge you to bring up any textbook on heat transfer that supports your notions. You won’t but you act like this genius that knows it all. You are just a blow-hard similar to the other skeptics thinking they know more than they do!
Norman,
You perceive Kristian as arrogant while I see him as THE voice of reason in this semantic, childish, he-said-she-said display of personal opinions on heat transfer between objects. Everyone should go watch “The God’s Must be Crazy” movies and realize how we see the same things differently based on our life experience and world views.
Kristian is simply pointing out that regardless of what is happening at the molecular and particle level, on any observable or measurable level, no heat ever gets transferred from cold to hot. Are there any textbooks or experiments that show otherwise?
“no heat ever gets transferred from cold to hot. Are there any textbooks or experiments that show otherwise?”
Yes: “Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation.”
The net energy transfer is a calculation done by humans not nature. Was explained by Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of particle velocities in the late 1800s.
Leonard B. Loeb, 1961: The Kinetic Theory of Gases, Dover, Ch. IV (pp. 1308) and James Jeans, 1982: An Introduction to the Kinetic Theory of Gases, Ch. IV (pp. 12430) discuss some of the early experimental verifications of the M-B distribution.
Deriving it by detailed consideration of molecular energy exchanges by collisions was not trivial or it would have been done earlier. Plausible arguments (not rigorous derivation) for the distribution of molecular speeds (from which follows that for energies) follows from temperature being an average.
(pp. 130-8)…(pp. 124-30). Never know when this site will drop a character.
fluffball, be sure to mention your 1452 K “experiment”. You know, the one you had to later run from.
You wouldn’t want to mislead anyone, would you?
No, I just used that ploy to motivate you to show you CAN do the S-B calculations right instead of the wrong way you do them in your bogus cartoon. It worked, you demonstrated you know your cartoon is bogus.
Chic Bowdrie
My response to Kristian is because he chose to claim comes across to less educated people (such as Norman and barry)!”
That is an offensive comment and not at all correct.
I have never disagreed with anyone saying HEAT (net energy transfer) transfers from cold to hot.
My point is the same for years now. A cold body radiates its own energy toward the hot object. The hotter the cold body the more energy it radiates. The hot object will absorb the energy it can from the cold object (based upon the molecular structures). The point is that the hotter the cold temperature is the hotter will be the temperature of a HEATED body.
Adding any GHG to the atmosphere from a zero amount will increase the atmosphere emissivity. With no GHG present the surface radiates directly to space. With GHG the atmosphere will radiate energy back to the surface. The more GHG present the higher the emissivity and the more IR that is radiated back to the surface. Or in the enhanced GHE the more GHG added the higher in the atmosphere you must go to emit to space so you start emitting from colder regions radiating less energy keeping all the layers below warmer.
Then show the before and after, clown.
Here’s another chance for you to do as you claim.
Your puppy Norman is watching. Don’t disappoint him again.
Norman,
To Kristian, you appear less educated. Maybe, maybe not. No amount of education makes you right and Kristian wrong.
To me, you appear to have swallowed–hook, line, and sinker–the simplistic and so far unsubstantiated view that increasing CO2 will raise global temperature. Have you any proof of that? Otherwise you are just imagining that the things you describe about IR active gases actually occur.
Chic Bowdrie
Many times I have asked Kristian to support his claims. He only self supports linking to his own blog and his cartoon physics. That is NOT support. I have given several links to actual textbooks with links and pages to support what I think is correct.
About swallowing AGW is not correct. I have lots of uncertainty over the entire Climate Change debate. I sent you an article on an older thread where the authors did not see much impact from CO2.
The GHE is not an imagined concept. It is proven by an Earth’s surface that is much warmer than it would be without GHG. You have the Moon and Earth to compare.
I have linked you to measured values of the DWIR.
Not sure what you are actually asking for. I have supplied you with actual empirical data in the past. What is the point of continuing research efforts if you will ignore the past?
Norman says, March 10, 2019 at 12:03 AM:
It annoys me that you keep lying about this, Norman. You LIE, and you know it.
In the past I have linked to multiple sources explaining how radiation really works, how radiative transfer is ultimately a matter of statistical (probabilistic) averages, and how the two-way transfer model is only a (useful; clever, even) mathematical formalism. You have invariably failed to acknowledge (or comprehend) those sources and what they say. And so rather ignore them. I have even reminded you on several occasions, like I do now, that I have indeed linked to standard physics (text and figures) to ‘support my claims’. Yet you keep coming back to your LIE that I only ever link to my own blog.
This is why I ignore you, you ignorant clown. You and your stubborn stupidity. (Your constant lying about me, however, I can only ignore for so long.)
Norman says, March 10, 2019 at 12:03 AM:
Yes, it is.
No. That’s the ATMOSPHERE. Earth’s surface is much warmer than it would be without an ATMOSPHERE.
Haven’t we been through this a million times? Yes, the atmosphere needs to be radiatively active for the thermal effect to take hold. And it is. All atmospheres that we know of are. But it’s not the IR activity that’s the CAUSE of the surface warming. You know what else all atmospheres are? Warmer than space. And that is NOT because they’re radiatively active. In fact, they’re warmer in spite of being radiatively active.
See my discussions on this with Tim Folkerts. Because I’m not having this discussion with you, again …
Kristian
YOU: “It annoys me that you keep lying about this, Norman. You LIE, and you know it.
In the past I have linked to multiple sources explaining how radiation really works, how radiative transfer is ultimately a matter of statistical (probabilistic) averages, and how the two-way transfer model is only a (useful; clever, even) mathematical formalism.”
No you really have not done anything of this sort at all! You mainly post to your own blog and a cartoon drawing you have with lines coming off of spheres. You linked once to a web page on photon gas, which had NOTHING at all to do with heat transfer.
I have not seen any textbook on heat transfer support any of your ideas that there is only a one way flow of EMR, I have seen only the opposite view. Not one ever indicates the two-way flow of energy is a mathematical formalism and you have NEVER linked to a textbook that makes such a claim. I have linked you to more than one textbook. I really don’t care if you are done with me. I only respond when you put your snide remarks in your posts. I really am not interested in the physics you peddle here. I will get mine from valid sources like science textbooks.
I am linking to an actual textbook on heat transfer to demonstrate.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vl02ky5h40xDygiCIvDHFrj5c9hYvcNN/view
Page 588
“In heat transfer by radiation, energy is not only transported from hot to cold bodies; the colder body also emits radiation that strikes the warmer body and can be absorbed there. An exchange of energy takes place, in contrast to the transfer that occurs in heat conduction and convection.”
“That is an offensive comment and not at all correct.”
Norman is enormously offended by a remark about 100 times less offensive than what he spews out to others in almost literally every comment.
Norman,
The Earth/moon comparison is no proof of a GHE, because the moon has no substantial atmosphere let alone IR absorbing gases. Earth would be warmer with an atmosphere than without, wouldn’t you agree? Of course, adding IR gases changes the dynamics considerably. But the warmer than it would be has not been measured, just assumed. What you need to prove is what effect of additional CO2 is. That’s what I’ve been asking for from the beginning.
By the way, how is DWIR actually being measured? I think the answer is crucial the whole blue/green plate questions.
Chic Bowdrie
I am not sure the surface would be much warmer with a pure nitrogen atmosphere over no atmosphere. There would be only an insignificant amount of IR returning to the surface to replace the energy lost via the direct IR emission to space over the entire spectrum.
YOU: “What you need to prove is what effect of additional CO2 is. Thats what Ive been asking for from the beginning.”
Could not do that, and I don’t think anyone can. That is why there is still a debate that has been going on decades. The model projections seem to be all over the place so the models are not usable. One just has to keep observing. Working to eliminate all other sources of global temperature increase and try to isolate how much might be do to CO2 addition. I believe that is what Roy Spencer asks for. How much warming is natural and how much is man-made?
On the DWIR devices. What I have read is they have a material inside sensitive to small temperature changes. The changes are converted to electrical signals for conversion to readout. The devices are calibrated with knows standards of IR emitting sources in labs before sent to the field. The work like a balance would. You have an unknown weight you want to measure so you put know weight on one side until it balances. If the IR source emits less IR than the calibrated standard you get opposite voltage and the amount less the higher the opposite voltage. If the source emits more IR than the calibrated standard than you have the other voltage.
I did not specify if the voltage is positive or negative for higher or lower IR source than calibrated standard since I was not sure but they work similar to a balance. They are taking in IR from the atmosphere and comparing it to known IR and converting it to a measured IR value that they post.
Kristian says:
Earth has to emit 240 W/m^2 to stay in balance.
If the atmosphere is not IR active it has to be from the surface.
Svante says, March 10, 2019 at 11:10 AM:
Indeed. Your point being …?
Norman,
To your credit, you seem to be in search of the truth…sometimes. Yet you challenge other commenters as if you helped write the textbooks on radiative heat transfer. Kristian is giving an extremely reasonable description of what might be happening at the molecular level while keeping in perspective the obvious macro level where heat is only transferred from hot to cold. Ok, so that is my pet peeve over your disagreements with him.
My interest is not in proving you right or wrong, but maybe in hoping you will be more interested in getting deeper into exactly what is happening at the molecular level. That is my goal. Few will be convinced by the force of our vacuous assertions. OK, enough of my philosophical soap boxing.
“I am not sure the surface would be much warmer with a pure nitrogen atmosphere over no atmosphere.”
Why not? Where would the heat accumulated by conduction and convection go? There would be less DWIR, but there would also be less TOA UWIR. Try imagining what the daily temperature profiles would be in a pure nitrogen atmosphere.
Not being skilled in the mechanics of IR detection, I will not be able to agree or correct your interpretation of how DWIR is measured. However, it seems reasonable that an IR detector is calibrated at known wavelengths, with known temperatures of standard objects. What standard objects? Black bodies? Gases of known composition? What temperatures is the detector measuring when it is pointed to space? What equations are used to convert the “temperature” measurement (where?) to an energy flux? It isn’t counting photons, is it?
These are the questions I need answered before I continue pontificating (as I confess to having done) any further on the effect of IR absorbing gases on global temperature.
Upthread you wrote “I have lots of uncertainty over the entire Climate Change debate.” Yet you went on to express a fervent defense of the GHE. Which are you skeptic or AGW shill?
Kristian says:
“Your point being ?”
It will not warm the surface, just even out differences.
Svante says, March 10, 2019 at 4:35 PM:
Again, what’s your point, Svante?
Kristian, I probably missed something but I think this is wrong:
A non radiating atmosphere will have a lapse rate, but it will not help the surface radiate more than 240 W/m^2, so it will be much colder than now (although it will shave off some T^4 extremes).
The lapse rate will be anchored at the surface instead of at the (colder) TOA.
Svante says, March 11, 2019 at 8:55 AM:
No. It’s correct. It isn’t the IR activity that causes the surface to warm.
Consider the following:
The increase in DWLWIR is an apparent radiative effect of the atmosphere warming. When the atmosphere warms beyond space, from absorbing, thermalising and storing up energy transferred to it as heat from the surface and directly from the sun, the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings decreases, and so its total heat loss is naturally reduced. This forces the surface to warm so as to restore its heat balance (the heat input is assumed constant).
Yes, if the atmosphere in question is completely radiatively inert, it (or the main portion of it) will eventually be thermally disconnected from the surface, and so space can still be considered the surface’s only significant cold reservoir. But as soon as you make the atmosphere radiatively active, you will have that thermal connection with the surface established, just like when engaging a ‘clutch’, connecting engine power and mechanical work output, ENABLING causation to occur, and so now the atmospheric temperature will directly affect the total heat loss from the surface, which will be greatly reduced at any given surface T_avg relative to the former situation, once the atmospheric T_avg rises above the ‘temperature’ of space.
You might fool yourself into thinking that it is in fact the increase in the apparent atmospheric DWLWIR itself that forces the surface temperature to rise in this situation. But it’s not. The absolute rise in TEMPERATURE is the cause. The DWLWIR is but a tool enabling the atmospheric temperature to connect with the surface temperature in the first place. When the atmospheric temperature rises in this situation, it will then simply be able to affect the surface temperature, because now the atmosphere is thermally connected with the surface, and so it effectively replaces space as the surface’s thermal surroundings, meaning that, as it warms, the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings goes down (this couldn’t happen with only the vacuum of space around, since a vacuum cannot warm). And as the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings goes down, there will be a decrease in both radiant, conductive and evaporative/convective heat loss from the surface. Forcing the surface temperature to rise.
The increase in DWLWIR is simply one expression of this decrease in temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings, thus of the reduction in surface heat loss.
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/#comment-1276
The atmospheric IR activity represents the ‘clutch’ of a manual transmission car, the connecting device between power input and output, while the atmospheric temperature represents the engine, providing the power input, the actual CAUSE of the work output, which ends in the wheels of the car spinning round. The clutch itself cannot accomplish this effect, whether engaged or disengaged. Its only purpose is to connect cause (engine power) and effect (wheels spinning).
I guess we agree, sort of.
Svante, please stop trolling.
Min Gud, hva er du for en arrogant person!
“A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction.
In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesn’t stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
Jack Dale says, March 9, 2019 at 1:48 PM:
Which only serves to illustrate the very confusion I’m talking about.
No one’s saying a photon can’t move from cold to hot. A photon isn’t part of thermodynamic reality, and so its actions naturally aren’t governed by the Laws of Thermodynamics.
But, for the exact same reason, a photon emitted by a cold object and absorbed by a hotter one also does NOT constitute a MACROscopic transfer of energy from cold to hot. Which means it fundamentally has no bearing on temperature, which is distinctly a MACROscopic phenomenon.
You simply can’t have the cake and eat it too. You can’t BOTH have a photon pass unaffected by the Laws of Thermodynamics AND at the same time have that very same photon directly affecting the magnitude of thermodynamic quantities.
We have a dime analogy specifically addressing the fundamental distinction between a MICRO (quantum) and a MACRO (thermodynamic) transfer of energy:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2017-0-27-deg-c/#comment-247505
“A photon isnt part of thermodynamic reality, and so its actions naturally arent governed by the Laws of Thermodynamics.”
Sure, same could be said of molecules, not being part of thermodynamic reality. But molecules certainly exist, can be observed, and their collective motions lead to the flow of heat, which can be described by thermodynamics.
Nate, please stop trolling.
norman…”So you studied and worked in geology. Big deal. Do you have extensive experience working and designing heat flow equipment.
Your superior attitude to others is not warranted.
Tim Folkerts nor textbooks confuse me at all. Each object is a separate emitter of IR if it has some temperature. That is the established physics”
Normie is soooo confused.
Do you have extensive experience working and designing…’heat flow equipment’???
What is heat flow equipment???
Norman, you are so hung up in blackbody theory that the reality escapes you. It is theorized that a BB absorbs all energy incident upon it but at thermal equilibrium only, when related to another BB. BBs do not exist.
Why are we talking BB theory??? It’s not required. No one sets up very hot black surfaces next to each other to test them.
Stefan of Stefan-Boltzmann fame did the initial calculations that related temperature of a body to the EM it radiates. It was a one way process of heat being dissipated in a body through EM radiation. Since the body had a temperature between 700C and 1500C and it’s surroundings had an ambient temperature around room temperature, the 2nd law of thermodynamics was not contravened.
However, your interpretation, that a nearby cooler body can radiate EM to a hotter body and raise it’s temperature, is what contravenes the 2nd law. Applied to AGW, it not only contradicts the 2nd law it implies perpetual motion in which heat is recycled from a heated source back to the source to raise its temperature.
There is no textbook on thermodynamics that I have read which states that or implies it. All of their examples ‘with units’ feature a heat transfer from hot to cold and at no time is a net heat or energy transfer implied. Some of them give idiotic inference that EM can flow both ways but they provide no examples to prove it nor do their illustrations offer units.
S-B came out some 25 to 30 years before the explanation of Bohr as to how heat and EM are related. S-B does not imply a two way EM transfer related to heat nor does it infer a net energy transfer.
Bohr, then Schrodinger, proved why only a one way transfer can take place. It has to do with the electrons in atoms that absorb and emit EM. In a nutshell, the electrons simply cannot absorb EM from a cooler source. That satisfies the 2nd law.
Gordon Robertson
Your total distortion of what you think I say and what I actually say is incredible to behold. I clarify my position to you often but it goes over you head and you are not able to process it. We have gone over the same things so many times, you get it wrong EVERY time!
YOU: “However, your interpretation, that a nearby cooler body can radiate EM to a hotter body and raise its temperature, is what contravenes the 2nd law. Applied to AGW, it not only contradicts the 2nd law it implies perpetual motion in which heat is recycled from a heated source back to the source to raise its temperature.”
That is NOT what I state. A nearby cooler body radiates and this IR will cause A HEATED body to reach a higher temperature than it would with an even colder body present. You never get it right and never will. This is real physics yours is NOT. There is no violation of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You DO NOT understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and you never will. Many have tried to explain it you but you can’t understand it. I have linked it to you many times but your brain can’t process it. You are in an anti-science cult.
You are of the same Conspiracy mind as the Flat-Earth only you choose a different topic. It is all the same. Non of you anti-science people have a clue what the real science says and you don’t care. You are religious fanatics and are guided by a belief.
“Since the body had a temperature between 700C and 1500C”
No Gordon, the experimental temperature ranged from -180C (using liquid air) to 1500C. See Kurlbaum Rubens 1901.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “What is heat flow equipment??”
https://processdesign.mccormick.northwestern.edu/index.php/Heat_Transfer_Equipment
Using the word “transfer” would have been much better choice.
Norman, Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Did anyone else notice that Eli got to the correct answer because his first equation involving 2 plates contains compensating errors?
Did you notice the ACTUAL correct answer?
https://postimg.cc/image/jcotys8e3/
You have 400 watts/m^2 going into the green plates and 800 watts/m^2 going into the blue plate, so they can’t be at the same temperature.
How that work out for you in school, you get the wrong answer on a test, you just change the marking and give yourself an A+++++++?
Wrong answer Einstein.
See if you can get an adult to explain this to you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344640
I did and the adult said you need to get back on your meds.
Its wrong, try looking up Kirchhoff’s law.
Clown, I probably knew about Kirchhoff’s Law before your first drug arrest.
No violation.
Try again.
But you ignored Kirchhoff’s law with your stupid diagram, sorry it hurts to be wrong.
Never arrested for drugs but there was a close call involving a cracked windshield, which passed a safety inspection for the state where I purchased the vehicle, with 4# in the trunk.
I’ll tell you how long ago that was if you tell me how old you are.
Let me guess?
12?
Are you just over your fear of clowns?
bobd…”try looking up Kirchhoffs law”.
Kircheoff 1 – The sum of the voltage drops in a circuit must equal the applied voltage.
Kircheoff 2 – The sum of the currents into and out of a node equals 0.
Hi Gordon.
Yeah it’s fun to watch the clowns attempt to expound on things like Kirchhoff’s laws.
They wouldn’t know a “node” if it smacked them in the face!
Gordon Robertson
You are looking at Kirchhoff’s Laws for electrical systems.
You may not know this but he also has a Law named after him based upon Radiant Energy.
Here:
https://spie.org/publications/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity?SSO=1
Gordon Robertson
The complete phony JDHuffman that just makes up stuff does not know what the Kirchhoff law is or how it works or how his goofy cartoon physics violates it. JDHuffman is not logical enough to understand anything. He is a troll and that is all he does. Ball4 understands this clown, he is here only for entertainment value. If you want to believe he knows any physics it is your own flaw. He is most wrong about everything. He makes all his stuff up and will keep doing it.
So far only you and his wife DREMT seem to think he has some actual knowledge of physics. The rest know you he is a phony troll.
Norman, your hero, fluffball, doesn’t understand his own pseudoscience. He can’t even calculate the bogus 345 K for the the second green plate added.
How is it your hero can’t handle your basic pseudoscience?
You might need a new hero….
JDHuffman
Ball4 may think of a different configuration for the plate.
You still accept that there is not a significant difference between a configuration when all the plates are together and when they are apart.
You are most wrong to think that the temperatures of the plates, once separated, would remain the same and you will not do any experiment to prove it.
I have linked you to radiative shielding. You are not able to process the information contained in the links.
Each plate reduces the amount of heat an object surface loses. If it is heated then it will get hotter with each additional plate added. The physics is there.
Norman, your hero, fluffball, doesn’t have a clue. He can’t even do the simple math for the incorrect solution. He can’t even derive the 345 K.
He knows even less that you do!
But you worship him because he will say anything to support your pseudoscience. Truth and reality mean nothing to him. That appeals to adolescents.
“You are most wrong to think that the temperatures of the plates, once separated, would remain the same and you will not do any experiment to prove it.”
This is where the 3 plate problem really messes up your earlier arguments, Norman. With the 2 plate problem, you always argued that when the plates were pushed together, they would both be 244 K, and when separated, the green plate would decrease in temperature from 244 K to 220 K, whilst your blue plate temperature would increase, from 244 K to 262 K.
Now, with the 3 plate problem, you have all 3 plates at 244 K when pushed together. But, when you separate the 3 plates, the two green plates no longer decrease in temperature! They remain at 244 K, whilst your blue plate spontaneously shoots up in temperature. What’s up with that?
dan…”Did anyone else notice that Eli got to the correct answer because his first equation involving 2 plates contains compensating errors?”
Eli is confused and he was told that essentially by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner. The basis of Eli’s argument is that EM from a cooler body can be absorbed by a hotter body to raise its temperature, which is nonsense.
G&T implied that Eli is confusing heat with EM. G&T had stated in a paper that heat can only be transferred between bodies of different temperatures one way, from hot to cold. In a rebuttal, Eli and his team inferred that one way transfer meant one of the bodies was not radiating.
In a rebuttal to Eli’s comment, G&T pointed out the obvious, that the 2nd law is about heat transfer only. They claimed only quantities of heat can be summed. In other words, it is not possible to lump heat and EM as a generic energy then claim that generic energy can have a net balance between the bodies.
From a perspective of thermodynamics, radiation from that green plate in Eli’s thought experiment has no effect on the blue plate. It cannot raise it’s temperature, for the simple reason that heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a cooler to a hotter body (Clausius and the 2nd law).
A net energy balance is sci-fi, it has nothing to do with physics.
The basis of Eli’s argument is that EM from a cooler body can be absorbed by a hotter body to raise its temperature follows from experimental data. G&T performed no experiments. Any expert in thermo. would have done experiments supporting their work thus G&T are not thermodynamics experts. G&T paper has nothing new in it.
Fluffball, your “experiments” are all fraudulent. You are a fake. You hide behind your fake name, like a sissy coward. You don’t even know your own pseudoscience.
But, you have poor Norman faked out.
(Of course, he is wantonly desperate.)
Gor,, I have an M.S.M.E (3 graduate level courses in heat transfer), am (was) licensed in CA (P.E. in Mechanical Engineering, license 13316 (ret)). During my engineering career I worked on a lot of different things including solid rockets, meteorological satellites (including AMSU and SSMIS), also, among other things, I wrote a successful general purpose heat transfer program that runs on a PC and wrote a successful internal ballistics program. This 2-plate problem, as defined excluding edge effects, is truly trivial. Eli got the right answer in spite of the compensating errors and apparently not having a practical understanding of how thermal radiation heat transfer works.
A heated body exposed to the cold background of space will get warmer if it is shielded from that cold background by anything with a temperature above that of the background. Valid heat transfer analysis shows that. It is like radiation from the shield towards the heated body is cancelled by the part of the spectrum having the same wavelengths from the heated body. The net flow of energy is always from warm to less-warm and that is what 2lot cares about. The equation at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344375 is OK for the idealized plate problem but in real problems view factor and grey body emissivity are needed.
G&T do not appear to have it correct either. Perhaps it is because of ambiguity of terms. Quantities of energy flow can most certainly be summed. Consider a U shaped part in air with one of the legs above the other and the bottom leg heated. To track the temperature of the top leg, the conduction thru the U, convection from air that got warmer by going past the bottom leg and net radiation between the legs need to be added together. (In most practical problems one or two of these might be small enough to be ignored. An experienced analyst would know.)
The green plate does not directly raise the temperature of the heated blue plate but it indirectly allows the heated blue plate to get warmer by shielding it from the even colder background.
Okay Dan, I’ll put you down as “heat shield”.
Tim–BB is NOT a reflector
Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator
bobdrug–BB is a not a reflector, until I change my mind
Swanson–BB is a reflector, insulator
fluffball–BB is an insulator, but it does NOT insulate, reflect, or shield anything.
Dan–BB is a heat shield
A “consensus” appears to be developing. They don’t exactly agree on what they want the BB to be, but they all have realized their pseudoscience won’t work with a BB.
Reality is tough to ignore.
DP, As our resident troll notes, you are agreeing that “back radiation” can warm the hotter body. The essence of the “sky dragons” argument is that this process violates the 2nd Law, asserting that this “fact” implies that the CO2 greenhouse effect doesn’t happen. They’ve been promoting this bogus claim for about a decade. To counter these guys and their spreading denialist falsehood, I conducted my Green Plate demo.
Swanson, the reason your bogus “experiment” is invalid has been explained to you. You avoid that reality.
Want another round?
You recently claimed that your “green” plate had an emissivity of 0.94. How did you determine that? And, if you know the emissivities of the plates, you should be able to estimate the related fluxes. So, please provide all temperatures, emissivities, and fluxes, along with a statement of what you believe you are proving.
Thanks.
Huffingman the Troll,
Would using a highly polished reflective surface on the Green plate instead of the painted surface warm the Blue one and if not, why not? In Holman’s text, he noted that any surface emissivity would work as an insulating radiation shield. Thus, the emissivity of the Green plate really doesn’t matter, unless one insists on highly accurate predictions. But, my demo was not intended to be a highly accurate experiment. My results simply demonstrated the warming of the Blue plate, which refutes all the denialist claims regarding the 2nd Law. If you don’t like that, do your own experiment and present it.
Swanson, are you backing away from your bogus “experiment”? .
If not, show us all temperatures, fluxes, and emissivities. So far, all we have are your nebulous claims, hinting that you have somehow disproved 2LoT. Raising the temperature of the blue plate is not hard. That can be done with insulation. You set out to “prove” the blue/green plate nonsense, that indicated the BB green plate could warm the blue plate. You have NOT proved any such thing, except in your closed mind.
And, keep the juvenile remarks going. That just assures me there isn’t much substance to you.
Another empty post from Huffingman the Troll. It can’t answer a simple, straightforward question. Why not? Probably because the question’s already been answered by long ago scientific investigations and by agreeing with the scientific facts, the troll must admit he’s wrong.
Swanson demonstrates there is not much substance to him, and even less to his bogus “experiment”, that he can not verify.
Nothing new.
He’s verified it well enough that I replicated the essence of the experiment, as did Dr. Spencer on the atm. JD should replicate the experiment also and instrument it to JD’s heart’s desire. Then report what the instruments read.
However that would be so little entertainment and totally unamusing, my expectation is that JD will not do so. Draw some more cartoons JD and continue your 3 ring circus, that is a more entertaining use of your time.
fluffball has another of his fake “experiments” to go with Swanson’s unsupported one.
And then fluffball mentions Dr. Spencer, like a young kid saying “I’m going to tell the teacher!”
You just can’t make this stuff up….
“my expectation is that JD will not do so.”
JD lives up to all my expectations, even delivers some more humor. Keep it up JD, please, do no experiments. Your entertainment value would suffer.
My expectations are that fluffball will never learn any physics, will never reject his pseudoscience, will never identify himself, and will never grow up.
Is the data for Australia correct?
“February was warmer than average for much of Australia, and particularly warm for Queensland. For Australia as a whole the monthly mean temperature was 0.64 C above the long-term average, with both maxima and minima above average at +0.66 C and +0.62 C respectively.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/aus/archive/201802.summary.shtml
Jack, the UAH values are from the atmosphere, via satellite microwave measurements . The BoM values are from surface measurements.
It’s somewhat like comparing kangaroos with koala bears.
RSS satellite data shows
2019 1 0.6893
2019 2 0.5919 for the southern hemisphere.
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Southern%20Hemisphere_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
UAH shows a -1.17C change over two months for Australia.
Australia has been in news as having a heat wave.
Something is amiss.
Southern mid latitudes RSS data does show more cooling, but nothing like UAH
2019 1 0.8924
2019 2 0.4685
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Southern%20Mid%20Latitudes_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
Monitoring the global land /ocean temperatures which are in neutral.
Until something happens either cooling or warming in some definitive way there is not much to say.
Until something happens I will remain pretty quiet as I wait and see when /if anything happens.
JDHUffman: “Tim, your equation: P/A = (sigma) (T_h^4 T_c^4). is NOT the S/B Law.
Thats just one of your mistakes.
The S/B Law is: P/A = σT^4”
Again you show your ignorance of physics and try to correct a poster who does know his physics.
Here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=X7EdAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA381&lpg=RA1-PA381&dq=Kurlbaum+Rubens+1901.&source=bl&ots=hmt3yI5agx&sig=ACfU3U2WNjbdHRRIvsDQ6TS6Y3VW-3gXxw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRoI_j7_bgAhWLTN8KHeoaB4YQ6AEwAnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Kurlbaum%20Rubens%201901.&f=false
Tim is correct about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Your counter is only one case of the Law. Being a law it needs to cover more than just one case. The case you show is if an object is emitting to an absolute zero surrounding. You really really need to quit being a pretend expert. Your flaws and errors are continuous.
Have you submitted your nonsense cartoon plate physics to a University Department of Physics for evaluation? I will submit my 345 K for the blue plate in your thought experiment.
Page 375 of this book.
No clown, the S/B Law is only about ONE temperature:
S = σT^4
Quit trying to make stuff up.
And you can believe the middle plate will go from -20 F to 160 F, if you want. But you’ll just look silly, as usual.
JDHuffman
Read the page in the book I linked to and tell me what it says. Your making declarations again without support.
No, I checked it out. You don’t understand how funny it is.
No units, “K is a constant”, “E” is energy, area of the object is not included, etc.
You have a knack for finding stuff you don’t understand.
JDHuffman
Since you don’t like the material from 1901 (which still includes temperature of object minus the temperature of the surroundings)…the K in this equation may take into account both area of object and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The area will not be changing in the use of this equation.
But I find a more modern version that does include the equation you don’t think is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law in the Law. The one you insist is the only correct one is not very useful in any application of heat transfer. The more developed form is useful in engineering applications.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
“The one you insist is the only correct one is not very useful in any application of heat transfer.”
That’s because it is not used in heat transfer. It is used to relate surface temperature to emitted flux.
Learn some physics.
JDHuffman
Again your poor reading comprehension becomes clear for all to witness.
I gave you a link with the Title Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The heat transfer equation IS part of the Law. You don’t read so well do you.
No wonder you never could learn physics and need to make up your own version. You can’t comprehend the real material but do understand you own make up nonsense.
The S/B equation, P/A = σT^4 is not used in heat transfer. It is used to relate surface temperature to emitted flux.
Learn some physics.
Strictly, the S-B/Kirchhoff eqn. is epsilon*sigma*T^4 for the emitter object and alpha*sigma*T^4 for the absorber object. Absorp_tivity and emissivity are not equal for spectrally integrated quantities.
But then I’m negligibly sure that JD learned some physics and just didn’t bother to tell us JD was assuming the spectrum, angular distribution, state of polarization all were the same for JD’s emitter as for any absorber so was writing the restricted form of S-B/Kirchhoff law.
As well as I’m negligibly certain JD meant the medium between emitter and any absorber was emitting negligible radiation.
fluffball, you need to:
1) Decide if you have a relevant point, or not;
2) Decide if you can communicate that point, coherently and concisely;
3) All after learning some physics, of course.
Norman claims: “I will submit my 345 K for the blue plate in your thought experiment.”
Norman, how will you know if the “expert” you find actually knows anything. You don’t have the background to know.
Here are some leading questions you can use to verify his level of knowledge:
1) Where in the real world is an example of plates rising in temperature by merely separating them a slight amount?
2) Are all photons always absorbed?
3) If he believes the temperature would rise to 345 K from 244 K, is that an increase, or decrease, in entropy?
Be sure to also supply his name and contact info, so what he says can be verified.
JDHuffman
You have been linked to the real world experiment by E. Swanson showing you the very thing. You deny the experiment and call it bogus. You are unable to process the difference in plate-together (conduction transfers heat now) vs plate-apart (no conduction heat transfer).
Unwilling to understand this huge difference you make up phony unscientific cartoons to justify your ignorance of this huge difference and then you make up your own unsupported physics to support your absurd notions.
Are all photons always absorbed? Yes if you are dealing with a blackbody. No if it is not.
No Norman, Swanson’s “experiment” was not real world. And, even he doesn’t claim the plate will rise over 180 degrees F (over 100 degrees C). That’s you claiming such nonsense.
Will all photons always be absorbed? The correct answer is “NO”, unless you wallow in pseudoscience. BBs have different spectra with different temperatures. So even a BB will not aways absorb all photons.
Learn some physics.
And I noticed you avoided the question about entropy. Probably a smart move on your part….
JDHuffman
E. Swanson experiment does not use the energy your thought experiment does. You have 400 watts of energy directly added to the blue plate continuously by some source.
E. Swanson’s test uses a light source and the energy received by his blue plate is considerably less. The temperature rise would be changed by the amount of energy added. The more you add the more you have to get rid off.
His test clearly shows that separated plates (in vacuum) do NOT achieve the same temperature. The green plate is cooler than the blue plate when they reach a steady state temperature.
You are totally wrong about blackbodies. It does not matter if the spectrum is different. One spectrum is what the blue plate will emit from its surface, the other is the spectrum of what it will absorb from the green plate. You are just wrong and no amount of your posting will change this. Claes Johnson is clueless and you seem to follow his fantasy physics. That is NOT textbook physics, it is made up ideas that are not at all confirmed by any experimental evidence. We already have experimental evidence proving this idea is wrong. We have no experimental evidence to remotely suggest it is correct.
No clown, you don’t have any “experimental evidence”. You “believe” the bogus “experiment” after you have changed a black body into a magical insulator, reflector, heat shield, nuclear reactor, or tomato.
And with two green plates, you believe you are raising the temperature from frost-bite to skin-burn range!
That ain’t science. It’s pseudoscience. You don’t have a clue.
Huffingman the Troll thinks that my Green Plate demo isn’t “experimental evidence”. I suspect that Huffingman has no “real world” experience in the sciences, so he can’t understand the difference between reality and fiction. As a result, he thinks it’s OK to post a bogus, unscientific cartoon and claim that it “proves” something or other. Where’s his “real world” evidence?
Swanson, you do understand that you have changed the BB into an insulator, don’t you?
Reality: It’s there whether you want it or not.
Huffingman thinks my demo relied on reflective insulation. What an idiot, the surface emissivity of the Green plate was about 0.94. That’s the exact opposite definition of reflection. I could have made the Green plate with a highly reflective surface and the Blue plate would have ended up even hotter.
Swanson, you might need to study my exact words in my comment just above.
Hi Dr. S
I have been searching in vain for a readme on your repository
that explains the format for the following two types of files.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonacg_6.0
and this type ( the anomalies)
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltmonamg.1978_6.0
I try plowing through the CDR code to see how and where these wre written out, and decided to just write an ask for a read.me or explaination of the format.
I think you need to be near the top of a new page for Dr. Spencer to see it.
Perhaps someone else can answer.
S. Mosher, Is this what you are looking for?
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/docs/readme.msu
I’ve always wondered about this bit:
Are they still claiming that the data over the Antarctic shouldn’t be used, even though they include it in their products? Note that RSS does not report poleward of 70S for this reason.
Nope, Not what I am looking for
‘Are they still claiming that the data over the Antarctic shouldnt be used, even though they include it in their products? Note that RSS does not report poleward of 70S for this reason.”
hard to say . Even reading through the CDR its not exactly clear
Most satellite products would have a HDF with one field for the values and a second field for the quality bits or confidence bits.
And it would be published in GeoTiff or some proper standard format
S. Mosher, Toward the end of my linked file, S & C describe the format for Reading Gridpoint Files: tXmonamg.YYYY_5.1, etc.
Their data is just a large array of their monthly values for a year of the gridded data. The first line gives the month and the year for the large mass of numbers which follow. The -9999s are fields with missing data or for high latitudes poleward of 82.5 degrees at the beginning and end of each month’s data.
Those files represent their results after they applied all their calculations, it’s not actual satellite measurements, which you seem to suggest. I think S & C’s product uses the same format as NOAA STAR. S & C start with the more basic “raw” data MSU/AMSU data from NOAA, if you want to take a shot at “real” data.
Thanks
My VPN came back and I am able to read it now
Don’t think Norman got his own pseudoscience correct. I think the “correct” answer for the 3 plate problem, according to Eli’s logic, is that the blue plate rises to 290 K.
290 K = blue plate emits 400 W/m2. Receives 200 W from each green plate, plus 400 W electrical input = 800 W. Assume blue plate has 2 sides x 1m2 surface area, 800/2 = 400 W/m2, i.e everything “balances” with blue plate at 290 K.
I think (though I could be wrong), that the 345 K is the temperature that the blue plate would converge on, when adding more and more green plates each side of the blue.
You’re correct with the 290 K, DREMT. I was content to let Norman wallow in his mistake. We gave him hint after hint, ridiculing the 345 K, but he was unable to figure it out. He always clings to his beliefs, in complete disregard of the facts. But, he believes he can think for himself!
(The 290 K is also 244 * (2)^0.25, which matches their perverted S/B equation.)
Maybe I should have let him “submit it to a University Department of Physics for evaluation”.
🙂
JDHuffman
No wallowing. I just made an error. Thanks for pointing it out Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says.
Yes I would have had to use two sides for the blue plate not one.
Anyway good job for getting the correct answer.
Well, “the correct answer”, “the debunking of the Green Plate Effect through reductio ad absurdum”, whatever you want to call it, yes, thanks.
So the addition of both green plates raises the temperature of the blue plate from 244 to 290.
So no violation of the 2nd law.
No reflection of IR by a blackbody.
And a cooler object heating a warmer object.
Glad we got all that cleared up.
And I’ll admit I didn’t see that the problem had changed with the input 400 watts, which I read as 400 watts/m^2
And you don’t see the 2LoT violation either, huh bob?
Nope,
I don’t
Maybe you could explain it to me.
3 plates together, at equilibrium:
244K…244K…244K
3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:
244K…290K…244K
Exactly same energy in/out.
If clowns can’t see the clear violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.
Yes, Dan Pangburn, M.S.M.E (3 graduate level courses in heat transfer), am (was) licensed in CA (P.E. in Mechanical Engineering, license 13316 (ret)), this means YOU!
That’s not an explanation of why there is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
No bob, it is an explanation. You just can’t grasp it.
“If clowns can’t see the clear violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.”
Well if you can’t explain how it is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then maybe you don’t understand that law.
Your lack of understanding doesn’t help your case.
Heck, you can’t even quote it.
Come on, prove you can look up the second law and properly quote it.
Here’s a quote for you, bob:
“If clowns can’t see the clear violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.”
Glad to help.
Quote your self all night long.
You still haven’t demonstrated an understanding of physics.
JDHuffman
What you are missing in your post:
“3 plates together, at equilibrium:
244K244K244K
3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:
244K290K244K
Exactly same energy in/out.”
It requires the middle blue plate to reach 290 K to get the same energy out. The situation can be seen in the world around you.
A puddle of water in the hot sun and dry asphalt receive the same energy in and the lose the same energy out but they will be at different temperatures because you have another heat transfer mechanism taking place with the puddle of water. The water is losing as much energy as the asphalt to remain at it steady state temperature. It is losing energy by radiation but also evaporation, with the asphalt it is primarily by radiation so the dry asphalt must reach a higher temperature to get rid of the same amount it is receiving.
As I have said,
since you nor DREMT accept E. Swanson’s test, you should do one yourselves. You will find that if you have three plates in contact with the middle one receiving a continuous heat input when in contact they will have roughly the same temperatures. If you separate them you will find the green plates remain at the same temperature but the blue plate temperature increases. You really need to do some experiment yourself. E. Swanson already showed what happens and you, for no good reason, reject his results. The green plate warms the blue plate but it does not reach the same temperature as the blue plate. It is all there.
Norman, you tried a copy/paste of my exact words. Unfortunately, the script editor has trouble with some punctuation. Anyway, you tried.
But, you left out the important quote:
“If clowns can’t see the clear violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.”
You don’t have to memorize it. You’ll likely see it again….
JDHuffman
NO violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as described by Clausius, and all modern textbooks on heat transfer (there are actual online versions you can read).
You and all the skeptics who think it violates the 2nd Law get that version from blog sites like PSI or Joseph Postma. They are NOT what the physics state. They are what some lunatics on the Internet falsely believe it states. You are a true believer of blog science but you won’t read actual physics. Too bad. I have linked you to actual physics so many times but none stick. You prefer the made up version.
“If clowns can’t see the blatant violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.”
3 plates together, at equilibrium:
244K…244K…244K
3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:
244K…290K…244K
Exactly same energy in/out.
bobdroege says:
“And a cooler object heating a warmer object.”
The word heating should be avoided here because there is no thermodynamic heat transfer from cold to warm, just reduced cooling.
I am sure that when you are talking heat transfer by radiation, there is indeed a two way transfer.
The way I was trained, heat is just another form of energy.
So whenever I say heat, think energy, if that helps.
I see what you mean, but JDHuffman et al. try not to.
Two way energy and one way heat would reduce the 2LOT confusion.
I was trained by Kristian.
Svante, false accusations are just one of the ways clowns try to make up for their ignorance and incompetence.
Nothing new.
bobdroege says, March 11, 2019 at 7:01 AM:
Conceptually you can think of the transfer as two-way, and hence express it that way mathematically. In REALITY, though, the transfer is one-way only. Because the transfer in question is distinctly a THERMODYNAMIC (i.e. MACROscopic) one …
It was never a separate form of energy. It’s a very specific kind of energy QUANTITY. Heat [Q] is distinguished by its effect on thermodynamic systems and by the way that effect comes about.
Heat is defined simply as the amount of energy spontaneously transferred per unit of time from one place to another by virtue of the temperature difference between those two places, and always from hot to cold only.
No. It doesn’t help. It confuses. If you don’t know what “heat” is or means, bob, then don’t use the term. It only confuses yourself and those who read your comments.
If you mean “energy”, don’t write “heat”.
Since we are talking about the effects of photons, Kristian, and as you say, photons don’t exist in macro thermodynamics, then it is obvious that macro thermodynamic is not suited to address the problem.
So we will call it an energy transfer from the atmosphere to the surface by way of photons.
So we will agree that there is no two way transfer of heat only energy, but somehow the end result is that the surface is warmer than it would be without CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
And in order to avoid saying words that may be misinterpreted because some assholes restrict the definitions of terms, increases in the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere result in the increase of temperature of the surface, adjusted for changes in other variables that could also affect the temperature of the surface.
And finally there is a two way flow of photons which carry energy which can result in temperature changes when the photons are abs//orbed by surfaces.
bobdroege says, March 11, 2019 at 3:03 PM:
Hehe, no. It’s the other way around, bob. You specifically talk about things being HEATED. Then photons do not have a place in your analysis. Only HEAT FLUXES do.
Things being heated is distinctly a matter of THERMODYNAMICS.
Photons can’t and don’t heat anything, bob. Heat does.
How hard is this?
“If you dont know what “heat” is or means, bob, then don’t use the term. It only confuses yourself and those who read your comments.”
Sage advice Kristian.
Kristian should always follow Kristian’s advice too. The term can always be replaced with more meaningfully correct terms in modern physics; enthalpy (h) is the preferred term (symbol) these days.
bob just can’t learn: “…increases in the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere result in the increase of temperature of the surface…”
No bob, CO2 does not add new energy to the system. CO2 does not “trap heat”. You have been misinformed, but you can’t figure things out for yourself.
That likely happens often to you, huh?
“CO2 does not add new energy to the system.”
JD occasionally stumbles into something true because added CO2 ppm does NOT add new thermodynamic internal energy to the system as CO2 doesn’t burn a fuel to do so, thus you can’t just reverse EVERYTHING JD writes and get to the true observationally relevant science.
Added CO2 ppm causes the atm. lower regions to increase in global mean T and the upper regions to equally decrease in global mean T conserving internal energy. The relevant physics for that is atm. optical depth, something I doubt JD will stumble into…at least correctly.
So Kristian,
Would you hold this steel bar in your hand while I point a CO2 laser at the steel bar?
Now describe what happens, what do you experience?
If the CO2 laser doesn’t heat the steel bar, they you will be able to hold on to it for a long time, no?
JD,
You are battling the bats in your belfry.
I don’t mean what you think I mean.
You say
“No bob, CO2 does not add new energy to the system. CO2 does not trap heat. You have been misinformed, but you cant figure things out for yourself.”
CO2 does’t add new energy to the system, it prevents energy from leaving the system, and since the system is under relatively constant energy input the result is the rise in surface temperature.
Since everyone wants me to refrain from using the term heat to mean anything other than the transfer of thermal energy, it’s consistent with those requirements to say you can’t trap heat.
You want to hold the steel bar while I aim the CO2 laser at it?
bob continues: “…it [CO2] prevents energy from leaving the system…”
Wrong again, bob. The atmosphere has about 500 times more oxygen than CO2, by volume. The specific heat capacity of oxygen is higher than CO2. If you believe CO2 prevents energy from leaving the system, you better do something about all the oxygen in the air!
(For any clowns that are so scared of oxygen they will not be able to sleep tonight, neither O2 nor CO2, or ANYTHING in the atmosphere, can prevent energy from leaving the system. Sleep well.)
JD,
500 times more O2 in the atmopsphere, but what’s the ratio of the infrared absorbanc//e of O2 to CO2?
Might as well look up the ratios for Argon and Nitrogen as well.
CO2 absorbs much more infrared than Nitrogen, Oxygen or Argon.
Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon are transparent to the infrared light emitted by the surface of the earth.
CO2 does trap enthalpy.
You want to hold the steel bar while I aim the CO2 laser at it?
bob, your nonsensical rambling is getting as bad as Norman’s.
And your laser/steel bar is as irrelevant as his nonsense.
You don’t understand what I wrote?
Maybe you should restart you science education with an eighth grade general science textbook.
Assuming you could handle that.
bob, you don’t understand what you wrote!
CO2 does NOT trap enthalpy.
Like Norman, you can’t ever get it right, and you can’t learn.
Nothing new.
‘It was never a separate form of energy.’
Really so IR emitted from a star 20 ly away toward Earth, where it is detected, was never a separate form of energy??
Odd.
JD,
I don’t even think you know what enthalpy is, do you?
Maybe you could trot on down to the local high school and ask a chemistry teacher.
bob says: “I don’t even think…”
Exactly.
So JD,
Look it up and post a definition of enthalpy.
Again I give you an opportunity to look way smarter than you are.
Yes, the dumber you look, the smarter I look.
Please continue.
Huffingman reminds us yet again of the saying: Arrogance is the last resort of the Ignorant.
Not only are you arrogant and ignorant, Swanson, but you can’t face reality:
3 plates together, at equilibrium:
244K…244K…244K
3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:
244K…290K…244K
Exactly same energy in/out.
If clowns can’t see the blatant violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.
Ball4 says, March 11, 2019 at 3:41 PM:
Difference is, I do know what “heat” is, which is why I should use it. People like you and bob, who clearly don’t, however, shouldn’t.
bobdroege says, March 11, 2019 at 4:30 PM:
You don’t give up, do you, bob? Listen: You are wrong in believing that IR radiation is the main heater of the atmosphere. This is not a matter of opinion. YOU ARE WRONG …!!
The radiative heat loss of the surface is the UWLWIR minus the DWLWIR, i.e. the NET LW: [398 – 345 =] 53 W/m^2. Since 20 W/m^2 of those 53 W/m^2 on average go straight to space via the atmospheric window, then the radiative heat flux from the surface to the atmosphere, specifically, is only: [53 – 20 =] 33 W/m^2.
Photons do not carry heat. They carry photonic energy. The total amount of photonic energy inside a thermal radiation field has to be averaged in a precisely physically defined way before it can be called “heat”. This is Thermodynamics 101.
I have asked you now a number of times, bob, to read up and come back to tell me what that particular average is, but you simply refuse and rather keep coming back with comments that make you come across as nothing but an obstinate child.
Again, why are you discussing the CO2 laser and the metal rod? To show me how HEAT HEATS!?
You claim that PHOTONS heat. They don’t. HEAT heats!
You obviously don’t get “heat”. Which is why I ask you to read.
“I do know what “heat” is”
Then Kristian knows there must be radiative cold loss, radiative cold flux, photons must not carry cold, cold must colds, cold colds!
Kristian obviously doesn’t get “cold” or “heat”, Kristian should go with enthalpy in discussions to correctly write about atm. thermodynamics. And learn from an expert like Zemansky: “It is incredible that writers and teachers are still referring to the “heat in a body”…There is no such thing as the “heat in a body””
When used correctly in modern day, heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE.
The use of enthalpy (h) is correct, more meaningful in thermodynamics.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Sure, push the plates together, they’re all 244 K, separate them by 1mm, up pops the blue by 46 K whilst the two green plates remain unchanged. Nothing weird about that.
Yeah, something weird happens when you stop heat conduction.
Something REALLY weird, apparently.
Mind you, you were prepared to gobble up 101 K, I guess 46 K’s only a light snack.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Whereas I calculated the 800 watts for just one side to get the wrong answer you can easily get to the 345 K by just adding two more plates on each side of the blue plate. 7 total plates one blue and 3 unheated green plates spaced very close together.
If you keep adding plates the blue plate will continue to increase in temperature as long as you continue to add energy to it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344853
JDHuffman
Prove it!
No need to prove 2LoT, clown.
It’s well established physics. A topic you will never understand.
JD,
If you can’t prove it,
then
derive it!
Possibly you missed my reply, right above yours, to the other clown.
I just gave you the opportunity to look way smarter than you are.
You could have just cut and pasted it from wiki.
bob, you make me look much smarter than I am, by making yourself look so stupid.
Please continue.
“you can easily get to the 345 K”
…reductio ad absurdum, yes, as I said (it’s like they have no idea how stupid their idea is, in fact they seem almost proud of it)…
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
You have no idea how little actual physics you understand or know. I have linked you to textbook physics. You just ignore it and act like you know things. As it goes you know less than the phony JDHuffman who makes up junk science and peddles it here with false authority pretending it is valid.
Why not actually do an experiment and you will see that JDHuffman is a fraud?
Norman, you energetic clown, DREMT has demonstrated more knowledge of physics than you ever will. Your links to things you don’t understand are funny. And even funnier is you never learn from them.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
That you think links to textbook physics on Heat Transfer are funny indicates a lot about how little you really know.
Your phony physics is catching up with you. More posters are seeing what a total fraud you really are.
I think it is hilarious you think textbook physics is funny. I will have to remember that next time you tell people to learn physics.
Norman…345 K.
Wrong Norman. I never said actual physics was funny. I said YOUR inability to understand and learn physics was funny.
All you can do is twist my words, as you attempt to twist reality. You’re a clown.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Your links to things you dont understand are funny.”
You have such poor wording it certainly sounds as if you are indicating the links are funny.
Anyway that is another failure on your part. You have yet to demonstrate anything I do not understand correctly in the links I post. It is just one of your many made up declarations that your one, adoring fan DREMT, wants you to make. You are unable to demonstrate what I don’t understand and never will but it is certainly easy to post. I guess it makes you feel important to try and make such claims. Really does not matter you will never support anything you claim.
Remember the rules, Norman.
If you want a response, leave off the insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. Otherwise you are just an juvenile troll, limited by your ignorance and incompetence.
String up.thread is getting too clumsy. I am responding to http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344796 and later
Bal,, I get your point that warming from CO2 could be so slow that a short time observation might miss it. My arguments against this shortcoming being a factor include the first 4 reasons in Section 2 which consider time spans of from 120 years to millions of years. Another argument is the assessment in Sections 17-19 which determines the contribution of each of the three factors considered (CO2 is not one of them). The combination results in a 98.3% match 1895-2017 (122 years) and what looks like a reasonable approximation of temperatures back to before 1700.
ES,, Agreed the notches are at the absor.p.tion bands but what do they say about what happens to the energy that was absorbed? I say a lot of it gets emitted to space by WV.
True, MODTRAN only applies to clear sky and that is only about 38% of the planet surface area. In the wn range 50-600/cm CO2 is essentially transparent so the radiation coming from WV mostly zips right through to space. A bit gets absorbed by the s.carce WV molecules, thermalized and shows up in the CO2 column partially refilling the notch as shown by the difference in notch dep.th between the 20 km and 50 km MODTRAN figures (Figure 5). I pretty much agree with your assessment of what happens above clouds, especially above 10 km or so. It is the -50 C that gets nearly all of the WV out.
I was sur.prised at the small amount of added precipitation from the increased water use. Average precipitation for the planet is about a meter. The added water calculated in Sect 9 spread over the planet only amounts to 0.07 % increase; if just spread over land, still only about 0.24 %. IMO that is not consequential and all this precipitation lately is caused by something else.
True, irrigation has been around for a long time but Aquastat shows a huge surge starting in about 1950 (Fig 3.5) which lines up quite well with the TPW increase (Fig 3).
Cloud cover was estimated at http://lowaltitude-clouds.blogspot.com
This would not post without the hyphen. Remove it to use the link
dan…not a reply to your posts above but in relationship to water vapour.
Here in the Vancouver, Canada, area we have experienced an inordinately cold spell of sub-zero temperatures. At night, the thermostat has been lowered to about 18C (~65F) and during the dry, cold spell at night ranging down to -10C, the furnace hardly ever came on.
Suddenly, the temperature rose to just above 0C and the air became very moist outside. The furnace started coming on far more frequently.
Seems to me that water vapour cools the ambient air.
I could be missing something obvious.
Gor,, Probably your house is well insulated and has a lot of thermal capacitance. When the thermostat is lowered, it takes a long time for the heat to leak out and there is a lot of it because of the high thermal capacitance. Thus the furnace would not come on for quite a while. The entire process is a thermal transient. After the house has cooled down, the furnace has to start kicking in to stop the temperature decline. I do not see how WV could be a factor. The temperature of the air is given by the thermometer irrespective of WV content. Wind change can make a significant difference.
Also, our perceptions often fool us. A data log would minimize that.
norman…from your link to Kircheoff and emissivity/absorp-tion.
“Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.” This leads to the observation that if an object absorbs 100 percent of the radiation incident upon it, it must reradiate 100 percent. As already stated, this is the definition of a blackbody radiator”.
AT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The emissivity and absorp-tion relationship exists only at thermal equilibrium. As one body becomes hotter, that relationship no longer exists.
That’s why you are so confused about hotter bodies absorbing radiation from cooler body with the inference that action raises the temperature of the hotter body.
I have tried to explain to you that a heated body, say an electrically heated body, gets it heat, hence it temperature, from the electric source. However, part of the final temperature of the body is dependent on how much heat it can dissipate due to conduction, convection, and radiation.
If you interfere with any one of the three, so the heated body can no longer dissipate heated as efficiently, the heated body’s temperature will increase. That has nothing to do with a nearby cooler body radiating EM.
That’s what happened in swannie’s two experiments. In the first, placing a metal plate above the heated plate blocked its convection and radiation. The heated plate warmed because it’s heat dissipation had been reduced but it warmed to the level it would normally be under such restricted dissipation due to the electrical power applied.
My explanations satisfy the 2nd law, your’s do not.
In swannie#2, he blocked the hotter plate’s ability to radiate from one side therefore the heated plate could not dissipate heat from that side and it got warmer, not due to radiation from the cooler plate but due to reduced dissipation of heat.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “The emissivity and absorp-tion relationship exists only at thermal equilibrium. As one body becomes hotter, that relationship no longer exists.”
Please give supporting evidence for this statement. I have not heard of it before and I think you are just making it up. If you can come up with textbook support of this I will consider it a valid point. At this time it is an unsupported conjecture. Not very valuable for the advancement of science.
norman…”YOU: The emissivity and absorp-tion relationship exists only at thermal equilibrium. As one body becomes hotter, that relationship no longer exists.
Please give supporting evidence for this statement. I have not heard of it before and I think you are just making it up”.
I quoted it straight from the link you provided for Kircheoff. All the work done by Kircheoff with emissivity and absorp-tion was done at thermal equilibrium. It makes no sense when there is a temperature difference between two bodies.
Gordon Robertson
You have not supported your claim. It does not matter that Kirchhoff established his Law with plates at equilibrium. That in NO way proves your conclusion.
I have requested actual support of your claim but as always you won’t do it.
What source do you have the relationship between emissivity and absorb(itivity) changes with temperature. You only give your own opinions on how you think things work. Things I have demonstrated to be wrong many many times. You don’t accept real science over your fantasy version so I will not be able to ever convince you of your errors.
I am asking you to support you declaration without using your own made up opinions of how you think EMR is emitted or absorbed. I want you to support this with actual textbook information. I won’t expect you to comply with that request. That is because it is just something you made up and you can’t find support for it. I am not worried, that has not stopped you before. You are just an Science Denier Conspiracy minded person. Nothing will change your state.
Norman, whenever you are asking people to explain physics to you, you should always offer a disclaimer, to be fair:
“Norman Grinvalds is unable to process facts and logic. He has no meaningful technical background. He cannot learn, and abhors reality.”
Glad to help.
JDHuffman
So says the one that WILL not support anything they post and rejects valid textbook physics. So says the one who rejects a valid test of two plates (for no real reason). So says the one who never does his own tests but will criticize those who actually do.
You are a clown and know nothing except how to correctly spell Wien’s Law. Your value here is as spell checker. As for useful physics information you need to be avoided. You will only lead some ignorant people astray.
When you actually do some real experiment maybe people will listen to you. Right now you only have Gordon Robertson and your wife DREMT, the rest consider you a no-nothing.
Wrong Norman, I support what I say and I answer responsible questions.
You just can’t understand the issues, and abhor reality.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
I guess you might dream that you have supported your opinions with actual physics. I have not seen any yet and that is when you post to anyone. Most your posts are taunts to other posters or telling them they don’t know any physics.
Please Support your conjecture: “3 plates together, at equilibrium:
244K…244K…244K
3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:
244K…290K…244K
Exactly same energy in/out.”
That this would occur with textbook physics or an actual experiment. The one experiment performed so far by E. Swanson shows you are in error. You have to provide more support than your own cartoon you drew. That is not valid support.
Clown, you can’t even compose a coherent comment. You mix your disjointed opinions together with portions of my comment, and think you have produced something meaningful.
False.
And, the FACTS from my comment do not represent “cconjecture”. Those are the actual calculated values.
You abhor reality.
JDHuffman
I forgot you have severe reading disability.
To make it easy for you. Support your three-plate conclusion with actual physics!
Show the equation you use, where you got them and the numbers you put in them.
You are a clown. Another has discovered this. Dan Pangburn correctly points out you need to be ignored.
“Support your three-plate conclusion with actual physics!”
Norman, are you feeling alright? Only, you have already agreed that you think with 3 plates, 1 green either side the blue, the blue plate will rise in temperature to 290 K. Just scroll a little further up and you can read your own comments where you agree with it. In fact, you said that just by adding a couple more green plates each side of the blue, the blue plate would rise in temperature to 345 K!
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
JDHuffman does not think the blue plate will reach 290 K. He thinks that is a violation of the 2nd Law (which he does not understand but pretends to). His belief is all plates will be at 244 K if separated or not.
If he thought it would b 244-290-244 I would agree with him. That is not his position. I am not sure what yours is.
Well it came across like you were asking JD to defend YOUR position, that’s all.
Norman, if you expect me to respond to your comments, leave off the false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
That wouldn’t leave much, huh?
JDHuffman
I am really expecting you NOT to comment to me at all. I ignore you but that did not help, when I posted to other posters I saw your lame comments.
Some people, like Ball4, enjoy your posts as a form of entertainment. I find your terrible nonsense physics boring. I find your lack of support of any of your nonsense unscientific. I really dislike your lunatic attitude that you will reject valid experiments because they don’t fit in your fantasy world of delusional physics.
I think you are a waste of time and effort. You are not smart enough to read material I link to so you pretend to be smart by posting the same stupid comment every-time “Norman posts another link he doesn’t understand” Just cover for the fact you are not able to understand what is linked to but people like DREMT or the goofy Gordon Robertson will think you are a genius or something.
Sorry Norman, but your opinionated ramblings contained false accusations, misrepresentations, and insults.
Your comment has been disapproved.
Should you wish to try again, at some later time, best of luck.
Maybe someday you can live up to what you said: “I want to stick only to the science of the issue.”
GORDO, Are you refering to my cookie sheet demo? Recall that I added a fan to push air between the hot and cold plates. Notice that that air was at room temperature, which was near freezing when I ran the test. Now, please explain how convection with freezing air would warm the hotter plate. Oh, while you’re at it, provide a explanation for the Green Plate results using physics instead of BS.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
dan…”The net flow of energy is always from warm to less-warm and that is what 2lot cares about”.
No insult intended, however, I am a specialist in certain areas of the electrical and electronic fields yet I know little about other areas. You need to step back and refresh your basics. There is no such thing in physics as a ‘net flow of energy’, especially with reference to an ambiguous generic energy comprised of both thermal and electromagnetic energies. .
You never see current running both ways in an electric circuit nor do you see water flowing both ways in a pipe when one end is pressurized. As rocks fall from a cliff, you don’t see rocks whizzing by them vertically to higher altitudes.
The only instance I can think of where thermal energy may flow both ways is between bodies in thermal equilibrium. Then you should get a net energy flow that sums to zero. Otherwise, one body has to be hotter.
In the present discussion we are talking about a relationship between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy. In a nutshell, there is no relationship other than the relationship between the electrons on atoms that emit/absorb EM and the electron relationship to temperature.
Clearly, as electrons emit EM en masse from a body which has no independent source of heat the body’s temperature drops. Conversely, as the electrons in a body absorb EM from a hotter body, the temperature of that body increases.
You cannot sum two energy forms like EM and heat, to form a net, unless you convert EM to it’s equivalent thermal units or convert thermal units to EM units. As far as I know, there is no such conversion in free space other than via electrons on atoms.
It is plainly incorrect to speak in terms of summing energy flows between different energies in opposite directions to get a net energy balance.
For one, heat cannot flow through space other than as a flow of mass in convection. There is a tiny conduction of heat via the molecules in air but it is trivial.
Heat cannot be radiated through space…period. Heat does not radiate, it is a property of atoms in motion. If the mass does not move, the heat does not move. Therefore, you either have EM or you have heat, they cannot exist simultaneously from the same source. Once that body radiates EM, heat is lost.
EM is a transverse wave with an electric field and a magnetic field. It has no mass nor is it associated with mass. EM can carry no heat, only a potential to create heat.
And we have not even discussed the quantum aspects. Bohr laid out the basis of that in 1913, explaining how EM can be absorbed by the electrons in an atom, forcing the electron to a higher energy quantum level PROVIDED THE EM HAS THE REQUISITE ENERGY AND FREQUENCY TO BE ABSORBED.
The relationship is E = hf, where E is the difference in energy levels between electron energy orbitals. The f is related to the frequency of the electron which varies with its energy level. If neither matches (in the EM) the need of the electron, the EM is not absorbed. EM from a cooler source does not match, therefore it is not absorbed.
If you can explain how to get past that requirement so a hotter body can absorbed EM from a cooler body I’d like to hear it.
Eli’s experiment has no correct answer for the simply reason there can be no heat transfer in two directions between the green and blue plates.
You can’t mess with this Dan, the 2nd law mentions nothing about a net flow of energy, it specifically address the transfer of heat from a hot body to a cooler body under normal means. The 2nd law says nothing about EM and you cannot hide EM under the umbrella of the 2nd law by claiming it as an obscure net energy balance.
If you treat the 2nd law with entropy then you are describing a negative entropy, which is not allowed.
You are abstracting the energies of two different forms of energy in one generic energy then claiming that undefined generic energy can have a net balance.
“If the mass does not move, the heat does not move.”
“the transfer of heat from a hot body to a cooler body under normal means.”
First Gordon tells us the heat does not move, then Gordon tells us the heat does move. Gordon is not able to keep his stories straight.
ball4…”First Gordon tells us the heat does not move, then Gordon tells us the heat does move. Gordon is not able to keep his stories straight”.
I said that heat must be accompanied by mass in order to move. You cannot move heat between bodies via radiation. The transfer is apparent since the temperature in the hotter body is reduced and the temperature in the cooler body rises. No heat is physically transferred between bodies by radiation since heat is lost in the hotter body after conversion to EM.
Heat can flow through a solid because it has a pathway via the atoms and their electrons. Heat is transferred in a conductor in the same manner as electrical current, via valence electrons.
There is little in the way of conduction through a gas like air because the molecules are so far apart. There is no conduction of heat through a vacuum because heat needs mass to move.
“heat is lost”
Then if heat is lost, heat must have moved. While Gordon writes: “the heat does not move” so Gordon is still confused.
“the heat does not move” IS true as heat is only a measure of the object’s internal particle KE.
Gordon is getting closer to decent science with: “You cannot move heat between bodies via radiation.” You can move thermodynamic internal energy between bodies via radiation, conduction, and convection. For example, the thermodynamic internal energy in one body reduces by emission while the other thermodynamic internal energy increases through absorp_tion.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Gor,, Of course there is net flow of energy. Consider a block with a laser aimed at it, a fire under it and an electric heater in it. The temperature of the block would increase according to the net of the sum of the energy flows acquired from each source minus the losses which would be convective, conductive (unless magnetically suspended) and radiative. Of course to sum them they need to be all in the same units, e.g. Watts.
I favor using the word heat only as a verb when necessary to avoid ambiguity.
I have read in different places that electrons changing levels only occurs at very high temperatures (perhaps also in lasers) and is not what is going on at earth temperatures.
The equation gives the correct answers. That is what all valid heat transfer programs do. Effectively, the radiation from the cooler body cancels the same radiation from the warmer body. The equation for thermal conductance includes (Ta^4 Tb^4)/(Ta Tb). This gets multiplied by (Ta Tb) in the solution. If the number is negative it just means that Tb turned out to be warmer than Ta.
Eli got the correct answer.
Using the net flow of energy produces the correct answers. That is how it has always been done and always will be done. Saying 2LOT does not mean net because it does not say net or mention thermal radiation is bogus. This stuff needs to be understood to use it correctly.
dan…”The equation gives the correct answers. That is what all valid heat transfer programs do”.
The S-B equation does not describe a transfer of heat between bodies nor does it describe a two way transfer of energy. It says nothing about a net energy transfer.
S-B describes only the radiation density from a body of temperature T in the original Stefan equation. Later, Boltzmann added a term for the ambient temperature surrounding a body of temperature T but it is purely a one way transfer.
Eli got it wrong by applying S-B in the reverse direction. That’s the basis of AGW, a fiction. The T^4 relationship between EM and temperature comes from an experiment by Tyndall in which he heated a platinum filament wire electrically so its temperature ranged from 700C to 1500C as he increased the current. As the temperature changed, the colour of the EM emission changed and Stefan was able to relate the EM colour frequency to the temperature and derive the T^4 relationship.
You guys, Eli included, are claiming heat can be transferred from the cooler ambient air at room temperature to the platinum filament at 1500C, which is sheer nonsense.
“Consider a block with a laser aimed at it, a fire under it and an electric heater in it. The temperature of the block would increase according to the net of the sum of the energy flows acquired from each source minus the losses which would be convective, conductive (unless magnetically suspended) and radiative”.
You are summing quantities of heat, not EM. The laser’s EM would be converted to heat in the block and would no longer be EM. If the block got sufficiently hot from it’s internal heater and the fire underneath, the laser EM would have no effect.
The body’s temperature rises due to the vibration of it’s atoms. That can only happen if it is subjected to a higher temperature source of heat. Lower temperature source will not affect it in such a manner as to raise its temperature.
What you guys are claiming is that EM radiated from a cooler source could raise the temperature of the fire and internally heated block. So if you surrounded the block with ice, it’s temperature should rise.
You cannot ignore heat as you claim. It is a very real form of energy as described by Clausius, who invented the U in the first law. He claimed U, internal energy, is the heat equivalent of work done by vibrating atoms and the heat injected to make them vibrate harder, raising their temperature. The work done in the vibration of atoms in a lattice is not possible without the addition of heat.
Clausius claimed the Q in the 1st law is external heat added to a body and W is work done by the added heat. U represents internal heat and work.
I don’t know where modernists get this notion that heat is an abstraction. I suppose from the same place where they figure gravity is not a force but an anomaly from space-time, a complete illusion.
Some scientist are not only getting stupid, they are getting stupider.
Gor,, Of course it is nonsense to claim that heat can be transferred from the cooler ambient air at room temperature to the platinum filament. That is not the net flow of energy. Of course you cannot heat something by surrounding it with ice. Unless, of course, unless the ice is shielding it from an even lower temperature. I have explained it to you but I cannot understand it for you.
It appears you are seeking a distinction in quibble over the meaning of words where there is no difference when done correctly. Why are you still arguing against what works? That hints of willful blindness. You are beginning to sound like JDH (who should be ignored).
Dan Pangburn, M.S.M.E (3 graduate level courses in heat transfer), am (was) licensed in CA (P.E. in Mechanical Engineering, license 13316 (ret)), here’s something else you can ignore:
3 plates together, at equilibrium:
244K…244K…244K
3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:
244K…290K…244K
Exactly same energy in/out.
If clowns can’t see the blatant violation of 2LoT, then they are clearly admitting they are clueless about the relevant physics.
JD doesn’t understand what JD describes 10:08am is a real reversible process which violates 2LOT. JD is good for entertainment, not so much for science.
Fluffball may see the 2LoT violation, but is somehow trying to blame it on me.
But, it’s hard to know for sure, with all his fluff.
Not “somehow” JD, by telling you your calculations and cartoons depict reversible processes thus fail to increase entropy which fails 2LOT.
Nope, he doesn’t see it. Just more fluff.
Nothing new.
dan…”It appears you are seeking a distinction in quibble over the meaning of words where there is no difference when done correctly. Why are you still arguing against what works?”
Not interesting in quibbles, which I understand are small, furry animals with two legs shorter on either side so they can run around hills more easily.
I am defending the excellent work done by Rudolf Clausius between 1850 and 1879, where he precisely laid down the 2nd law, defined entropy, and introduced U as internal energy to the 1st law.
Rudy stated clearly that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body. He claimed that applied to radiation as well, even though, at the time, he, like other major scientists like Stefan, Boltzmann, and Planck, though heat flowed through the atmosphere as heat rays.
He based the 2nd law on a precise analysis of a heat engine where he followed the changes in pressure, volume and temperature around a cycle. If you follow his analysis it becomes clear why heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot by itself.
If you introduce radiation as a heat transfer mechanism then it must satisfy the 2nd law with regard to heating. It must also satisfy quantum theory, which is based essentially on the action of electrons in atoms. Schrodinger’s famous wave equation, which is the basis of quantum theory, is about electrons.
If heat can only be transferred hot to cold by its own means there’s no need to talk about a net energy balance. EM and the heat source that caused it cannot exist at the same time. When thermal energy is converted to EM via electrons, the heat ceases to exist, it has been consumed in the process. That is represented by the emitting electron dropping to a lower energy level.
Quantum theory tells us that EM cannot be absorbed by the electrons in a body unless the EM energy and frequency exactly match the requirements of the electrons, as in a resonant filter. EM from a cooler body will have a lower frequency therefore it will not resonate with the electron frequency nor can it force the electron to a higher energy level, which en masse causes a warming of the body.
There is no net energy flow anywhere. The energy, as thermal energy, flows (transfers0 in one direction only and that applies to the EM as well.
You inferred in an earlier post that electronic transitions only occur at high temperatures. There’s no evidence to support that. The same transitions apply at microwave frequencies and below. Communications at RF frequencies require an electron transition otherwise the electrons in an antenna would not absorb the EM signal.
There is no other mechanism in an atom or molecule that can absorb or emit EM.
There are at least two other mechanisms in an atom or molecule that can absorb or emit EMR: rotation levels and vibration levels in addition to electronic levels.
Gordon, being somewhat loosely involved in electronics, simply can’t step out of his own silo and learn about these other mechanisms that exist in the atm. at STP, where electronic levels are NOT populated.
Gordon,
Check out the wiki page on the Schrodinger equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
“Solutions to Schrdinger’s equation describe not only molecular, atomic, and subatomic systems, but also macroscopic systems, possibly even the whole universe”
It applies to a lot of systems, not just electrons.
Testicle4, bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
“You never see current running both ways in an electric circuit”
Why then do they call it AC?
B,
Because the current flows one way for a time, then it flows the opposite way for a time.
That’s why it is called Alternating Current, I suppose.
You can’t have current running both ways at once in an electric circuit. The electrons would get very confused.
Like you.
Cheers.
touch.
with one
Mike…”Thats why it is called Alternating Current, I suppose.
You cant have current running both ways at once in an electric circuit. The electrons would get very confused”.
It’s like the water analogy I gave, if a water pipe is pressurized at one end the water will not flow against the pressure.
The voltage that drives current is a form of pressure called electromotive force. In AC, the polarity of the force changes regularly as you stated, causing the current to change direction.
“Because the current flows one way for a time, then it flows the opposite way for a time….causing the current to change direction.”
…which is why you do measure current running both ways in an electric circuit.
ball4…”which is why you do measure current running both ways in an electric circuit”.
Strong odour of red herring around here. You plucked that one straight out of context. I did mention that water in a pipe does not run both ways with one end pressurized.
I guess you don’t understand enough about electrical theory to understand that current cannot run through a circuit without an applied voltage. In order for current to change direction, the polarity of the applied voltage must change.
It amounts to the same thing, current can only flow one way from a higher potential to a lower potential. Exactly the same with heat, where potential is determined by temperature, which indicates the relative hotness of a body. Heat will never be transferred from a cooler object to a hotter object for that reason, unless you supply external power and apparatus to do it.
There is absolutely no reason why heat transfer by radiation should contradict that fact. A cooler body is at a lower potential heat-wise and heat will simply not transfer from a lower potential to a higher potential.
That clearly means that EM from a cooler source is not absorbed by a hotter body.
Heat will never be transferred from a cooler object to a hotter object because as Gordon correctly writes: “the heat does not move…No heat is physically transferred between bodies”.
However, thermodynamic internal energy CAN be transferred from a cooler object to a hotter object as Maxwell-Boltzmann derived and later experiments proved. They clearly showed by theory and experiment that EM from a cooler source IS absorbed by a hotter body so Gordon was proven wrong long time ago. Planck and his buddies demonstrated that also by both theory and experiment. They were all in cahoots until they published results. See Kurlbaum Rubens 1901.
“In order for current to change direction, the polarity of the applied voltage must change. It amounts to the same thing, current can only flow one way from a higher potential to a lower potential.”
This is why they call it AC, so you DO see (Gordon term) current running both ways in an electric circuit.
Current – meaning the net flow of electrons or water — always moves from higher to lower potential/voltage/pressure.
Individual particles move both directions. It is well known — and easily confirmed — that electrons in a wire typically move with an average “drift velocity” on the order of a few cm/s. It is also well known that the speed of individual conduction electrons is on the order of 1,000,000 m/s (the “fermi speed”).
So if you could actually look at the motion of electrons in a wire, you would see electrons moving at incredible speeds both from higher potential to lower potential. There would be just the slightest net speed from higher to lower potential.
Tim, here you are beating around the bush, again.
Why not just come out and claim current flows backwards? That’s your game. You’re trying to pervert physics. You want energy to flow against the potential so you can peddle your bogus GHE.
When are you going to come out of that closet?
“Why not just come out and claim current flows backwards?”
Because Tim knows JD is wrong about that, but it was good entertainment, more please JD.
JD, I have rarely seen a more blatant strawman attack.
“Why not just come out and claim current flows backwards?”
Because it doesn’t.
“Thats your game.”
Nope. My “game” is exactly what I wrote.
“Youre trying to pervert physics.”
And yet you can’t actually find anything I said that is wrong, so you go after your distorted view of what you imagine I might have intended.
“You want energy to flow against the potential …”
Once again, nope. You want to imagine that is what I want, even thought I never said anything of the sort. Then you have something easy to attack, rather than actually getting down to real issues.
Rather than attacking your strawmen, discuss what I actually said.
Do you agree that the drift velocity of electrons is typically on the order of a few cm/s?
Do you agree that speed of the conduction electrons (the Fermi velocity) is on the order of 1,000,000 m/s?
Do you agree that electrons in a wire, even a wire carrying a current, are moving in all directions — including nearly half that are moving “upstream” against the potential at any given moment?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes, with reservations based on “nearly half”.
Pretty straight forward answers, huh Tim?
Now, let’s see if you can do the same:
1) Is a racehorse rotating about its own axis (center of mass) as it laps an oval track?
2) Are laws of physics violated in the 244K…290K…244K solution to adding the second green plate?
3) Does the spectrum of a black body change when its temperature is changed?
JD, so if you agree with the physics I stated, how can any of it be a perversion of physics?
As for your questions …
3) The shape of the curve is the same. The peak shifts to shorter wavelengths at higher temperatures and the intensity increases (at every wavelength).
2) No laws of physics are violated. [I assume we are talking about this scenario: a blackbody “blue plate” has a heater supplying 400 W/m^2 of thermal energy. Two blackbody “green plates” are placed nearby, one on either side.] I obviously can’t address every law of physics here, but here are the key laws for this situation …
a) Energy is conserved. The Blue plate gains 400 J each second from the heater. The blue plate radiates (sigma)(290^4 – 244^4) = 200 J each second to each green plate, or 400 J each second total.
(energy in) = (energy out), so the temperature will hold steady.
Meanwhile, each green plate gains 200 J each second from the blue plate. Each green plate in turn radiates (sigma)(244^4 – 0^4) = 200 J each second to space.
(energy in) = (energy out), so the temperature will hold steady.
b) The 2LoT is obeyed. Heat always flows from hotter –> colder. From the 290K plate to the 244K plate; from the 244K plate to space.
c) Blackbodies absorb all radiation directed toward them, meeting the definition of “blackbody”.
1) We have already beaten that dead horse. Any further. discussion is better left to some other time.
See Tim, I answered in one word, twice, and in one line, once.
Direct answers, no games, no hidden agendas, no perversion of physics.
You can’t do that. You rambled in circles, dodging and spinning. You couldn’t even admit that the racehorse is NOT rotating on its axis.
Either clean up your act, or don’t be so snowflake whiney when someone catches you distorting reality.
1) Yes, 2) No, 3) Yes.
Here are the correct answers:
1) Is a racehorse rotating about its own axis (center of mass) as it laps an oval track?
NO
2) Are laws of physics violated in the 244K…290K…244K solution to adding the second green plate?
YES
3) Does the spectrum of a black body change when its temperature is changed?
YES
Gordon,
Question for you.
What is reflected power?
Good one bob.
b,
Are you just posing a stupid gotcha, or are you really too lazy or incompetent to look it up?
Do let me know.
Cheers.
Smart gotcha’ is bob’s MF, you will want to be more specific with your b; the kind of gotcha’ that can be looked up and verified, even by you.
Mike Flynn,
Do I really need to look it up if I can find the value of the Reflected Power on the display panel, cause the Engineer told me to monitor it and write the value down on the daily log?
Testicle4, have you ever considered writing your comments in English?
bobd…”Gordon,
Question for you.
What is reflected power?”
We used to do experiments with microwaves in which we had a klystron sitting on a waveguide with a horn attached to the end to interface the klystron microwave output from the waveguide to the atmosphere.
Further away we’d have a parabolic dish that collected the microwaves and reflected them to a receiver. If we were transmitting at 0.25 watts, we could measure the reflected power from the parabolic dish to calculate the dissipation.
Does that help?
That’s how radar operates. You send out a a high frequency RF wave (which is EM) at high power and it strikes an object where the EM is reflected partly back to the source where it is collected on a receiving antenna.
Another good example of “reflected power” is the green arrows being reflected off the high temperature blue plate.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
JD, that cartoon & statement is so wrong, it is totally & hugely amusing, Please continue such bogus interjections, it’s like a 3 ring circus with you.
Consider: the plates are given as theoretical blackbodies, Gordon’s dish was real.
Gordon,
No that was not was I was referring to.
A cyclotron accelerates particles by a rapidly varying electric field, applied to two electrodes called dees. Some of the power applied to the dees is reflected back to the amplifier.
About all I know about it is that if it gets to high it could blow a fuse as long as my arm.
JD,
Reflected power occurs in circuits, you know things with nodes, wires, amplifiers, loads, fuses, and currents.
You know none of those things are on your stupid diagram which is divorced from reality.
Not your smartest comment.
Well actually, the plate surface could be consideredd a “node” for purposes of energy accounting.
But the main thing in the diagrams is indeed the “reflected power” indicated by the green arrows reflected from the blue plate.
Just more things poor bob can’t understand.
Reflected power is about electricity, the flow of electrons not the flow of photons.
What about that do you not understand.
Anyway, black-bodies do not reflect light.
Gordo wrote:
How does the receiver respond to reflections from objects which are colder than the receiver? What was the emissivity of the distant body at the microwave frequency you worked with? How much of the received “power” is reflected and how much was re-radiated from the distant body? What about passive microwave measurements from space, such as those “collected” by the MSU/AMSU and other instruments?
Swanson, how about the relevant facts from your bogus “experiment”, like temperatures, emissivities, and associated fluxes.
Also, your statement of what you believed you have proved.
Thanks.
(Of course, if you now want to disown your fraudulent nonsense, you can just ignore this.)
bobs spouts off: “Reflected power is about electricity, the flow of electrons not the flow of photons.”
Wrong again, bob. “Reflected power” is a big deal in antenna systems.
(I won’t provide you any links because you wouldn’t understand them.)
JD,
And how does a radio transmitter work, if not by applying a high frequency alternating AC current to the transmitter antenna, and that’s where the reflected power occurs.
Reflected power just doesn’t exist in your diagram of falsity.
Read the thermo textbook Kristian linked to in one of his responsed to me, it might do you some good to read up on actual thermodynamics. It even defines what black-bodies are and no, they never reflect.
You should tell Kristian his textbook is all psuedoscience.
bob, read and study my previous comment. A “transmitter” is not the same as an “antenna system”.
Make some effort to not look stupid. Otherwise I can’t help you.
JD,
You are the one applying the reflected power to a black-body problem.
That’s pretty high on the stupid list, you beat Heller on the triple point conundrum.
That’s quite an accomplishment, I’ll give you a 97 out of 100 on the POE scale.
bob, the more you try to discredit me, the more I enjoy it.
You have absolutely no clue. We are polar opposites. So sling your slime all you want. It only adds to my credibility.
bobd….”I am sure that when you are talking heat transfer by radiation, there is indeed a two way transfer.
The way I was trained, heat is just another form of energy.
So whenever I say heat, think energy, if that helps”.
Doesn’t help me. The word energy means nothing in particular until you specify the type of energy. You can create all forms of fancy theories using the word energy but once you specify the energy as in thermal energy, you cannot quantify it or make assertions about it.
Even the descriptor ‘kinetic’ means nothing other than an unspecified energy is in motion. However, when you specify thermal energy or heat it becomes clear you are talking about the energy associated with atomic motion, as the vibration of atoms in a lattice, or the kinetic energy of atoms in a gas.
As you raise the temperature of either the solid or the gas, the atoms gain more kinetic energy and in that context, kinetic energy is referring to heat.
I think you said you have a background in chemistry. Explain to yourself, with an understanding of how atoms operate, how the electrons in the atoms, at a specific temperature, can both receive and transmit EM at the same time.
There is nothing else in an atom under normal conditions that can absorb and transmit EM other than electrons. Electrons carry an electric field and a magnetic field when in motion (I have never heard of an electron sitting still) and those field are the source of most EM radiation.
At a certain temperature, most electrons will occupy certain energy bands and if they absorb EM they must rise to a higher energy level. At a high enough temperature you can see the EM from the heated body as a colour temperature.
Why should that body, say emitting an orange light, change colour because it is intercepting radiation from a cooler body nearby?
The only way that body can emit a higher frequency, indicating a hotter temperature and a ‘hotter’ colour, is being exposed to a body or an environment of a higher temperature.
Take an electric heater with its coils glowing cherry red. If you take a heat gun blowing hot air at 100C and bring the hot air near the glowing heater coils, they won’t change colour to indicate a higher temperature.
The only way you could get those heater coils to warm more would be to increase the current through them or use an acetylene torch on them. Then you know what would happen, the tungsten would melt, breaking the circuit, and the coil’s colour would soon drop into the infrared.
“Take an electric heater with its coils glowing cherry red. If you take a heat gun blowing hot air at 100C and bring the hot air near the glowing heater coils, they won’t change colour to indicate a higher temperature.”
If you want to do a clearer experiment, start with the heat gun blowing, but the heater turned off, so you are blowing 20 C air at the coils. Then turn on the heater in the heat gun. As the blowing air warms up, so will the coils! The hotter the air, the hotter the coils.
Tim, if you want to do a clearer experiment, just use ice cubes for the heater. If you’re not getting enough heat, just add more ice, cause radiative fluxes add.
(Busting pseudoscience is such a blast.)
“just add more ice, cause radiative fluxes add.”
Once again, JD forgets to subtract the radiation blocked by the added ice in JD’s addition. Typical.
Sorry JD, you can’t warm your coils with added ice, you have to correctly do the arithmetic with ALL the fluxes. But that was great entertainment from JD, just without JD’s funny cartoons this time, keep up the bogus antics JD, fun to watch.
fluffball, that’s why I allowed all the ice you wanted. With an infinite amount of ice you still couldn’t warm anything above the temperature of the ice.
You clowns just can’t face reality, that “cold” can NOT warm “hot”. You have to keep making excuses that never work. The 2LoT must give you clowns nightmares.
That’s why busting your pseudoscience is so much fun.
“With an infinite amount of ice you still couldn’t warm anything above the temperature of the ice.”
Right, because the infinte amount of ice would block an infinite anount of background radiation. You have to include that radiation in your arithmetic and JD always forgets; JD just forgot again! Great entertainment though, keep it up JD.
More please. JD has never failed to deliver more humor. A very accomplished entertainer.
With an infinite amount of ice you still couldn’t warm anything above the temperature of the ice.
But keep ignoring reality.
Maybe you could do another fake experiment?
“With an infinite amount of ice you still couldn’t warm anything above the temperature of the ice.”
As I wrote, that’s correct JD, you are not always totally wrong. However, if an infinite amount of dry ice around an object is replaced by an infinite amount of water ice, the object warms. Similar science process as replacing an infinite amount of space around the Earth surface with an IR active atm., the Earth surface warms.
Learning about thermodynamics is usually a pretty dry subject, but with JD doing no testing, posting such humorously incorrect cartoons, and totally entertaining comments, the learning about thermo. process becomes like watching SNL to become more knowledgeable about politics.
Here, fluffball, you can argue with yourself:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-341636
That’s humorous JD, I agree with myself. Perhaps you should run a test, get some dry ice and some water ice. Prove to yourself what happens. I know, JD is an entertainment provider with a test free zone, not going to happen as experimenting would reduce JD’s entertainment value.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
How does a radio antenna work?
it doesn’t change the electron’s energy levels, makes them vibrate, or induce a small alternating current which is then amplified.
I hope I have that right, not being a wire-biter by trade.
You said this, and you are on the right track
“as the vibration of atoms in a lattice,”
These also have energy levels that are able to ab/sorb and emit radiation.
There are several other ways an object can ab/sorb radiation other than changing the electron’s electronic energy levels, try looking that up.
And take your heat gun and see what happens to the color of the coils if you restrict the flow of air.
“How does a radio antenna work?”
Right, not by changing the electron’s energy levels. Energy leaves the transmitter (aka signal generator, say a single sine pulse of several mHz, 2v peak), runs down the transmission line where nonzero resistance dissipates some of the energy to the surroundings (hams are aware of the dBs lost at a given frequency for every 100m of their favorite coaxial cables) to the antenna.
At the antenna connection, some fixed percentage of energy goes to the (imperfectly tuned) antenna and out on the air, while the remainder is sent back on the same coax, dissipated a bit by the same resistance as going forward, and a few hundred nanoseconds after being sent, gets dissipated by the transmitter internal matched resistance so the power on the line is all gone, dissipated to surroundings & on the air.
If the antenna mismatch and transmitter power is large enough, this “reflected power” blows a fuse as long as bob’s arm instead of neatly dissipating in the transmitter resistor design. This is why hams add a tuner between the transmitter and the transmission line, hams want as much as possible transmitter power to go on the air.
bobdruggy, Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Re photons always being absorbed by blue or green plates and so on.
Maybe someone can tell me why visual light is able to travel through transparent glass without being absorbed.
This means that Eli Rabbett’s green/blue plates mimic sheets of transparent media with 50% reflective front surfaces. As no light frequencies are specified, the transparency is nominal.
If anybody thinks that shielding a thermometer behind these makes it hotter, they are not being rational. Probably delusional pseudoscientific climatological true believers.
So, how do photons travel through transparent matter without being affected? Cogent answers only, please.
Cheers.
“Maybe someone can tell me why visual light is able to travel through transparent glass without being absorbed.”
Some of it IS absorbed, and reflected, some transmitted, no material has been found to be fully transparent at all frequencies. You can see your reflection in a plate glass window (see Indiana Jones in the snake pit and the reflection from the glass between him and the snake) & surface of calm water. Some materials are close to transparent, but no cigar as there is always attenuation (the movie makers got caught on that one).
“So, how do photons travel through transparent matter without being affected?”
Some do, some don’t. The photons can be identical yet some get transmitted, some get reflected, some get absorbed. Why is THAT? Nobody knows. The answer lies in Kristian’s micro and macro. Macro is fairly well understood, micro not so much, Kristian is right about that. You get down to the micro surface of that plate of glass, dimensions on the order of the wavelength of the light and things get messy.
B,
You’re getting there.
“Some do”, you said. Why is that? What is the mechanism?
You seemed very sure previously – talking as though you knew what you were talking about.
Are you now saying that nobody knows why photons from a colder body might be ignored by a warmer? Do you now agree with me that nothing is fully transparent at all frequencies?
I am just trying to point out that many peoples’ imaginary experiments are usually based on assumptions that are not based on reality.
I’m happy enough with “Nobody knows” about many things relating to QED. Some pseudoscientific climatological types give the impression that they do know – when it is quite obvious they have no clue.
Cheers.
“Are you now saying that nobody knows why photons from a colder body might be ignored by a warmer?”
No. There is NO ignorativity.
“Do you now agree with me that nothing is fully transparent at all frequencies?”
I agree with me: no material has been found to be fully transparent at all frequencies.
“I am just trying to point out that many peoples’ imaginary experiments are usually based on assumptions that are not based on reality.”
True that. Transparent really means negligible absorp_tivity/reflectivity not zero absorp_tivity or zero reflectivity.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
“Maybe someone can tell me why visual light is able to travel through transparent glass without being absorbed.”
(I understand the point Mike is making, so this is just to counter the nonsense from fluffball.)
A radiative flux is a Poynting vector. When it strikes glass, perpendicularly, it is fully absorbed, in an ideal world. “Ideal” meaning no impurities in the glass. Visible light photons have enough energy to change the direction of the vector fields of the glass molecule/atom it strikes. Both the D and E vectors of the molecule/atom are affected. And since a visible light photon has so much energy, it is almost instantly emitted in the direction of the vector fields it just changed. The photon gets emitted, and continues in the same direction it was going. The photon moves on to the next glass molecule/atom, is again absorbed, and repeats the process. It eventually leaves the glass, without any change in direction. Its travel time was slowed due to all the interactions. That’s why light travels a little slower in glass.
For introductory material on D and E fields, start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_displacement_field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_dipole_moment
I searched both links for “poynting”: no hits. Typical for JD.
Anyone that has seen their own (faint) reflection looking through a plate glass window or calm water knows JD is humorously wrong proven by experiment (yet again). JD never fails to provide entertainment. More please.
No one expected you to comprehend it, fluffball.
It has to do with physics….
MF wrote:
A perennial question, one still “out there”, caught up in the wave/particle duality, I suspect. Whomever provides an answer must also give the reason for the wavelength dependency, because glass absorbs IR EM rather well, which fits it’s status as an electrical insulator. So, your general statement about photon transmission is clearly wrong.
Swanson, please stop trolling.
It’s not unusual for clowns to link to things they don’t understand. One of their recent links described the adjustment needed for flux between two parallel plates, one hot, one cold:
1/[(1/εh) + (1/εc) – 1]
So, for black bodies, where ε = 1, the adjustment reduces to
1/(1 + 1 – 1) = 1
IOW, the flux from a hot BB is absorbed by the cold BB, but not the reverse. Energy doesn’t flow against the potential.
They just can’t understand the links they find.
Nothing new.
“Energy doesn’t flow against the potential.”
Sorry JD doesn’t understand the links, incoherent photons don’t have the potential to interact, the incoherent photons emitted from the c blackbody incident on the h black body are all absorbed just fine as both objects change entropy. Universe entropy must increase in the process which directs the way net energy transfers.
As stated, “They just can’t understand the links they find.”
From the thermodynamics text Kristian gave me,
“For theoretical purposes, it is useful to conceive of an ideal substance capable of either abso/rbing all the thermal radiation falling on it or of emitting all the energy provided to it in the form of thermal radiation. Such a substance is called a blackbody.”
Abso/rbs all even against the so called by JD potential.
bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
A 46 – 101 K temperature increase of a powered plate, just by adding additional BB plates which are as far from being insulators as it’s possible for a plate to get!?
Who is currently prepared to acknowledge that the Green Plate Effect is debunked? Anybody honest enough?
DREMT,
As I showed, you yourself have debunked JDs GPE ‘solution’.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344971
Are you honest enough to deal with this fact?
Yes DREMT, we have sufficiently debunked it, but as we know, they will continue to disrespect reality.
Yes, it’s unlikely anyone will own up, but I thought I’d put it out there.
Ha!
DREMT gets caught proving JD wrong. And the answer is…crickets.
Of course, Trolls dont need to agree with themselves…or facts, so it totally works for the TEAM.
Nate, your desperation just makes you look childish and stupid.
Please don’t stop.
Good at trolling and insulting people, JD.
Any attempts at serious discussion with you is as pointless as discussing quantum theory with a toddler.
It it is met with dodging, diversion, distraction and denial of facts.
Such as here, where you dodge answering relevant questions. What are you afraid of?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344842
Anonymous Nate, ask responsible questions without name-calling, innuendos, false accusations, and such, and I will try to answer the same.
Otherwise, you are easily ignorable.
Sure.
1. How do you get your answer? Show your methods.
2. Why is your solution exempt from valid laws of physics: Kirchoffs Law, Radiative Heat Transfer Law, Second Law?
3. As Tim says, your physics is different from standard physics. Show us a source, ANY source, any textbook, on-line course, that agrees with you that Kirchoffs Law and RHT law do not apply.
1. This has been answered several times. When the plates are moved slightly apart, with the idealized conditions specified, and no losses, there would be no temperature change.
2. The correct solution, all plates remaining the same temperature, violates no laws. The incorrect solution violates several.
3. Physics is different from pseudoscience. That seems to confuse many. That’s not my problem. My answer is: “Learn some physics”.
As expected, nonsense.
1. Method of solving a physics problem: declare an answer.
No work, no credit.
2. Laws broken: Deep denial. No credit.
3. Sources of alternative facts: Zero. No credit.
Troll rank: Trolliest of trolls.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Nope,
Because the black-body plates act as insulators because they recieve radiation from one side and emit radiation from two side, so they reduce the flux by half with each additional plate.
I have verified it experimentally so someone being honest would try to replicate the experiment in order to debunk it.
So bob, you’re happy to gobble up a 46 – 101 K temperature temperature increase as a result of this insulation, which doesn’t even involve reflectivity or thermal resistance. You don’t think that instead of just making the powered blue plate take longer to warm up, or cool down, you think it will actually result in a temperature increase of the blue plate.
OK. So, is there any level of theorized temperature increase that might make you question this belief? You’re fine with 18 K. OK with 46 K. Even 101 K, where as JD pointed out it would range from frost-bite to skin-burning temperature, no problem. What would actually cause you to question your beliefs, 250 K? 500 K? 1000 K? Or would you just swallow, and try to defend, literally anything, no matter how ridiculous?
Try this experiment then, knowing you both have all the following equipment.
Take a lamp with an incandescent light bulb of the same wattage as the one in your easy bake oven, put a rack over the light bulb in the lamp.
Prepare two batches of easy bake cake and pour them in the pans provided.
Put on on top of the rack over the light bulb and put the other one in the easy bake oven.
Using a calibrated stop watch for each cake, measure the amount of time it takes to bake the cakes until a toothpick poked into the cake comes out clean.
Which one will cook faster?
Come one girls, step up to the experimental plate.
OK bob, I’ll put you down as “will swallow literally anything, no limit to what you’ll defend”.
Well, in this case I am willing to examine experimental evidence, not just swallow a load of horse hockey
You are the one expecting people to believe you without any evidence.
If you want a pot of water to boil faster, put a lid on it.
bob illustrates the type of “experiments” he qualifies as legitimate, as he avoids the reality that 244K…290K…244K is blatant pseudoscience.
He should have his own comedy show.
No, bob, you are the one swallowing a load of horse jockey, that’s the whole point. A 46 – 101 K temperature increase as a result of insulation that doesn’t even involve reflectivity or thermal resistance. That’s what you are swallowing.
Do the experiment then.
244K…244K…244K
to
244K…290K…244K
increase in entropy, so no violation of 2nd law
Funny bob.
How exactly do you see the increased temperature of the blue plate as increased entropy?
(Is this one of your skits you’re planning for your comedy show?)
How do you not know that JD?
You are the self described expert on all things thermo.
Figure it out for yourself.
If you can, but I doubt it.
Try the chemistry library at your local college, maybe some student would like to explain it to you.
bob, you won’t understand this because it involves thermodynamics. So it is just in case some mature person happens to be interested.
But going from the 3 plates at equal temperatures, to 1 to a higher temperature, even if it were possible, would be DECREASING entropy not increasing entropy.
Now back to your comedy performance. You’re as funny as Norman.
Funny JD,
I’ll post the formula
For a rise in temperature the change in entropy is
dS = n Cp ln (Tf/To)
No, what I was referring to is at a higher temperature the entropy per unit energy is less. In the 3-plates problem, the middle plate has the only temperature increase. But, energy never changed. So, the temperature in the blue plate somehow got its own heat source.
To best see the flaw, compare the heat contents before and after the plates are separated. The heat content went up with NO energy increase!
How many laws of physics were broken here?
JD,
Of course no physical laws were broken, in order to break some physical laws you would have to do an experiment to see if the temperature of the blue plate actually goes up.
It’s just a thought experiment until you actually do some science.
In a carefully designed experiment with actual data, no possibility of breaking any physical laws is possible.
Though really simple experiments could get you on the right track, like verifying that indeed Chef Ramsey is right, water does boil faster if you put a lid on the pot.
The total energy may not have changed but the amount flowing surely does and that’s the reason for the temperature increase.
And I would suggest looking up things before you post.
We’re still waiting for the relevant info from Swanson’s bogus “experiment”, that you accept with no question.
I wonder what he is hiding….
“To best see the flaw, compare the heat contents before and after the plates are separated. The heat content went up with NO energy increase!”
Actually, no. [Assuming a scenario where three plates are in contact initially and then separated. And the heater is always in the center plate.]
When the plate are initially separated, all plates are at 244 K. This means no transfer of thermal IR from the center “blue” plate to either of the outer “green plates”. But the green plates are still radiating to space. With 0 W/m^2 in and 200 W/m^2 out, the green plates must cool!
And of course, as they cool below 244K, the green plates will each emit less than 200 W/m^2 to space. But the center plate is still receiving 400 W/m^2. This means that the system of three plates gains 400 W/m^2 but loses less than 400 W/m^2. The overall heat content starts to rise.
This also means the Blue plate will start to warm up above 244K. When the plates are separated, the blue plate is initially losing 0 W/m^2 to the green plates (they are all initially at the same temperature, after all). But it is gaining 400 W/m^s from the heater, so it must warm up from 244K.
It would be an interesting differential equation to solve, but eventually the system would settle into the one steady-state solution that fits the laws of physics:
244 K — 290 K — 244 K
with each plate neither gaining nor losing energy.
bobd…”For a rise in temperature the change in entropy is
dS = n Cp ln (Tf/To)”
Good grief, Bob, that comes from statistical mechanics. It’s an imaginary calculation.
The real formula for entropy is (integral)dQ/T. It is the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat during a process at temperature T, at which they occurred.
Without the formula from Clausius that imaginary value could never have been confirmed.
Of course, with T shown here as a constant that infers a heat bath as the source of heat.
Entropy is the sum of heat changes in a process and if the process is reversible the heat change is 0. Otherwise is has to be positive. Entropy can never be negative, that would be a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
Gordon,s
We do not have a heat bath we have an electric current through a resistor, ie a heating element.
And the process is irreversible.
And I wrote the formula for the change in Entropy, not the entropy.
And I’ll post another version of the second law for you guys, since you keep getting it wrong.
“For example, heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies, and never the reverse, unless external work is performed on the system. ”
There are two source of work in this problem, one is the heater and the other is whatever force is moving the plates.
So since work is being done, it is possible to have a transfer of heat from cold to hot.
And what’s the final temperature of the green plates?
Tim gets it wrong again: “But the green plates are still radiating to space. With 0 W/m^2 in and 200 W/m^2 out, the green plates must cool!”
No Tim, the green plates don’t drop below 244 K. You are making things up again. The heat transfer from blue to greens doesn’t end when they are slightly separatedl. EM travels at the speed of light. The radiative heat transfer from exterior side of a green plate is the same as the heat transfer from one side of the blue plate.
Learn some physics, rather than trying to pervert physics.
bob is competing with Tim for “Worst Physics of the Day”: “There are two source of work in this problem, one is the heater and the other is whatever force is moving the plates.”
No bob, the input from the heater is the same, before and after. And if you believe slightly separating the plates causes a temperature rise, you also win the “Clown of the Day”, also.
Try separating the plates 10 mm, instead of 1 mm. Would the blue plate temp go up linearly? 46(10) + 290 = 750K?
I’d like to see your calculations for blue plate temperature increase per mm of separation.
The humor never ends….
Yes JD,
The 400 watt heater is a constant before during and after, still a source of work. Energy is being put into the system.
The gap doesn’t affect the calculation of the amount of temperature rise, we all ignore it for the purposes of the calculation.
In a real experimental set up it would indeed affect the result but an increase in the separation of the plates would cause a decrease in the temperature rise, what part of that do you not understand?
I’ll let you argue with yourself, bob: “There are two source of work in this problem, one is the heater and the other is whatever force is moving the plates.:
“The heat transfer from blue to greens doesnt end when they are slightly separated.”
The conduction certainly stops. They are not touching any longer.
As for radiation, the plates were all initially at 244 K. How much power is radiated from one plate at 244K to a second plate at 244K?
a) 200 W/m^2 into the 244K plate and 200 W/m^2 out of the 244 K plate.
b) 200 W/m^2 out of the 244K plate and 200 W/m^2 into the 244 K plate.
c) 0 W/m^2 because they are the same temperature.
(a) & (b) are just silly. (c) is the obviously correct answer. The 2LoT tells us heat only moves from warmer to cooler. Not from cooler to warmer, nor between objects at the same temperature.
Tim is still confused by the actual physics. Maybe this will help:
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
That diagram certainly helps clarify your incorrect thinking.
Earlier you stated that “Energy doesn’t flow against the potential.” Energy also doesn’t flow with no potential. Electrons don’t form a current with out a voltage difference. Air doesn’t move without a pressure difference. Heat doesn’t move without a temperature difference.
And Tim can’t have a discussion without throwing out a lot of smoke, and anything to avoid reality.
Tim, you are attempting to confuse electrons, conduction, voltage difference, air pressure with photon emission. Just more smoke.
Study the simple diagram.
The blue plate is emitting photons based on its surface temperature. The photons do not care about the temperature of the green plate, unless it is higher. It is not. It is losing photons at the same rate it is gaining photons.
But it’s entirely different with the photons emitted back to the blue plate. The blue plate has a higher potential, because it is upstream in the energy flow. So a standing wave is formed between blue and green plate.
Easy to understand, if you appreciated physics over pseudoscience.
“So a standing wave is formed between blue and green plate.”
Only if the photons are made coherent; now JD has turned the given BB plates into tunable lasers. The plates aren’t lasers emitting coherent light, the plates emit natural incoherent light, no standing wave is possible, incoherent photons (incoherent light) will not interact. As proven by E. Swanson experiment.
Easy to make this mistake, JD appreciates pseudoscience over experimental reality. JD once again amuses readers writing 7 > 11. Debunked.
This is what a “standing wave” looks like, in the plates situation:
The green arrow photons will bounce back to the green plate and be absorbed, or reflected again. The photons between the plates will in a “first come, first served” competition to be absorbed by the green plate. Some may “bounce” back and forth numerous times. In some cases, with exact matchups, cancellation may even occur.
The
bluegreen plate is also emitting photons based on its surface temperature. The photons do not care about the temperature of thegreenblue plate, unless it is higher. It is not. It is losing photons at the same rate it is gaining photons.The names you give the plates don’t matter. You are right
It’s entirely
differentthe same with the photons emitted back to the blue plate. The blue plate hasa higherthe same potential, because it isupstream in the energy flowat the same temperature as the green plate.There is only a higher potential of one plate is a higher temperature. Just like there is only an “upstream” if one end of the stream is literally higher than the other!
Tim says: “There is only a higher potential if one plate is a higher temperature.”
Tim, you’re still having trouble understanding energy flow. If the blue plate is only one billionth of a degree higher, it has a higher potential.
Tim says: “Just like there is only an “upstream” if one end of the stream is literally higher than the other!”
Again Tim, you’re confused about energy flow. A photon is emitted based on the surface temperature. There is no ΔT involved. The photon “flows” regardless of whether or not it is heading toward a lower or higher “potential”. What happens to the photon is ONLY determined upon impact.
…and yet there IS an “upstream”, whilst the plates are coming to their equilibrium temperature. Like if for example you added the green plates at a lower temperature than the blue, and whilst those green plates are rising in temperature, there IS an “upstream” at all points until they are at equilibrium (same temperature as the blue). So the concept works at all points up until equilibrium, Tim.
That’s the way I have always seen JD’s diagram. The additional green “reflection” arrows from the blue plate back to the green are necessary to describe what is happening up until equilibrium. At equilibrium, they could potentially be removed. But if JD showed the diagram without the “reflection” arrows, you would then have all sorts of other problems with the solution. So he shows it with the additional arrows, which confuses you still, but probably less than if he left them off.
Does that make it clearer?
Another thing that might help with understanding…
…Tim, with perfect conductors, you would agree that pressed together, the plates would all be the same temperature. So, try to imagine how you would show the various energy flows, in a similar diagram, assuming that you have to draw in the “back-conduction” energy like you do with the “back-radiation” energy in the radiation solution. Have the plates drawn separated, only so you can fit in the arrows for the various energy flows, whilst knowing they’re actually meant to be pushed together.
How would you draw out the energy flows, at equilibrium?
…plus, I’ll give you a few little hints on your “3 plates at the same temperature when pressed together” energy flow diagram, Tim. Your middle blue plate is going to be receiving 400 W of energy from an electrical source. All plates are at the same temperature, so they are all going to be sending an amount of energy, x, via conduction, in each direction (mustn’t forget the “back-conduction”).
So, the middle blue plate is going to be sending x energy via conduction, to each of the neighbouring green plates. But, the neighbouring green plates are going to be “back-conducting” x energy to the blue plates. The green plates, however, only get x energy via the blue. They are not getting any additional energy from anything on the other side of them (the side facing away from the blue). They also radiate out to space on that side.
But wait a minute…that means the blue plate is receiving x energy from the green plates via “back-conduction” PLUS the energy from the electrical source! Whereas the green plates are losing energy via radiation on one side, whilst only gaining x energy via conduction on the other!
Good luck with your diagram, Tim.
JD writes 9:08pm: “The green arrow photons will bounce back…”
None of the green arrow photons “bounce back” off the blue plate, black body blue plate absorbs all incident photons and kills them off. No photon will be reflected from the green plate for the same reason. This is proven out with the real experiment by E. Swanson showing only about 4% of the photons scattered or in JD’s terms “bounce back”.
Just more very amusing pseudoscience from JD ignoring experimental results, 1LOT, 2LOT and Planck’s law. More please, so the entertainment is never ending.
—-
DREMT: “there IS an “upstream” at all points until they are at equilibrium (same temperature as the blue).”
Thus DREMT also is ignoring experimental results, 1LOT, 2LOT and Planck’s law. Nothing new.
“How would you draw out the energy flows, at equilibrium?”
Paying attention to Fourier conduction law, 1LOT, 2LOT and experiment, in exactly the same way as Eli did.
You can draw the “conduction” energy flow diagram too, Ball4. Come on, give it a go. Don’t forget the “back-conduction”.
Eli already did so, no need to repeat. Study his work more closely and observe in it 1LOT, 2LOT, Planck’s law are all in accord with experiment.
When did Eli do so? Links please.
10/5/2017 and DREMT still does not understand Eli’s work despite all this time to learn from it. Typical for DREMT…and JD.
10/5/2017
You mean this?
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
That was posted on 10/5/2017, but there isn’t any “conduction” energy flow diagram anywhere to be seen. Are you telling porkie pies, Testicle4?
See the second figure, DREMT, the sunload conducted through the blue plate and is now being radiated out the other side of the plate as well as the incident side. Which anyone commenting on thermodyanmics should know. Try to study it a little harder. Look up Fourier conduction law, think he wrote that in 1822 if it will help you.
Incorrect, Testicle4, none of the figures there in any way represent the “conduction” energy flow diagram I described.
DREMT description: “3 plates at the same temperature when pressed together energy flow diagram, Tim.”
See the blue plate in the 2nd figure DREMT? That’s your requested diagram of “3 plates at the same temperature when pressed together”. The equilibrium energy flow is depicted with one red arrow and two blue arrows. All verified by E. Swanson’s test.
I know this science is kind of hard for someone that hasn’t sufficiently passed the pre-req.s but you ought to be able to puzzle it out given the simple 1LOT, 2LOT, Planck’s Law basics discussed by those who have around here, Eli’s math, and consulting various beginning text book ref.s.
Incorrect, Testicle4. We are looking for a central blue plate, powered electrically by 400 W, with two green plates either side of it.
Now I get yet another different description from DREMT.
OK, go to last figure. 5th one. Thats for n=2 plates, the 2nd fig. is for n=1 plate (your 3 plates pressed together) at equilibrium.
All I would need to do is copy and paste the green plate again for n=3 show sigmaT3^4. Copy and paste for any number of plates up to N plates. Trivial so no need; text books depict and computers routinely run the solution already.
You could run the test with n=3 plates to develop the answer or use Eli’s 1LOT eqn.s for 3 eqn.s 3 unknowns so solvable & will be confirmed by your proper test. But only if you have accomplished the pre-req.s to properly do so observing 1LOT, 2LOT and Planck’s Law.
Doubly incorrect, Testicle4. First, my description has not changed. Second, Fig. 5 does not represent one central blue plate, powered 400W by an electrical supply, surrounded by two green plates.
“First, my description has not changed.”
1) DREMT description #1: 3 plates at the same temperature when pressed together energy flow diagram, Tim.
2) Yet another DREMT description #2: “a central blue plate, powered electrically by 400 W, with two green plates either side”
I will point out DREMT is wrong, 3 plates pressed together at the same temperature is not 3 separate plates at different temperatures.
“Second, Fig. 5 does not represent one central blue plate, powered 400W by an electrical supply, surrounded by two green plates.”
As I wrote, it is trivial to point out a copy and paste Fig 5 one green plate into any position for the second green plate. No value added for me to do so.
DREMT does not even understand simple discussions, let alone thermodynamics where DREMTs sophistry is apparent. This is curable, simply refer to a beginning text on the subject & comment accordingly.
“1) DREMT description #1: 3 plates at the same temperature when pressed together energy flow diagram, Tim.
2) Yet another DREMT description #2: “a central blue plate, powered electrically by 400 W, with two green plates either side”
I will point out DREMT is wrong, 3 plates pressed together at the same temperature is not 3 separate plates at different temperatures.“
Incorrect, Testicle4. Read my comment at March 14, 6:48 am, again. In it, I say:
“I’ll give you a few little hints on your “3 plates at the same temperature when pressed together” energy flow diagram, Tim. Your middle blue plate is going to be receiving 400 W of energy from an electrical source.”
My description did not change. It was always 3 plates pushed together, a central blue plate receiving 400 W from an electrical source, with two green plates pressed against it either side. Your confusion is not my problem.
In your own comment you show your desciption changed, looks like thermodynamics is too hard for you DREMT.
Comment some more sophistry, DREMT, you have become as amusing as JD. The entertainment is appeciated. BTW there is a blog for climate sophistry so you would get much more agreement with your sophistry over there.
“In your own comment you show your desciption changed, looks like thermodynamics is too hard for you DREMT.”
Incorrect, Testicle4, you have just failed at basic reading comprehension. Here is the entire comment again. Let me know if you need any help with your reading.
“…plus, I’ll give you a few little hints on your “3 plates at the same temperature when pressed together” energy flow diagram, Tim. Your middle blue plate is going to be receiving 400 W of energy from an electrical source. All plates are at the same temperature, so they are all going to be sending an amount of energy, x, via conduction, in each direction (mustn’t forget the “back-conduction”).
So, the middle blue plate is going to be sending x energy via conduction, to each of the neighbouring green plates. But, the neighbouring green plates are going to be “back-conducting” x energy to the blue plates. The green plates, however, only get x energy via the blue. They are not getting any additional energy from anything on the other side of them (the side facing away from the blue). They also radiate out to space on that side.
But wait a minute…that means the blue plate is receiving x energy from the green plates via “back-conduction” PLUS the energy from the electrical source! Whereas the green plates are losing energy via radiation on one side, whilst only gaining x energy via conduction on the other!
Good luck with your diagram, Tim.”
“when pressed together” is fig. 1, “Your middle blue plate is going to be receiving 400 W of energy from an electrical source.” means Fig. 5 since only the blue plate receives input energy.
You fail to realize pressed together means 1 plate, only the blue plate receives energy means more than one plate. To get agreement, you really should take your sophistry over to climate of sophistry, the commenters there will be happy to agree with whatever nonsense DREMT writes.
OK, Testicle4, I see there’s not going to be an apology for your reading comprehension mistake, but that’s no surprise. So, you always think of any number of plates pushed together as being one single plate. Right. I’ve noticed that before. This single plate has one single temperature, then, as I recall.
So, I’d be right in saying that the three plates, pushed together (one plate, as you would call it), have (has) one temperature, e.g. all at 244 K, correct?
“This single plate has one single temperature, then, as I recall.”
You can confirm with givens & solution for one single blue plate equilibrium Eli’s Fig. on 10/5/2017. Teq=244 K
Right. So, just to clarify, the temperatures of the three plates – one central blue plate powered by a 400 W electrical supply – with one green plate each side, when pressed together, will be 244 K. Agree?
When pressed together, the separate 3 plates become thermodynamically back to 1 plate at equilibrium that you can confirm with givens & solution for 1 single blue plate equilibrium Eli’s Fig. on 10/5/2017. Teq=244 K
Right, well Tim’s got his work cut out, then. You too, Ball4, or anyone else who wants to draw out the “conduction” energy flow diagram.
All three plates are the same temperature, but the blue plate is receiving all the “back-conduction” from the surrounding green plates, PLUS the 400 W from the electrical supply!
“All three plates are the same temperature”
Right, all three plates are the same temperature when pressed together into 1 plate at equilibrium that you can confirm with givens & solution for 1 single blue plate equilibrium Eli’s Fig. on 10/5/2017. Teq=244 K.
Tim’s, yours, my, or anyone else who wants to properly draw out the energy flow diagram in the vacuum would be essentially same as Eli’s 1 plate equilibrium Fig. in accord with 1LOT, 2LOT, Planck’s law, and Fourier conduction.
A measure of the 1 plate constituent particle total KE would show the thermodynamic internal energy and a measure of the 1 plate constituent avg. particle KE would show its steady state equilibrium temperature 244K.
Right, all three plates are the same temperature, but the blue plate is receiving all the back-conduction from the surrounding green plates, PLUS the 400 W from the electrical supply! What a pickle, Testicle4.
You again fail to realize pressed together means 1 plate, only the blue plate receives input energy means more than one plate.
Right, you have agreed that all three plates are the same temperature when pushed together, but the blue plate is receiving all the “back-conduction” from the surrounding, touching, green plates, PLUS the 400 W from the electrical supply! What a pickle, Testicle4.
”but the blue plate is receiving all the “back-conduction” from the surrounding, touching”
No, not at equilibrium, because as you pointed out all three plates are the same temperature when pushed together into 1 plate when they equilibrate. You don’t realize Fourier conduction law then computes to zero in this ideal case, the avg. KE of all the 1 plate constituent particles is the same 244K in steady state equilibrium.
Don’t be silly, Testicle4, “back-conduction” doesn’t just “stop”.
Conductive energy transfer does stop at equilibrium in the 1 plate since there is no temperature difference as you write. Everywhere you poke a thermometer the avg. KE of the constituent particles will measure Teq=244K in the 1 plate steady state as Eli shows.
Oh, I agree that at equilibrium, the plates are the same temperature.
But sadly, the GPE logic disagrees. The blue plate is still receiving energy via “back-conduction”, as even at equilibrium energy is still freely flowing both ways inbetween the plates, but it’s also getting the 400 W.
“The blue plate is still receiving energy via back-conduction””
Sadly & humorously, it is your logic that is nonsense, you simply do not realize there is no blue plate any longer when there is 1 pressed together plate and conduction has stopped at equilibrium as in Eli’s Fig. for Teq=244K
Yes, the GPE logic is nonsense. Sadly and humorously, according to that logic, the blue plate is receiving all the “back-conduction” from the surrounding, touching, green plates, PLUS the 400 W from the electrical supply, so it must have a higher equilibrium temperature than 244 K.
“the blue plate is receiving all the “back-conduction” from the surrounding, touching, green plates”
Again, not at equilibrium, that’s zero. Nonzero only if the Fourier conduction law is bogus. Unfortunately for DREMT it’s worked fine since 1822.
Obviously DREMT has to ignore basic physics to write nonsense. 7 > 11 is not true just because DREMT writes it so.
Out.
Yes, the GPE logic has to ignore all sorts of basic physics with its nonsense. The plates should indeed be the same temperature at equilibrium, but the GPE logic insists, that blue plate is receiving energy via “back-conduction”, PLUS the 400 W from the electrical supply, so must have a higher equilibrium temperature than the 244 K.
fluffball could not present any physics to support his pseudoscience. All he could do was mention “Eli” and the fact the the 3 plates would act as one when pressed perfecrly together. He has NOTHING meaningful, only his usual fluff.
Great job bagging the fluff, DREMT!
The whole “back-conduction” fiasco is yet another bust for the GPE.
OK ..a few comments when the plates are pressed together.
The “blue plate” in the middle and the ‘green plates’ on either side will be *almost* (but not exactly) the same temperature (once a steady-state condition is achieved). If there was no temperature gradient, there would be no heat flow, and the blue plate would be warming up. For metal plates, this difference might be something like 0.01 K from the middle of the blue plate to the outside of the green plate. For many purposes we can ignore this difference, but it must be there. (Much like people often ignore voltage drops along wires, but there must be at least some voltage drop).
So there is a very small but real temperature difference.
The blue and green plates are almost the same temperature, so the atoms in each plate are vibrating similarly. And the atoms on the surface of each plate are colliding frequently. Some of those collisions will transfer energy from the blue plate to the green plate. Some of those collisions will transfer energy from the green plate to the blue plate. On the whole, the collisions will transfer 200 W/m^2 from each side of the blue plate to the green plates.
[If you want, I suppose you could call collisions from blue to green “forward conduction” and collisions from green to blue “back-conduction” and the net result simply “conduction”. It is not standard terminology, but it
The outsides of the green plates must be 244K K. The blue plate will be something like 244.1 K. The blue plate is slightly warmer.
If you pull the plates apart, the very efficient conduction of heat is suddenly halted and radiation must take over, which will be much less efficient. Since the plates are nearly the same temperature, the radiation from the warmer plate to the cooler plates will be a fraction of a W/m^2. This means that the blue plate is now gaining nearly 400 W/m^2 net, so it must warm up. Simultaneously, the green plates are losing nearly 200 W/^2 net, and will cool.
Incorrect, Tim. Even with perfect conductors, the powered blue plate is receiving the 400 W from the electrical supply, PLUS the “back-conduction” from each of the adjoining green plates. Whereas the green plates are ONLY receiving the energy from the blue plate via conduction on one side, and are losing energy via radiation on their outward facing sides. According to the GPE logic, the blue plate temperature must be higher than 244 K. Show your energy flow diagram, if you disagree.
After his usual long, mostly irrelevant, ramble, Tim ends up being totally incorrect:
“If you pull the plates apart, the very efficient conduction of heat is suddenly halted and radiation must take over, which will be much less efficient.”
Poor Tim is reduced to claiming the BB blue plate, at 244K, can not emit based on the S/B Law! Like with all clowns, he just makes up stuff as he goes.
“Since the plates are nearly the same temperature, the radiation from the warmer plate to the cooler plates will be a fraction of a W/m^2.”
Again, Tim denies the S/B Law (1-T), while swallowing the perversion of the S/B Law (2-Ts).
Nothing new.
“According to the GPE logic, the blue plate temperature must be higher than 244 K.”
Yes, the blue plate must be warmer than the green plates for heat to move from blue plate to green plate. That is basic thermodynamics — heat only moves from warmer areas to cooler areas.
For thin plates made of good thermal conductors (eg sheets of aluminum), that difference can be well below 1 K, so it is legitimate to say both are 244 K, even tho the green plate might be 243.8 K and the blue plate 243.9 K.
“Poor Tim is reduced to claiming the BB blue plate, at 244K, can not emit based on the S/B Law!”
No, I am claiming the blue plate at ~ 244 K emits ~200 W/m^2 toward the green plate, based on the SB law. And the green plate at ~ 244 K emits ~200 W/m^2 toward the blue plate, also based on the SB law. With ~ 200 W/m^2 going both directions, the net flow is ~ 0 W/m^2.
Incorrect, Tim. Even with perfect conductors, the powered blue plate is receiving the 400 W from the electrical supply, PLUS the “back-conduction” from each of the adjoining green plates. Whereas the green plates are ONLY receiving the energy from the blue plate via conduction on one side, and are losing energy via radiation on their outward facing sides. According to the GPE logic, the blue plate temperature must be significantly higher than 244 K. Show your energy flow diagram, if you disagree.
Now bob has faked an “experiment”.
The laughs just keep coming.
OK, Day 2. We’ve heard from a few of the old die-hard defenders of the indefensible. No surprises that they have no limit at all to what they are prepared to defend. Anybody else prepared to acknowledge that the Green Plate Effect is debunked? That’s the first step.
Heres how the Village Idiots debunk 11 > 7:
7 > 11.
Debunked.
DRsEMT and Huffingman denialist can’t prove their side of the argument is correct, while the Green Plate Effect is an easily observed fact, known as a reflective shield. So, as true tribal members, they simply declare victory, repeating their tribal chant(s). Having done so, they should pack it in, accept defeat and go home.
Swanson finally embraces reality: “…known as a reflective shield”
Correct, finally, Swanson. Or you could call it insulation. But you can’t call it a “black body” without violating the laws of physics. “Cold” does NOT warm “hot”.
A blanket warms a live body but not a dead body because in the case of the live body there is an energy source to perform the work necessary.
An example of cold warms hot.
Huffingman, I should have used the word “Radiation Shield” instead of reflective shield, which is a more inclusive term. There’s no such thing as a perfect reflector.
Gotta give you credit for being on the ball so early in the day (US time). You posted only 6 minutes after I did. Do you get paid to post your troll poop?
No bob, that’s just another example your don’t understand thermodynamics.
Swanson tries to cover his tracks: “I should have used the word “Radiation Shield’ instead of reflective shield…”
Yes Swanson, keep changing your story. You might get it right, someday….
The facts aren’t on your side, the laws of thermodynamics aren’t on your side, so keep pounding the table.
As usual, poor bob is 180° out.
His “facts” are seldom correct, but he keeps pounding the table.
Nothing new.
JD,
I see you are still espousing the intelligent photon theory.
“What happens to the photon is ONLY determined upon impact”
bobd…”A blanket warms a live body but not a dead body because in the case of the live body there is an energy source to perform the work necessary.
An example of cold warms hot”.
A blanket warms nothing, it simply slows the loss of heat via conduction. Radiation goes straight through it.
If you don’t feed the hot body under the blanket, it will no longer manufacture heat, and the body will slowly die. In that case, all the blanket will do is slow the cooling.
“all the blanket will do is slow the cooling.”
Thus measuring with blanket case an increased T at each time stamp over the case with no blanket. “Cold” can increase T of “hot” which is perfectly in accord with 2LOT as entropy increases.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
Testicle team, watch your language.
Testicle Team! That made me laugh. Thanks, Svante.
As an extension of the GPE logic, the three-plate problem leads to a ridiculous conclusion. None of you are disputing the conclusion, you willingly accept it; and indeed some of you actually try to defend it. This doesn’t change the fact that your position has been shown to be untenable. Your deep denial and refusal to acknowledge that is noted.
Ok DREMT 7 > 11 if you say so.
The GPE logic does lead to a conclusion almost as silly as claiming 7 > 11. That’s what people such as yourself are prepared to defend.
The theoretical team won’t get out of their ivory tower and perform experiments while the experimental team has already verified the green plate effect in the field.
Many times, many different ways.
Cold has been verified to warm hot in the presence of a thermodynamic source of work.
Which is in accordance with accepted statements of the second law of thermodynamics.
See?
See?
Yes I do see that one side has experimental evidence and one side is pounding the table.
There is just no limit to what you’re prepared to defend.
“Cold has been verified to warm hot in the presence of a thermodynamic source of work.”
Cold has also been verified to warm hot when NOT in the presence of a thermodynamic source of work; just turn off the lamp in E. Swanson’s test & observe nature defending the 1LOT.
Cold doesn’t warm hot only when DREMT says so since DREMT doesn’t care to defend the 1LOT.
46 – 101 K.
DREMT,
‘no limit to what youre prepared to defend’
You defending that JD is exempt from laws of physics is well over the limit of sanity.
Heat transfer results seems absurd to you?
So be it.
Thats a feeling, not evidence.
Nate, please try to get it through your head that your deliberate and desperate attempt to switch the focus onto alternative solutions is besides the point, and is seen for what it is (trolling). This is about a debunk of your (collectively) logic on the GPE. The validity of alternative solutions does not effect whether or not your solution is valid. Your GPE logic leads to this silly, obviously bogus conclusion. Basic problem-solving, reject that logic, try something else.
But you have to reject your logic first. You have to acknowledge that you are wrong. Then move on to the next step.
Dremt,
Declaring does not equal debunking
Debunking involves facts, evidence, valid physics.
I see no debunking here, except your debunking of JD with RHT equation.
Well, there’s no helping the wilfully blind.
Having looked at your gobbledegook for a time, and seeing that:
1. It disagrees with ordinary physics that I understand quite well.
2. You guys ignore the facts in #1 that several of us have repeatedly pointed out to you. Are u blind to it?
3. It is argued based on half-baked feelings and preconceived notions.
4. You guys cannot provide real sources that agree with u.
So yes, I no longer take it seriously.
Great, no further need for you to comment then.
Meanwhile, rational people will continue not to take a 46 – 101 K temperature increase of a powered blue plate simply by adding plates with no reflectivity or thermal resistance either side of it, seriously.
All good.
‘ 46 – 101 K temperature increase’
Why is this temperature increase not possible, DREMT?
Give us something more that just your gut feeling.
You know, Nate, I think there may have just been a teensy-weensy bit of discussion on here about that, already. Maybe go read it. But only if you’re taking it seriously, of course. If you’re not taking it seriously, like you said you weren’t, then don’t bother.
‘adding plates with no reflectivity or thermal resistance either’
Alright DREMT or JD,
Heres a problem from a basic physics textbook. Tell me what you find, then I’ll show you the back of the book answers:
a. Two thin 1 x 1 m metal sheets painted black are parallel and separated by 1 cm in vacuum. One sheet is held at room temperature, 293 K, and the other is held at 303 K.
Find the heat flow rate between them, dQ/dt. Assume emissivity of the sheets is 1 and view factor = 1.
b. Now the 1 cm gap is filled with Copper, with has a thermal conductivity of 400 W/mK. The temperatures rermain the same. What is the heat flow rate, dQ/dt, between them now?
c. If thermal resistance, R, is defined to be R = deltaT/(dQ/dt). Find R for cases a and b.
Equations from the chapter
conduction dQ/dT = Ak(T1-T2)/d A is cross sectional area, d is thickness.
radiation dQ/dT = A e sigma F12 (T1^4-T2^4), A is cross sectional area, e is emmisivity, F12 is view factor.
Well, we know your book is going to have the wrong answer because they’re using the bogus equation.
Nothing new.
Well then how would you solve this problem, JD?
It is solvable. What equations would you use that are not bogus?
DREMT,
This problem addresses your point about thermal resistance etc.
Did you figure it out?
If I show you the calculations, will you avoid commenting for 30 day?
Lets see what you got?
Do you agree to not comment here for the next 30 days, if I do?
JD,
I am confident part (a) cannot be solved without using the ‘bogus’ radiative heat transfer equation.
Feel free to prove me wrong. I know you can’t.
When I solve it, will you agree to not make any comments on this blog for 30 days?
If you can solve the problem without cheating and without using the ‘bogus’ equation, then everyone here will be impressed and will reconsider your troll status.
That ought to be reward enough.
Obviously you know I can solve it and that would mean you would have to stop spouting your nonsense here.
I think I’ve made my point….
Hilarious!
DREMT,
Here are the answers:
a. Using the RHT equation, we find dQ/dt = 60 W.
b. Using the conduction eqn with k = 400 W/mK, we find dQ/dt = 400,000 W. A lot more!
c. Thermal resistance for a. R = 10 K/60 W = 0.167 K/W.
For b. R = 10K/400,000 W = .000025 K/W.
As you can see, vacuum has a very high thrmal resistance, compared to metal.
Nate, if I show you why that solution is bogus, will you agree not to comment on this blog for 60 days?
Yeah, the price is going up. You’d better take advantage before the price goes up again. Plus, you could learn some physics.
Not interested in your games JD. If you can genuinely prove me wrong, you would have already done so.
You appear to be a little uncertain about your own pseudoscience.
You should be.
So, before I squash your bogus problem, what is the name, author, and publisher data for the “basic physics textbook”, with page reference to the problem?
JD,
All bluster, no answers to this genuine basic physics problem.
So, you get something other than 60 W heat flow between the plates at 293K and 303 K?
So, before I squash your bogus problem, what is the name, author, and publisher data for the “basic physics textbook”, with page reference to the problem?
You want answers from me? Not til I get ‘answers’ from you.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Dang: “Cold has been verified to warm hot in the presence of a thermodynamic source of work.”
Cold has also been verified to warm hot when NOT in the presence of a thermodynamic source of work; just turn off the lamp in E. Swanson’s test & observe nature defending the 1LOT.
Cold doesn’t warm hot only when DREMT says so since DREMT doesn’t care to defend the 1LOT.
46 – 101 K.
Ok DREMT 7 > 11 if you say so.
OK Ball4, 7 > 11 of you say so.
Nope I don’t ’cause I go with experiment which says 7 < 11
Sorry, allow me to correct myself:
OK Testicle4, 7 > 11 of you say so.
Norman says:
She’s a bit foul-mouthed though, isn’t she?
Sorry, allow me to correct myself:
OK Testicle4, 7 > 11 if you say so.
Svante quotes Norman’s childish paranoia.
Poor Svante, he’s so incompetent that he must hide behind his fake name to throw his slime.
Nothing new.
Clowns believe the Moon rotates on its own axis. In order to believe that, they must also believe a racehorse rotates on its axis.
Which they do.
They believe temperature can stack up in the atmosphere. In order to believe that, they must also believe temperature can stack up in the blue plate.
Which they do.
They much prefer their pseudoscience over reality.
Nothing new.
JD’s pseudoscience:
1)The fixed stars rotate around the nonrotating moon
2)The racetrack rotates around the nonrotating racehorse so the racehorse always faces same direction as on the front stretch so goes down the backstretch head first as observed
3)The blue plate temperature changing with added green plate defies the 1LOT, 2LOT and Plancks Law
4)Blackbody blue plate reflects all incident radiation from blackbody green plate
5)No proper experiments are ever necessary just JDs writing 7 > 11 debunks experiment
6)Fouriers conduction law gives same delta T answer plates together as Plancks radiation law plates separatedso Plancks law then was never needed.
I may have missed a few more, JD is prolific in pseudoscience.
JDHuffman says:
December 26, 2018 at 9:59 AM
Norman asks: Have you found any Astronomer that accepts your delusional BS?
Norman, what you fail to realize is astronomy is a very soft science. Just look at some of the nonsense: black holes, Big Bang, Drake equation, CMBR is from Big Bang, worm holes, Hubble equation, extraterrestrial life, the list goes on and on. Astronomy is probably the biggest source of pseudoscience .
“Norman asks: Have you found any Astronomer that accepts your delusional BS?”
The simpler answer would have been “yes”, as I’m sure you’ll be honest enough to admit, Svante.
Fluffball tries to misrepresent my words because that’s all he has.
Svante quotes me exactly, indicating he might have some minor appreciation for reality.
This is what you also believe if you believe the Moon doesn’t rotate around its own axis.
Proxima Centauri is 4.24 light years from the earth, and if the Moon is not rotating, then Proxima Centauri is revolving around the Moon with a path of 26.6 light years and a period of 1/13 of a year for a speed of 346 light years per year.
Obviously a ridiculous conclusion.
therefore by reductio ad absurdum, the moon rotates.
The moon is rotating, though, so your premise fails. It just isn’t rotating on its own axis. It is “rotating” (i.e “orbiting”) around the Earth. Nice try.
So now you have the problem of describing the axis the moon is rotating around.
Where is it?
Describe it.
The best description is going to involve the features of the Moon, so the conclusion is that the Moon is rotating around its own axis.
Glad we can clear that up.
It rotates, or perhaps “pivots” would be a better word, about the Earth-moon barycenter. This is known as “orbiting”.
bobd…”So now you have the problem of describing the axis the moon is rotating around”.
Not so. We know the Moon orbits in a precise plane and one side always faces us. Therefore, the axis must be perpendicular to the orbital plane or thereabouts.
Except the axis is not perpendicular to plane of the orbit.
Is tilted.
DREMT,
Spinning and orbiting are different motions.
The axis of the spin and the axis of the orbit are different.
That’s right. As the moon orbits the Earth, it’s tilted slightly. This leads to the libration of latitude. Think of it as though it were on the end of a string, the other end of the string attached to the Earth-moon barycenter. The string represents gravity. Nobody said the moon had to be perfectly “upright” as it orbits, and the libration that we view from Earth proves that it isn’t.
“Spinning and orbiting are different motions.
The axis of the spin and the axis of the orbit are different.“
That’s right again, bob. For instance, the Earth both spins and orbits, whereas the moon just orbits.
bob, Moon’s axis is defined by its orbit. It is NOT rotating on that axis. If it were, Earth would not always see the same side.
Don’t worry if you can’t understand. It involves orbital physics.
What I am saying DREMT,
Is that the axis the Moon is rotating around is best described in terms of the features of the Moon, not the earth-moon barycenter, not even the orbit of the Moon around the earth.
Jd,
You are hopelessly confused, I wish I could help.
The orbit of the Moon has nothing to do with the axis the Moon is rotating about.
sorry
Yes, I’m aware of what you’re saying bob, that’s why I corrected you.
As stated bob, you can’t understand it. It involves orbital physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.tif
The axis the Moon rotates around the earth and the axis the Moon rotates around are not parallel, hence two different axes, hence two different motions.
The moon both rotates and spins around two different axes.
JD, that’s what your link shows, notice it show the moon’s own axis.
As the moon orbits the Earth, it’s tilted slightly. This leads to the libration of latitude. Think of it as though it were on the end of a string, the other end of the string attached to the Earth-moon barycenter. The string represents gravity. Nobody said the moon had to be perfectly “upright” as it orbits, and the libration that we view from Earth proves that it isn’t.
Wrong again, bob. You don’t understand the simple diagram.
One axis is a line perpendicular to the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The other axis is a line perpendicular to the plane of the Moon’s orbit around Earth.
JD,
The diagram clearly shows the axis of the Moon being not perpendicular to the orbit of the Moon around the earth.
You can even see that 5.14 + 1.54 = 6.68
This
“The other axis is a line perpendicular to the plane of the Moon’s orbit around Earth.”
Is not the axis the moon is spinning around.
Sorry
Except DREMT,
In order for the moon to be spinning around the same axis that it is rotating around the earth, this statement must be true.
“Nobody said the moon had to be perfectly upright as it orbits, and the libration that we view from Earth proves that it isnt.”
It’s the team that says the moon rotates around the same axis as it spins around, which is the moon doesn’t rotated club, which is you and JD and at least one other.
It’s simple really, the moon rotates around the earth with a different axis than it spins around, as your statement above says about the libration.
Two different axes, two different motions, the Moon both orbits and rotates on its own axis.
“The diagram clearly shows the axis of the Moon being not perpendicular to the orbit of the Moon around the earth.”
That’s right, bob. What they think of as the axis of the Moon is tilted 1.54 degrees.
“You can even see that 5.14 + 1.54 = 6.68”
Right again, bob. You’re really starting to pick up the basics. The 5.14 is the difference between the lunar orbit plane and what is referred to as the “ecliptic” plane. When you take both these differences into account, you end up with the libration of latitude that I referred to.
You’re on the wrong axis, bob. The 5.14° is the one perpendicular to the orbital plane.
(Sheesh, can’t you understand the simple graphic?)
bob d “Except the axis is not perpendicular to plane of the orbit.
Is tilted.”
And so is the Earth’s axis tilted 23 degrees to its orbital plane. The difference is, the Earth rotates around that axis and the Moon does not rotate about its axis. It can’t if the same side always faces the Earth.
Rotation about an axis implies an angular velocity of a radial line about that axis. If the Moon has one face always pointed to the Earth, a radial line from the Moon’s axis to that face is not turning. If it was turning, the face would have to rotate through 360 degrees which it clearly does not.
The motion exhibited by the Moon is the same as the motion it would exhibit traveling in a straight line, with the same face toward the observer, which would be rectilinear translation.
However, the Moon is traveling along a curved path with the same face always toward the observer and that motion is called curvilinear translation.
It is an illusion that the Moon is rotating about its axis, an impossibility since all points on the Moon, including the axis, are traveling parallel to each other along a tangential line that changes each instant due to gravitational force.
If you don’t understand the linear momentum of the Moon and it’s interaction with gravitational acceleration, you will be fooled into thinking the Moon is rotating once per orbit about its axis.
Don’t worry, it has fooled scientists at NASA. Nicola Tesla was not fooled, however.
““It is an illusion that the Moon is rotating about its axis”
The moon is not the center of the universe, the stars are fixed so the moon rotates on its own axis. Tesla was not an astronomer.
Non-sequitur, Testicle4.
“It is an illusion that the Moon is rotating about its axis, an impossibility since all points on the Moon, including the axis, are traveling parallel to each other along a tangential line that changes each instant due to gravitational force.
If you don’t understand the linear momentum of the Moon and it’s interaction with gravitational acceleration, you will be fooled into thinking the Moon is rotating once per orbit about its axis.”
And here’s a series of animations, which help to illustrate what Gordon is saying:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Gordon shrieks:
“However, the Moon is traveling along a curved path with the same face always toward the observer and that motion is called curvilinear translation.”
WRONG! Gordon once again proves his stupidity by making up his own definition of curvilinear translation.
The real definition:
“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]
With Gordon’s moon example, if you draw a line through the equator of the moon, that line DOES NOT remain parallel to its original position throughout its motion.
And secondly, with curvilinear translation the velocities of any two points on his moon must be the same. In his case the velocity of inside face of the moon is slower than the velocity of the outside face (farthest point from the center of orbit). So his moon example is NOT curvilinear translation by failing to meet both requirements.
Poor Gordon. Always making a fool of himself.
And yet, regardless of semantics, the answer’s in this comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345410
“Stupid” won’t link to one of his earlier links from MIT. The link had an example of a toy train on an oval track. The example clearly stated that an object on the train would NOT be rotating on its axis. Orbital motion (moving around a distant point) does NOT produce “rotating on its own axis”. That’s why a racehorse is not rotating on its axis, as it runs an oval track.
But, the “Spinners”, and “Plate Warmers”, reject reality.
Nothing new.
Poor JD has still not gotten over Postma throwing him and his moon non-rotation nonsense under the bus.
Hilarious!
The reason clowns tend to mention other people is that they have nothing else. What “Stupid” fails to realize is that Moon rotating nonsense comes from Institutionalized Pseudoscience. Like AGW/GHE, and several other issues, he could find thousands of people supporting the nonsense. Bill Nye, Al Gore, are just two that come to mind. Thousands of people being wrong does not make a clown right.
Stupid cannot even admit to the MIT link he found. In typical clown behavior, he found a link that he couldnt understand. The link indicated Stupid was wrong. Now, he must deny his own link. Not only must he avoid reality, and facts, and logic, he must now avoid the link he found.
Nothing new.
Get a tennis ball and mark a red dot at its equator. Grasp the tennis ball in your hand and perform a 1/4 CCW orbit making the red dot always face the center of orbit. You have to rotate the tennis ball 90 degrees on its own axis to make the 1/4 orbit.
Hold the tennis ball in your hand without making any orbit. Rotate it 90 degrees CCW on its own axis That is the same rotation as when making the above 1/4 orbit.
Poor Team Dork. So, so dumb.
Couldn’t follow the animations? The cannonball is moving without spin. It moves as per the moon.
So the moon moves without spin. Issue settled.
“Stupid”, are you still confused about orbital motions?
A racehorse, making a lap, always has the same side facing the inside of the track. But a viewer in the stands (outside the track) will see all sides of the horse during the lap. So an uneducated person in the stands might actually believe the horse is “rotating on its own axis”. That would be a really stupid belief, however.
Several other clowns used to believe “rotating on its own axis” was a matter of frame of reference. But, a twin prop airplane can adjust both props to have the same RPM. So, one prop is not rotating on its axis, RELATIVE to the other. Now, stick your arm in the prop, since it is “not rotating on its axis”. You will qualify for “handicap parking”.
It’s the same with the Moon. “Rotating on its own axis” is NOT a matter of frame of reference. But, stupid people just can’t learn.
“stick your arm in the prop”
I stuck my arm in the prop JD, and there was no damage to the prop or my arm since I understand relative motion. Everything’s just fine, you just don’t know what you are talking about & probably did or will lose an arm because of your misunderstanding of relative motion.
The moon is not the center of the universe so the moon rotates on its own axis. A viewer inside the race track and a viewer outside the race both see the horse having rotated on its axis 1/2 turn to go down the backstretch because the racetrack is also not rotating about the horse, same concept. Horses, racecars and locomotives turn in the turns which MIT link should have taught you. No surprise it didn’t. Learn some physics or remain the blog’s humorous entertainer.
fluffball is so ignorant, he probably don’t even know if the prop engine was running or not.
Yoo just can’t help stupid.
What is amazing is Team Dork is proud of their stupidity. They wear it on their sleeve.
I stuck my arm in the 2700rpm unfeathered 3 bladed prop, JD, at both engine runup, and there was no damage to the prop or my arm since I understand relative motion.
Sorry to hear about your own recent airplane accident. You will have to draw cartoons now with one arm after you get out of the hospital, better learn some relative motion principles before you lose the other arm.
I know you lost your job as a horse jockey too, having kept the horse nonrotating & running down the backstretch tail first. So hope you get re-employed in some other profession but I’d avoid astronomy and thermodynamics in your position. I hear your nearby circus is hiring summer help though.
When reality backs fluffball into a corner, he just pulls out his magic fluff. With his magic fluff, he believes he can erase reality.
It only works on blogs.
And now fluffball has a tag-along, “Stupid”. Talk about a “perfect match”!
I guess I’ll have to go back to Postma’s site and try and get “Ger-Anne” banned, since every term he calls me, he is calling Postma the same.
Well “Stupid”, are you a tag-along to Postma, as well as fluffball?
Testicle4 and SkepticGoneRefusingToCommentOnAnythingButTheMoon say some random, disjointed combinations of words that have no particular relevance to anything.
JD and DREMT continue to comment at exactly the same time, on multiple threads, due to some bizarre coincidence, sparking much controversy.
😊
Yeah DREMT, the clowns believe were are the same person. It’s a good thing we commented at exactly the same time. That’ll throw them off!
☺
Uber Dork moans:
“..regardless of semantics…”
In science/physics/kinematics, words have precise meanings. If you can’t understand the simple concept of translation, which the dolt Gordon and his Team Dork morons have not since day 1, then one will not understand the concept of rotation either.
Animations.
Around 1346 W/m2 arrives at the atmosphere.
Around 1000 W/m2 arrives at the surface.
Pseudoscientific nutters believe that 1000 W/m2 makes a thermometer hotter than 1346 W/m2.
Or that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter!
That’s why the pseudoscientific nutters blather about plates, heaters, overcoats, pot lids, Clausius, Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, and anything else that can divert attention away from the blindingly obvious – that reducing the amount of energy heating a thermometer makes it cool down, not heat up!
Wait for nightfall – cooling will come.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says:
“Wait for nightfall cooling will come”.
Attenuated by the GHE, thankfully.
Svante
The US country is by no means a representative example for global aspects, but… here are some recently generated TMIN anomalies wrt 1981-2010 for the entire US area (CONUS+AK), for the period 1900-2019.
The following top 10 you never see when producing time series based on TAVG measurements, let alone on TMAX.
Yearly lowest minima in C:
1917 12 -3.54
1936 2 -3.47
1910 2 -3.36
1979 2 -3.25
1909 12 -2.81
1918 1 -2.63
1916 12 -2.60
1904 1 -2.24
1971 3 -2.24
1905 2 -2.23
Yearly highest minima in C:
2015 12 2.69
2016 3 2.45
2014 12 2.44
2016 2 2.30
2000 2 1.90
2016 1 1.87
2015 10 1.86
2017 2 1.83
2015 11 1.83
2016 4 1.77
Cela dit tout, n’est-ce pas?
Source as usual:
http://tinyurl.com/mlsy22x
Good evidence Bindidon.
S,
Maybe you could comment on something I wrote, rather than something I didn’t?
Maybe you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, but realise how ridiculous you would appear if you actually said so!
Give it a try. Don’t be surprised if the sound you hear is sardonic laughter.
Cheers.
“Maybe you could comment on something I wrote, rather than something I didnt?”
And maybe you could comment on something that we actually wrote!
“Maybe you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter”
No, that is not what we believe. No one has ever said this. But you can’t understand science or subtly, so you continue to comment on things we don’t write. And then ironically, you complain in he same post about how terrible that is.
Tim, the things you do write are often somewhere between incorrect and nonsensical. You can’t even admit a racehorse is not rotating on it axis.
Just some more reality for you.
JD, when you can describe a “non-rotating moon in an elliptical orbit”, then we can talk.
The simple fact is that the moon is in an elliptical orbit and it does NOT turn on its axis at the same rate as it orbits around the earth. The angle swept out around the earth by the moon relative to the stars changes (greatest angular speed when close to the earth; least angular speed when farthest from the earth). But the angle swept out by a point on the surface of the moon around its axis relative to the stars is constant).
Since the angular speeds are not the same, there is no way they can be “the same motion”.
Tim says: “JD, when you can describe a “non-rotating moon in an elliptical orbit”, then we can talk.”
Even better Tim, I can give you a visual. Go to any car race or horserace. You will find a “non-rotating object in an elliptical orbit”.
The rest of your comment was somewhere between incorrect and nonsensical, as usual.
Tim,
If I understand you correctly, then you do not believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (ie between the sun and the surface) increases the temperature of the surface.
I agree. Increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer does not make the thermometer hotter. Quite the reverse.
If my understanding is wrong, maybe you could write down what you are really trying to say.
By the way, who or what is this “we” you mention?
You and . . . ? The likes of Hansen, Mann, and Schmidt? Or possibly other deranged nutters who also cannot state what they “believe”!
No CO2 heating. No global warming due to increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer. Pseudoscientific folderol – pap fed to the stupid and gullible. Slurp away.
Cheers.
“If I understand you correctly, then you do not believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (ie between the sun and the surface) increases the temperature of the surface.”
Ah but you don’t fully understand. CO2 warms because it is between the warm surface and space. CO2 cools because it is between the hot sun and the warm surface. Two different, competing effects. The question then becomes which effect is larger.
Since CO2 is nearly transparent to incoming sunlight, it has almost no cooling effect. (The 1370 vs 1000 you mention is primarily due to clouds, not CO2 as you implied.) On the other hand, CO2 does absorb outgoing IR rather effectively, meaning it is capable of significant warming of the surface (by restricting the outflow of energy from the surface).
The calculations show that the warming effect is indeed larger than the cooling effect. We can discuss that question, but only after you understand what the issues actually are.
Tim,
According to NASA, about 48% of incoming radiation reaches the surface. The maximum percentage is higher, of course. Up to about 70%.
However, you claim that CO2 cools in the presence of sunlight. Nonsense. Sunlight is about 52 – 55% infrared. Good luck with reducing the temperature of CO2 by putting it in the sun.
At night, CO2 cools, regardless of what pseudoscientific dance you wish to,do.
CO2 reaches equilibrium with its environment, as does all other matter. It doesn’t matter where the heat source is.
As to your unstated and imaginary “calculations”, the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. What pseudoscientific climatological calculation agrees with observed fact? None at all?
Remain enmeshed in your fantasy. You won’t have to face inconvenient facts, will you?
Cheers.
“It doesn’t matter where the heat source is.”
It matters to your energy bill if your furnace is inside or outside your house. CO2 warms air when it is placed in the air between the thermometer and an IR source. Tyndall’s thermometers measured 5F of warming in that manner.
B,
You wrote –
“It matters to your energy bill if your furnace is inside or outside your house. CO2 warms air when it is placed in the air between the thermometer and an IR source. Tyndalls thermometers measured 5F of warming in that manner.”
You pseudoscientific loonies can’t help talking about houses, furnaces, overcoats and all sorts of pointless and irrelevant nonsense, can you? I don’t have a furnace – how would my energy bill change?
As to Tyndall, you’re a delusional nutter. Read what he wrote – after he realised what he got wrong earlier.
Cheers.
“However, you claim that CO2 cools in the presence of sunlight. “
No, I claim CO2 blocks some sunlight from reaching the ground. Less sunlight to the ground would cool the GROUND. This is exactly the effect you keep pounding — that anything between a source of light and a surface absorbing the light will have a cooling effect on the surface.
“At night, CO2 cools, regardless of what pseudoscientific dance you wish to,do.”
Of course it does, no matter what red herrings you invoke. Everyone agrees. Climate science and thermodynamics agrees. You keep stating obvious things as if only you know them, as if others disagree with the few things you say that are correct.
So Tim now understands that CO2 cools during the day, and cools at night.
Mike is a good teacher.
Right, here we are, Day 3. It’s clear that the usual suspects are going to carry on doing what they do, no matter what. Well, that’s only to be expected. Anybody else prepared to accept that the Green Plate Effect is debunked? That’s the first step.
Not without experimental evidence.
So get to it.
bobd…”Not without experimental evidence.”
Why do you need experimental evidence when the author of the thought experiment supplied none and the 2nd law makes it clear that radiation from the green plate has no effect on the blue plate.
The 2LOT insists that incident radiation from the green plate HAVE an effect on the blue plate in order to increase its entropy. 2LOT is just not well understood by Gordon.
Because the original thought experiment does not rely on the intelligent photon theory and uses the well established 2nd law not the improper 2nd law you are referring to.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345261
Come on bob, you can have a go at drawing this diagram, too. One of you can post a link to it when you’re done, like JD’s.
Only if you quote the second law of thermodynamics for me.
But anyway, I would remove the arrows of reflection from JD’s diagram. Cause black-bodies don’t reflect.
Cool story.
But anyway, back to my point, why don’t you have a go at drawing the “conduction” energy flow diagram. Post it up when you’re done.
bob, based on your past comments here, it’s unlikely you will ever understand 2LoT, or the simple diagram.
JD,
How can you hope to convince someone you understand the second law of thermodynamics if you can’t even quote it.
I’m not trying to convince anyone of my knowledge of 2LoT. I just showing that clowns don’t have a clue about it.
And, it has been an easy task.
Nope,
You have only demonstrated that you are totally confused about the second law.
Anyone who can quote any of the myriad ways the second law can be stated knows that right off.
You just know the wrong version.
See how easy it is Bozo?
Most of the time I just let the clowns reveal how little they know about physics. As you have just done again.
Since you can’t even state one version of the second law of thermodynamics, I can conclude you don’t know what it is.
You could prove me wrong, but I don’t think you know the second law of thermodynamics.
I predict you will say you know all about it but will not post it.
Wait you have already done that.
Can’t even cut and paste it.
If I quote 2LoT for you, will you agree to make no comments on this blog for 30 days?
If you can correctly state the second law and admit that you were wrong about it, then I will not post here for 30 days.
bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
I guess that’s a no to my offer to stop posting/trolling.
Any counter offer?
Post it up when you’re done.
So neither of you knows what the second law of thermodynamics states?
I guess I’ll keep posting then.
Or you could post the second law and state that enthalpy transfer from cold is possible.
Or continue to be ignorant, or go back to school.
Post a link to the diagram, when you’re done.
ball4…GR…”heat is lost
ball3…demotion…”Then if heat is lost, heat must have moved”.
Have you ever heard of heat dissipation? Or a change of state from one form of energy to another?
danged wordpress filters.
Let me t.u..t.o.r you on the Con.s.e.r.v.ation of Energy Law.
Energy can neither be created nor de.s.t.r.o.y.ed…right?? Therefore it must change state into an.other form of energy. When most energy pr.o..c.es.s.es change state, they change into heat.
If a heated body loses heat through con.v.e.rsion to EM, that heat must be lost otherwise there would be per.p.etual motion, or energy created from nothing. That’s the basis of AGW.
You cannot move heat and have it converted to another form at the same time. Heat can be dis.s.i.pated by transf.e.r.ring the heat to a cooler body via conduction of convection, or converting it into another form of energy like EM.
Don’t worry too much, ball3, I was confused about science as well, back around grade 6.
“Have you ever heard of heat dissipation?… transf.e.r.ring the heat to a cooler body”
Only incorrectly, actually in science thermodynamic internal energy is dissipated to other objects meaning a reduction in the measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE.
If as you write heat is dissipated or transferred, then the object’s heat moved off leaving the object behind as you also correctly say that heat “doesn’t move.”
Your stories oppose each other by using the heat term incorrectly in modern day. So correctly start to use enthalpy term which apparently is not understood by Gordon who has been confused about heat & thermodynamics since the 6th grade.
ball3…”Only incorrectly, actually in science thermodynamic internal energy is dissipated to other objects meaning a reduction in the measure of the objects constituent particle total KE.”
You are blathering. Both internal energy and KE are heat. The descriptors ‘internal’ and ‘kinetic’ tell you nothing about the energy they describe. They are generic terms, one telling you the energy is inside and the other telling you the energy is in motion.
What energy is inside and what energy is in motion? It’s thermal energy…aka heat.
Have you never noticed that the law relating U as internal energy to Q as heat and W as work is called the 1st law of THERMODYNAMICS. Thermodynamics is the study of heat, which you claim does not exist.
Why would the 1st law have a term called heat (Q) if Q means kinetic energy according to you. Why not just call it KE?
When you claim that temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms in a body you are in essence claiming temperature is a relative measure of heat.
Ask anyone you know what a thermometer measures and I’ll bet you dollars to donuts they will tell you a thermometer measures heat.
HEAT IS THE KINETIC ENERGY OF ATOMS, not a measure, it is the kinetic energy.
“Why would the 1st law have a term called heat (Q) if Q means kinetic energy according to you. Why not just call it KE?”
Q is the rate of energy transferred into the particles of a solid object by virtue of a temperature difference increasing the measure of the objects total constituent particle KE known as the thermodynamic internal energy. None of the particles from the other solid object transferred, their KE was reduced in place.
This is the answer to your question. This energy transfer happens both ways in any such process, the net direction is determined by direction of system entropy increase which the whole reason the 2LOT was developed.
“When you claim that temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of atoms in a body you are in essence claiming temperature is a relative measure of heat.”
No Gordon. Temperature is a measure of the avg. KE of the particles in an object, thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy is a measure of the total KE of the particles in a body. For an atm. gas, the total thermodynamic internal energy goes by the name of enthalpy.
Understanding this is important to show where you are many times wrong writing about atm. thermodynamics. If you understood all this, then you could use the heat term correctly but you do not.
The easiest way NOT to ever be wrong about its use is not to ever use the term at all.
“The easiest way NOT to ever be wrong about its use is not to ever use the term at all.”
Testicle4 reveals his true intent. The abolition of the word “heat” would make his job so much easier. Too bad it’s not going away any time soon.
To add to what Ball4 said,
You can state all 4 laws of thermodynamics correctly without using the term heat.
Naturally, bob’s in favour of the idea.
You need to be converted to Kristianity,
heat is only ever in motion, never a property of particle, substance or body.
Shhh, bob! Don’t use the “h” word.
Ball4 says, March 14, 2019 at 10:11 PM:
Not quite. Q is equal to the amount of energy transferred into (or out of) a thermodynamic system (doesn’t have to be solid, troll) by virtue of the temperature difference between the system and its surroundings from t_i to t_f. Also known as … *drumroll* … HEAT.
Again, not quite there. The internal energy [U] of a thermodynamic system includes BOTH its constituent particle KE AND its constituent particle PE:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/inteng.html
Nope. The easiest way to never be wrong about its use is to … LEARN its proper use. YOU refuse to learn it, troll, so YOU should indeed avoid using it.
We who know how to use it, however, use it for a reason: CLARITY.
bobdroege says, March 15, 2019 at 10:10 AM:
No, bob. All you need to do to understand how the things you point out here are in fact true is to learn some basic THERMODYNAMICS.
It’s not called “Kristianity”, bob, even though I’m flattered by the recognition; it’s called THERMODYNAMICS.
While on the subject, how’s that reading of yours going, BTW?
“Also known as *drumroll* … HEAT.”
Not heat which is never contained in an object Kristian, you correctly wrote: Q is equal to the amount of energy transferred into (or out of) a thermodynamic system over a certain time period (so Q is really a rate) which would not be correct had you used the heat term. Delta U = +/-Q +/- W per unit time over which the change in U is of interest. Q can be positive or negative, heat is always positive.
PE is not thermodynamic internal (thermal) energy which is total constituent particle KE. PE, chemical, nuclear, EM are examples of non-thermodynamic energy also contained in any system.
Heat term never adds clarity as so many misuse it including Kristian. If commenters do not use heat term, they are 100% certain not to misuse it. Why bother? Never a need to use the heat term.
Kristian,
True of false,
The following statement is from Zemansky
“Heat is either internal energy or enthalpy in transit…”
Somewhere in this thread I kinda thanked you for you thermo text and have been reading it. The thermodynamics teachers I learned from in order to get a chemistry degree weren’t so hung up on the use of the term heat.
And I can use webster’s definition of heat if I want to, instead of Zemansky’s.
bob, for your further reading, Zemansky updated his thoughts on heat term with 32 years more experience after Kristians linked original text:
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.2351512
and
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1341254
“All the dictionaries, of course, are solidly against me, including those of Microsoft. With Bill Gates on the other side, it looks like a losing battle…heat is not a noun nor a verb, let’s get rid of the word entirely.”
Fine with me. I’m all for clarity in thermodynamics discussions which is rare in these comments.
Now Kristian, let’s be honest – if I just ask Testicle4 and bobdruggy to please stop trolling at this point…won’t it ultimately be a more rewarding and succinct conclusion than any interminable back and forth that might occur here otherwise?
Ball4 says, March 15, 2019 at 3:22 PM:
Exactly. Heat is never contained in an object. That’s the internal energy [U]. Rather, heat is always in transit BETWEEN objects or regions (at different temperatures). Because Q (heat), like W (work), is specifically defined as a process or path function/variable, whereas U (internal energy) is specifically defined as a state function/variable:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/15-1-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics/
Good to see you’re finally catching on, troll.
bobdroege says, March 15, 2019 at 3:41 PM:
True, of course. The operative word being “transit”. Like I told you upthread, heat is not some special kind of energy. It’s just energy. But it’s not just ANY quantity of energy, not just ANY bunch of photons or phonons moving around.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html
“One key idea (…) is that if you are presented with a high temperature gas, you cannot tell whether it reached that high temperature by being heated, or by having work done on it, or a combination of the two.
To describe the energy that a high temperature object has, it is not a correct use of the word heat to say that the object “possesses heat” – it is better to say that it possesses internal energy as a result of its molecular motion. The word heat is better reserved to describe the process of transfer of energy from a high temperature object to a lower temperature one. Surely you can take an object at low internal energy and raise it to higher internal energy by heating it. But you can also increase its internal energy by doing work on it, and since the internal energy of a high temperature object resides in random motion of the molecules, you can’t tell which mechanism was used to give it that energy.”
Which is why the (correct) use of the term heat brings clarity to thermodynamic discussions rather than confusion. It simply helps you distinguish between processes.
Ball4 says, March 15, 2019 at 4:11 PM:
Our in-house Don Quixote is out lying and quote mining again, I see. Nothing new under the sun.
Troll, that second essay was NOT (!!!) written by Zemansky, now was it? It was written by a Robert H. Romer. It says so right at the top.
He references Zemansky, but Zemansky himself hasn’t changed his mind. Why would he? He, after all, KNOWS the correct physical definition of heat [Q].
Romer is complaining that hardly anyone seems to agree with HIM that the term should be abolished.
What Romer is doing is lamenting the confusion surrounding (and hence apparent misuse of) the term out there among the public. That’s not to say that physicists working in the field of thermodynamics don’t know perfectly well what it means, what it is and what it isn’t. The people having actually defined the term know what it is and how to use it. Common people might not, but that doesn’t thereby invalidate the strictly physical term and its use. It just shows how most people are ignorant about most things. Because they’ve never bothered to read up on them …
But just because YOU find a term confusing, troll, doesn’t mean it IS. And just because YOU find it confusing, it doesn’t mean that everyone should therefore stop using it, in order to somehow relieve YOU of YOUR confusion.
Kristian says: on Mar.16,2019 at 1:50AM “Our in-house Don Quixote is out lying and quote mining again … Troll, that second essay was NOT (!!!) written by Zemansky … just because YOU find a term confusing, troll, doesn’t mean it IS. …”
Ouch. The Ball4 troll gets smacked down and schooled AGAIN by Kristian.
“second essay was NOT (!!!) written by Zemansky, now was it?”
Correct, written by another author seeking clarity in thermodynamics. There are many more.
Does list some other experts in thermodynamics that also seek clarity in the subject; Zemansky improved so others can too.
Glad Kristian took the time to read them, absorbing them is another thing as now Kristian (or anyone who bothers to read up on the subject) has no excuse for ever using the term if Kristian or they seek clarity in thermodynamics discussions. But of course, clarity is not a requirement for commenting around here….witness REO2.
Kristian’s source writes: “food is converted into heat transfer”. Thats a new misuse of the term I haven’t ever encountered.
—
Kristian writes: “Because Q (heat)”
Kristian’s source writes: “Q is the net heat”
That’s an example of confusion not clarity.
—–
Kristian’s source implies Q leaving an object is negative, but heat is always positive; logically Q thus cannot be heat. More confusion.
—–
Article writes for Q: “energy transferred because of a temperature difference”
which is clear; energy transfer can be positive (entering) or negative (exiting).
Kristian should pay close attention to modern Zemansky and Romer articles, track down the complete text.
Ball4 says, March 16, 2019 at 12:41 PM:
Hehe. No, Don. As usual you’re simply projecting YOUR confusion onto others.
Nope. It’s just another example of YOUR confusion, Don.
Again: YOU’RE the confused one here. Not us.
Nope. Heat LOSS [Q_out] is negative, heat GAIN [Q_in] is positive. The balance between the two is called the NET heat [Q_net, or just Q].
LOL! Yes, on YOUR part, Don. Only on YOUR part.
The rest of us, we who know what heat actually is, are just laughing. At YOU.
Indeed. And that energy which is transferred because of a temperature difference is called HEAT. Equally clear.
We’re not getting your problem with this concept, Don.
But do keep chasing those windmills. Entertainment for all of us …
Ball4 says, March 16, 2019 at 9:17 AM:
So the troll plainly admits it lied, then pretends that makes no difference at all, and so simply reverts to its trolling, as if nothing had happened.
Good work, troll, highlighting what a troll you truly are.
Anything more to say on this particular issue?
“And that energy which is transferred because of a temperature difference is called HEAT.”
Not for the energy transferred because of a temperature difference cold to hot object. What would Kristian call that energy? Cold? Colding the hot object I suppose. The atm. is then colding the surface.
Obviously it is Kristian confused on the subject of heat. Kristian should learn from modern Zemansky and Romer. Heat is neither a noun nor a verb in thermodynamics; the term heat is unneeded to be clear in the field of thermodynamics and many times leads to confusion as Kristian repeatedly demonstrates.
Kristian shows no interest in adding clarity to the subject of atm. thermodynamics by correctly using enthalpy.
Told you so.
Gordo wrote:
No, perpetual motion implies no dissipation, which is not what happens with AGW or the Green Plate Effect. That’s because in either case, the system is continually supplied with energy from an external source. Remove that external source and both systems lose energy and cool toward thermal equilibrium with their surroundings. The net energy flow is always from high temperature to low.
Or, in a perversion of 2LoT, you can pull the three plates slightly apart and raise the temperature by 46 degrees C (83 degrees F), with no additional energy being added.
Of course, in pseudoscience, you can do anything.
That’s why clowns abhor reality.
“Or, in a perversion of 2LoT, you can pull the three plates slightly apart and raise the temperature by 46 degrees C”
That could be a perversion of 1LOT which JD is not capable of understanding or proving else JD would do so.
Actually both 1st and 2nd LoTs, as well as Conservation of Energy, are violated. A lot of physics gets perverted.
But, I like to emphasize 2LoT, because it really destroys the pseudoscience from you clowns.
Your diagram has heat transfer without a temperature difference.
That a Bozo no-no according to the laws of thermodynamics.
Maybe you could figure out which law I am talking about now.
JD likes to misapply 2LOT (and 1LOT, and Planck et. al.) or JD wouldn’t be so entertaining. Keep up the entertainment JD, next year’s Oscars are wide open at the moment.
Wrong again, bob.
You’re confusing conductive with radiative.
Two distinctive different happenings.
No JD,
I am not confusing anything, you can’t have conduction or radiative heat transfer(net) without a temperature difference, that’s the last law of thermodynamics usually called the zeroth law.
Bozo says you are not getting the spoon into the glass, even though you are pounding the table you still miss the first spoon, so there’s no way the second spoon gets launched, and no way it lands in the glass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium
Clown, you are using the “intelligent photon” concept. You are saying photons don’t leave a surface unless they can “see” something that will absorb them
Funny.
Don’t learn any physics. We like you as a silly clown too much.
My name is Bozo
I am a clown
Cause I know more physics than you.
Okay, I’ll call you “Bozo” from now on.
Works for me….
bobdroege says, March 15, 2019 at 9:04 AM:
Oh, yes, you are, bob. You show your confusion in the very next thing you write:
There is no such thing as a NET radiative heat transfer between two regions at different temperatures.
The net radiative transfer/flux in this case is specifically DEFINED AS *the radiative heat*.
“Net heat” [Q_net] is something distinctly different.
This is part of what you need to learn in order for you to understand that IR from the surface is FAR from being the main heater of the atmosphere.
Are you reading up on this subject, bob? It sure doesn’t look like you are …
“This is part of what you need to learn in order for you to understand that IR from the surface is FAR from being the main heater of the atmosphere.”
This is part of what Kristian needs to learn in order for Kristian to understand that IR from the atm. is FAR from being the main colder of the surface.
Are you reading & absorbing Zemansky and Romer on this subject, Kristian? It sure doesn’t look like you are…
Quibbles about definitions is all you got Kristian,
Is it ok if I say there is no radiant heat between two objects without a temperature difference.
I was talking about a specific diagram which had radiant heat with no temperature difference.
Is that better for you?
Surely I wouldn’t want you to misunderstand the problem.
and the radiant heat from the surface is the main reason the atmosphere has a higher temperature.
You want me to put that in bold all caps so you understand it more better?
swannie…”perpetual motion implies no dissipation, which is not what happens with AGW or the Green Plate Effect”.
My point was this: if a body emits EM and does not cool, that would be perpetual motion. You agree.
That’s exactly what AGW implies, in one of its version. It claims that heat converted at the Earth’s surface as high temperature, short wave EM from the Sun, to long wave IR, that IR can be absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere and reflected back so as to increase the temperature of the surface.
Since the GHGs are at a lower temperature than the surface, that represents not only perpetual motion, it contradicts the 2nd law.
The green plate does the same. It theoretically increases the temperature of the blue plate, which is energy from nothing (no losses) and is most definitely perpetual motion.
The fact that the Sun replenishes surface heat has nothing to do with it. If the Sun suddenly stopped shining, the surface would cool despite there being GHGs in the atmosphere. According to your model, the surface would never cool because feedback from the GHGs would not only replenish heat loss it would raise the temperature of the surface.
“It claims that heat converted at the Earths surface as high temperature, short wave EM from the Sun”
This demonstrates Gordon’s misuse of the term heat. If Gordon stopped using the term, Gordon could not possibly demonstrate its misuse.
SW energy (which is not heat as Gordon so often writes) from the sun that is absorbed by the earth surface increases the earth’s thermodynamic internal energy, same process as LW from the atm. that is absorbed by the earth surface increases the earth’s thermodynamic internal energy. The net direction of system energy flow is determined by which direction increases system entropy. Thus there is no contradiction of 2LOT, calculated net energy flows from the warmer surface to the cooler atm. in very near global steady state equilbrium.
“reflected back”
About 5%, 95% is emitted toward surface. No perpetual motion, ~steady state as long as sun exists in present form.
B,
You wouldn’t be so silly as to believe that the IR from the sun is not absorbed by the surface? More than 50% of insolation is IR.
You are a fool. Even where a low level inversion exists at night (meaning the atmosphere is actually warmer than the surface), the surface still cools.
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years years. Retreat to your fantasy world if you don’t like annoying facts.
You must enjoy being stupid and ignorant.
Cheers.
Gordo wrote:
No, No, No, that’s a totally wrong description of “perpetual motion”, the Green Plate Effect and AGW. In addition, I stated that when the external energy source is removed, the body cools to the temperature of the surroundings.
As the name implies “perpetual motion” means the device (or process) continues after some external energy required to start the process is removed. What you wrote is just another example of your blinding ignorance and denial of physics.
Swanson, have you provided the relevant facts about your bogus “experiment” yet?
You know, all temperatures, fluxes, and emissivities, along with your statement of what you believe you are proving.
That would be funny.
But your not being able to provide the info is also funny.
Either way, you’re a clown.
JD, have you provided the relevant facts about your replication of E. Swanson’s experiment yet?
You know, all temperatures, fluxes, and emissivities, along with your statement of what JD believes JD proved bogus about E. Swanson’s experiment. That would be funny. But JD not being able to provide the info is also funny.
Without experiment, JD is a just another three-ring circus entertainer drawing cartoons to amuse the audience.
Fluffball, I provided mine alraady. You just have a hard time with reality.
Here it is again:
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
A cartoon is not an experiment.
A fake experiment is not an experiment.
Correct JD, you get some things right. Have to do real experiments to learn reality. Try it.
Testicle4, please stop trolling.
swannie….”The net energy flow is always from high temperature to low”.
There is no net energy flow. The energy to which you refer is a fictitious. generic energy you have imagined. Break it down into the real energies involved and you’ll see that. Maybe.
Gordon: “There is no net energy flow.”
Kristian: “There is only net energy flow.”
Duke it out guys.
2LOT was invented to determine the direction of net energy flow because 1LOT could not do so – and 1LOT net energy is calculation of all the real energy flows since energy in the system of interest is conserved.
fluffball, the Laws of Thermodynamics are valid. They are not to be perverted and corrupted by anonymous cowards seeking to avoid reality.
Your invalid calculation produces bogus temperatures if the plates are slightly separated:
244K…290K…244K
The actual temperatures would be 244K…244K…244K. So your invalid calculation “creates” energy in the middle, plate with no additional energy entering or leaving the system.
The reality is you clowns have violated the laws.
Now, more fluff, to cover your perversion and corruption, please.
“244K…290K…244K The actual temperatures would be 244K…244K…244K.”
JD humorously just makes up some temperatures. No 1LOT, no Planck’s law used because JD doesn’t know how to use them correctly. JD simply provides three ring circus entertainment.
JD can’t even show the invalid calculation claimed. Draw a bogus cartoon JD, that’s more your level of understanding.
fluffball, you keep asking for things that have already been presented. But you are unable to explain how the temperature can “stack up” when you pull the plates slightly apart.
Plates together:
244K…244K…244K
Bogus temperatures when plates pulled slightly apart:
244K…290K…244K
That’s an increase of 46 degrees C (83 degrees F).
Clowns love their pseudoscience.
All bogus temperatures JD. But if you draw a cartoon, you know that will de-bogus them and make them correct.
“All bogus temperatures JD”
😂
You couldn’t make it up. They’re now in denial of their own agreed numbers.
fluffball will attempt to pervert and corrupt using any fluff that he can conjure up.
Reality means nothing to him.
None of those JD made up numbers are agreed. If they are, then show the agreement. Or JD’s cartoon making them correct, that will be even more humorous and entertaining.
OK, Testicle4, since you are unable to follow a discussion, I’ll help you out once again.
Tim’s agreement:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345140
bob’s agreement:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344836
Norman’s agreement:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344823
fluffball can’t figure out how to use his own pseudoscience. He’s unable to calculate the temperatures himself.
Clowns don’t know physics, but most don’t even know the pseudoscience they believe.
Nothing new.
Tim’s agreement: bob’s agreement:..Norman’s agreement:
Sorry DREMT, none of your links show any sort of problem statement givens or 1LOT eqn.s worked out for JD’s made up numbers for the commenters to agree with so the numbers are not agreed as I wrote.
fluffball is as good at denying reality as he is at making stuff up.
Nothing new.
Sorry JD, I do not deny proper experimental results which are reality. I essentially replicated E. Swanson’s experiment and JD has not because JD prefers to remain detached from reality, a one-armed entertainer in a three-ring circus having lost an arm in an airplane accident.
Testicle4 asks for examples of agreement. I provide examples of agreement. Testicle4 rejects the examples, for no reason. Testicle4 then changes the subject.
DREMT is funnier than JD at times.
Testicle4 reacts with amusement to a dry and accurate recap of events.
DREMT is beginning to best JD for blog humor; a tough task.
Except that exactly what I described, happened; as anybody can confirm for themselves, by using their eyes and brain to process the various symbols printed above. I suppose your denial of recorded history is amusing.
Funny, but I do not deny that, the internet doesn’t forget. It is DREMT that is amusing.
Testicle4 said, “None of those JD made up numbers are agreed. If they are, then show the agreement“.
I showed examples of the agreement.
Testicle4 rejected the evidence presented, for spurious reasons (shifting the goalposts).
JD reacted.
Testicle4 changed the subject.
To confirm, scroll upwards and interpret the recorded symbols.
I confirmed DREMT humor, fun scrolling upwards.
Great, it’s good that you can laugh at yourself. That’s an endearing quality.
I scroll up reading DREMT repeated humor trying to best JD; my own comments agree with boring thermodynamic reality won be doing actual testing.
Who “won”? Who “won” be doing actual testing? I “won”? JD “won”? Will I or “won” I? You tell me. You’re the master of avoiding written reality. I “won” tell you any different.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Let me t.u..t.o.r you on the Con.s.e.r.v.ation of Energy Law.”
Yes, please t.u..t.o.r me on the Con.s.e.r.v.ation of dis.s.i.pated transf.e.r.ring of de.s.t.r.o.y.ed pr.o..c.es.s.es.
Svante, please stop trolling.
tim…lost tract of the thread…
“The photons do not care about the temperature of the green blue plate, unless it is higher. It is not. It is losing photons at the same rate it is gaining photons”.
That is true only in thermal equilibrium. Not true when one body is hotter than the other.
You guys need to get the notion out of your heads that bodies have to absorb all EM incident upon them, despite their temperatures.
Besides that blackbody crap has an obvious contradiction. At it’s very high temperature, the Sun is regarded a BB but it does not absorb any EM from lower temperature bodies.
Some of you think radiation from the Earth is warming the Sun which is totally absurd.
On the other hand, you could claim a black bowling ball is a blackbody at terrestrial temperatures yet it hardly radiates anything.
I think it’s time science dropped the BB nonsense.
“but (the sun) does not absorb any EM from lower temperature bodies.”
When Mars is behind the sun, NASA still receives some EMR from its cooler Mars radio transmitters EMR but their signal’s photons were much absorbed by the sun and reduced in amplitude. This test demonstrates Gordon is wrong.
One of fluffball’s better examples of fluff.
The advantage of anonymity is you can put out any falsehood you want, with no consequences. (Just ask Nate and Svante.)
ball3…”When Mars is behind the sun, NASA still receives some EMR from its cooler Mars radio transmitters EMR but their signals photons were much absorbed by the sun and reduced in amplitude”.
What they hey…are those transmitters sending infrared signals now?
Have you ever tried talking on a cell phone inside a concrete enclosure with rebar in the walls? No signal, right. Just think of the sun as a huge concrete enclosure that blocks radio signals with the added bonus it radiates EM that interferes with communication band signals.
“What they hey…are those transmitters sending infrared signals now?”
Their cool antennas send out photons which are absorbed, scattered and transmitted thru the warmer sun.
fluffball spews out more fluff. Notice that not one of the other clowns will ask for any “citation”. They’re content with avoiding reality.
Facts and logic are like light to cockroaches.
Nothing new.
Maybe you can see if the rats will tell the bedbugs to ask the cockroaches to get you some.
Paraphrased from BB AKA black-body King.
Poor bob is so confused, he’s just babbling.
Next comes foaming at the mouth.
No, I am just making fun of you.
It’s not working. You seem ridiculous and desperate.
No, you’re babbling incoherently.
You do it all the time.
You are too funny and not nearly competent with thermodynamics.
[whispers rapidly] ridiculous and desperate.
Oh well.
All the black body experts might demonstrate their knowledge.
How can a black body rise in temperature? It emits all radiation it absorbs, apparently. Therefore, the net energy balance is zero. Therefore, the black body temperature changes not at all.
Or does this mean that a black body (absorbing all energy to which it is exposed) could continuously absorb photons from ice, and just get hotter and hotter, until it glowed white hot?
This would fit the behaviour of pseudoscientific climatological black bodies, which could get hotter absorbing photons from colder bodies – CO2 molecules, for example.
Complete nonsense, of course. Have fun.
Cheers.
“It emits all radiation it absorbs, apparently.”
Nope! You are badly mistaken. The next two conclusions you draw are similarly flawed.
“Or does this mean that a black body (absorbing all energy to which it is exposed) could continuously absorb photons from ice, and just get hotter and hotter, until it glowed white hot?”
Nope! It doesn’t mean that either.
0 for 2. Come back when you actually know something about how BBs work.
Tim,
Maybe you should give me the benefit of your black body knowledge.
How can a black body rise in temperature?
Cheers.
A “blackbody” simply absorbs incoming radiation as efficiently as possible (ie it looks black because all radiation is absorbed) AND emits as efficiently as possible. That definition is well known and you could have looked that up anywhere.
“It emits all radiation it absorbs, apparently.”
Not quite. It ABSORBS all radiation. Period.
It EMITS according to its own temperature.
So if it is warmer than its surroundings, if emits more than it absorbs. If it is cooler than its surroundings, it emits less than it absorbs.
“Therefore, the net energy balance is zero. Therefore, the black body temperature changes not at all.”
This is backwards. IF the energy is balanced, THEN the temperature is constant. But the energy doesn’t need to be balanced, and the temperature can change.
“Or does this mean that a black body (absorbing all energy to which it is exposed) could continuously absorb photons from ice, and just get hotter and hotter, until it glowed white hot?”
A black body would absorb all the energy from the ice’s thermal radiation. It can’t continue to warm up because the BB can also emit radiation. once it is at the temperature of the ice, it must emit as well as it absorbs, and it must be at the ice’s temperature to do that.
Tim, you forgot to mention how a BB can stack temperature.
244K…290K…244K
Hint: That is BOGUS nonsense. Learn some physics.
Tim tell about how the blue plate can warm 46 degrees C (83 degrees F) with no additional energy input.
Then tell us any other jokes you may know.
Reduce the watts/meter^2 going out, then it must heat up by 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
The rats know
The bedbugs know
Even the cockroaches know
Why don’t you know
The Watts/m^2 going out weren’t reduced, Bozo.
That’s the problem you clowns have. You have increased the temperature of the plate, without changing input or output.
Just more clown humor, nothing new.
The instant you separated the plates the watts/meter^2 from the blue to the green plates went to zero, because they are at the same temperature so no heat transfer.
And the green plates starts cooling because it is now emitting from both sides.
Somewhat later on things are different.
Figure it out, solve some energy balance equations to find out what happens.
Oh snap, you can’t do that!
bob, this is where you get into trouble using heat term, there is still energy transfer in/out both ways after separation in vacuum, by radiation which of course JD denies. Zero net transfer after separation which Kristian denies. All because of their misuse of the heat term leading to less clarity. Enthalpy term was invented for clarity, less confusion.
Bozo, unless you show some ability to learn, I’m going to send you back a grade. This is your last chance.
Bozo claims: “The instant you separated the plates the watts/meter^2 from the blue to the green plates went to zero, because they are at the same temperature so no heat transfer.”
WRONG, Bozo. The instant the plates are separated, the emission STARTS. And, the emission is 200 W/m^2, based on the blue plate 244 K temperature.
Bozo claims: “And the green plates starts cooling because it is now emitting from both sides.”
WRONG, Bozo. The green plate can only emit 200 W/m^2 out of the system, but is absorbing 200 W/m^2 from the blue plate. It remains at 244K.
Bozo claims: “Somewhat later on things are different.”
WRONG, Bozo. Somewhat later things are the same.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
Cartoons are not experiments. Cartoons are entertaining though JD. Try an experiment.
fluffball, your imagination is not reality.
You haven’t a clue about the relevant physics.
All you have is fluff.
Nothing new.
Correct JD, imagination is NOT reality, proper experiments are reality. Try one.
Same temperature when separated, so no energy transfer,
now the green plate is emitting toward the blue plate, so the blue plate temperature must go up.
But we should start at the beginning to solve for all the temps and flows.
Since you specify the starting temp of the blue plate as 244, and 400 watts is the input, we can calculate the area and I get 2 square meters.
So we can set up an equation for the energy entering and leaving the system
I have to use g for Stefan-Boltzmann constant
400 watts = 2 meters^2 * 2 gT2^4
and solve for the temperature of the green plate and get 205
Now we can set up an energy balance for the temperature of the blue plate
400 watts + 2 * g T2^4 = 2 * g T1^4 and solve for T1 I get 270.
plug and chug for the flows
From Blue to Green is 300, and from Green to Blue and Green to out is 100.
G G
R L R
gT2^4 U out
E E E
N N
^
I
400 watts
Never mind that previous post, it is wrong.
Huffman’s diagram has the correct temperatures
but has two extra arrows
Explain it to Ball4, he’s having trouble working out the temperatures.
But again the Blue plate is 290
so everything balances
400 watts to the blue plate from the heater plus 200 watts/meter^2 from each green plate at 244 and 400 watts/meter^2 out from each side of the Blue plate at 290.
The green plate at 244 has 200 watts/meter^2 going out and 200 watts/meter^2 going back to the blue plate.
It all balances so that’s the correct solution
Sorry Bozo, but it is NOT the correct solution.
It is impossible to go from this:
244K…244K…244K
to this;
244K…290K…244K
without any changes to in/out energy.
Just one more bust for pseudoscience.
Sorry JD,
That’s the solution found by balancing the energy flows into and out of the system and into and out of the blue plate.
Using the first law of thermodynamics.
Bozo, how did you increase the heat content of the blue plate without increasing net energy input?
bobd…”Thats the solution found by balancing the energy flows into and out of the system and into and out of the blue plate.
Using the first law of thermodynamics.”
Once again, you have obfuscated energy into a generic, nameless energy. You should understand that generic, nameless energy has no units.
What energy are you talking about? There are only two possible energies, thermal and electromagnetic. Since the plates are separated with no mention of convective heat transfer, there can only be one energy, EM.
The 1st law has absolutely nothing to do with electromagnetic energy, or a mysterious generic energy. The 1st law is about external heat and work and internal energy made up of heat and work. It specifies a relationship between heat, work, and internal energy, telling you how the addition of heat or work to a system affects the internal energy.
How the heck can you apply that to two plates in space where no work is done and no heat can be transferred from a colder plate to a warmer plate?
Heat can NEVER be transferred via EM from a colder body to a warmer body. Case closed.
JD, the almost physics minor, continues to confuse energy and power.
“How did you increase the heat content of the blue plate without increasing net energy input”
The world continues to be nonplussed.
Gordon,
I’ll just respond to this
“How the heck can you apply that to two plates in space where no work is done and no heat can be transferred from a colder plate to a warmer plate?
Heat can NEVER be transferred via EM from a colder body to a warmer body. Case closed.”
And once you get that this is wrong you can figure out the rest.
There is a source of work, namely the heater in this problem, and it takes a little work to separate the plates. Not much and it is ignored in the solution to the problem.
When the plates are separated, the green plates are no longer getting conductive energy from the blue plate, now only radiant heat. But the blue plate is now getting radiant heat from the green plate.
A two way radiant heat transfer from two objects of different temperature is allowed by the laws of thermodynamics.
Remember the second part of one of the versions of the second law of thermodynamics that says without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time
Or two way radiant power/energy to keep everyone happy.
Everyone except the Dream Team that is.
Good point Svante.
Again, it’s not working. You seem ridiculous, and desperate.
Mike…”Or does this mean that a black body (absorbing all energy to which it is exposed) could continuously absorb photons from ice, and just get hotter and hotter, until it glowed white hot?”
The humour here, Mike, is that a BB is actually a sphere by definition, it a cavity called a cavity resonator. EM is absorbed then bounces around inside heating the interior.
But here’s the real laugher. The designers of the theory hypothesized a tiny hole drilled in the cavity where EM of a certain frequency can escape. There is a cutoff frequency beyond which the EM cannot escape.
I don’t know why we are still talking about this blatant nonsense in this day and age. It’s akin to talking about a Big Bang that no one has witnessed or which can be reproduced in reality. Or a black hole which no one has witnessed directly and whose derivation has changed over 30 years from the remnants of a collapsing star to space-time theory.
When I went to university, a few decades ago, if you talked about space-time you’d have been laughed out of class. Now they talk about it with impunity as if there is such a thing as a dimension of imaginary time superimposed upon our universe with an imaginary coordinate system.
BB theory is nonsense. There is no such thing as a BB and the 2nd law tells us they cannot exist at different temperatures relative to each other. BB theory was developed by Kircheoff at thermal equilibrium and only at thermal equilibrium. Talking about BBs of different temperatures absorbing all EM incident upon them has lead to this nonsense about AGW and even GHE.
So, Day 4. The predictables are being predictable. Anyone fancy doing something different and acknowledging that the Green Plate Effect is debunked? That’s the all-important first step.
Go here,
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?commentPage=1
T1 is 262
and
T2 is 220
The blue arrows are 267
and
the green arrows are 133
Very good bob, you found the source of the bogus blue/green plate nonsense. You’re only a year or two behind the rest.
Bozo says you won’t find somethings that I just posted on Eli’s website.
I put the spoon in the glass for you guys and finished the diagram with all the correct flows and temperatures.
Great Bozo, you will likely be accepted there–birds of a feather.
Maybe you would just stay there….
Yes bob. I’m well aware of the original Green Plate Effect post. Geez.
The Troll DRsEMT/Huffingman is so intent on posting that it has replied to it’s own post, before replying to bob’s post, only 1 minute later. Looks to me like this proves there’s only one person posting, a troll using two identities.
Swanson, you’re as paranoid and delusional as some other clown. Possibly your perverted thoughts are related to your obsession with pseudoscience.
(Where’s the info from your bogus “experiment”?)
Where’s JD’s replication with all temperatures, emissivities so forth proving E. Swanson’s experiment bogus? I understand JD was laid up in the hospital after an airplane accident, but that’s no excuse.
JD asks Swanson for info for his experiment. This is info necessary to replicate the experiment. Testicle4 demands JD replicate the experiment, sans the necessary info, in order to falsify the experiment.
JD humorously asks for extraneous info. NOT necessary to replicate the experiment. I’ve essentially replicated E. Swanson’s experiment with the info. already supplied & confirmed it – has DREMT? I thought not.
fkuffball claims to have faked another “experiment”.
Nothing new.
I’ve even replicated JD’s tests with horses, toy cars, toy trains & observed the moon all of which I found confirm JD is wrong & E. Swanson right. To JD, every single test is faked but cartoons are reality, nothing new.
I replicated the experiment by putting my electric heater in the middle of the room. I placed two metal plates either side of the heater, touching it. Then I moved them a millimeter apart, either side. When my heater didnt spontaneously melt in front of my eyes, I knew I was talking to a bunch of shysters.
Good job DREMT. Did your heater temperature change? What about the plate’s temperatures?
It’s weird. When I moved them away from the heater, the temperature of the plates decreased. But according to the agreed temperatures:
“244K…244K…244K
Bogus temperatures when plates pulled slightly apart:
244K…290K…244K”
they shouldn’t have. Plus, where was the predicted melting of the heater?
Decrease by how much? Those temperatures are the JD et. al. imagined bogus ones not agreed to with givens/eqn.s. Your experiment givens and eqn.s please, so to achieve agreement.
No, those temperatures are the “Tim/bobdruggy/Norman” agreed temperatures. Plus everybody else, as far as I know.
The plate temperatures decreased by 1.7345687 K. The heater increased in temperature by 0.0000000 K.
Oh I see, DREMT faked the experiment & readings. Typical. Try a real test.
And no, JD’s imagined numbers are not agreed as no commenter agreed on eqn.s or givens & none did a test.
I accept, on their behalf, the criticisms you have laid upon Tim, bobdruggy and Norman, and everybody else that is correctly following the discussion. Shame on them, for not agreeing on eqn.s or givens & none did test.
Cool, a good challenge for them. Now, take your two plates and put them back against your electric heater. See if you can experimentally trap some heat in there.
Well I’ll try, but I must admit “trapping heat” seems kind of silly and impossible. Besides, isn’t the word “heat” banned?
By some. But trying to humor you using it. Worked.
I sometimes try to. Put words together into a. Sentence.
Anybody less predictable?
DREMT,
Here is the debunking of your debunking. Your idea that plates separated by a gap in vacuum does not have more thermal resistance than plates in contact is shown to be thoroughly wrong by this textbook problem.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345483
Nate is so afraid of his pseudoscience that he would not agree to ban himself from this blog if I showed up his bogus problem.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345549
No, LESS predictable.
Facts are annoying things. Thats why trolls avoid them.
JD claims he can prove me, and physics, wrong. Im not holding my breath.
DREMT declares victory, while avoiding contradictory facts. Nothing new.
Name, author, and publisher data for your “basic physic textbook”, Nate.
You didn’t “lose” the book, did you?
Oh you dont answer my questions but expect them from me?
I thought you were going to show altrnative calcs without using the RHE?
All bluster, no action.
Anonymous Nate got caught with a fake problem from a fake “basic physics textbook”!
How quaint.
Hey Nate, you can’t fake physics when you don’t know any.
Glad to help.
The trouble with asking Nate to take 30 or 60 days off, JD, is that you’re asking someone to take a month or two off work. He might need the money!
And we would miss their pathetic efforts.
fluffball claims he’s putting his arm in a rotating airplane prop. Bozo can’t get any physics correct, ever.
And now Nate makes up a fake problem and claims it is from a “basic physics textbook”!
This would all be great material for a TV sit-com.
But Nate, there’s just one problem:
“Your idea that plates separated by a gap in vacuum does not have more thermal resistance than plates in contact”
Even if that were true, or false, that was not my idea!
Sorry, I realize that it was a mistake to engage with you, as you will now continue to respond until the will to live has diminished.
This was you saying this wasnt it DREMT?
” bob, you’re happy to gobble up a 46 – 101 K temperature temperature increase as a result of this insulation, which doesn’t even involve reflectivity or thermal resistance.”
The problem showed thermal resistance of plates separated by a vacuum gap was 10,000 x higher than the same thickness of metal.
So sorry DREMT, your wrong. Deal with it.
I thought it would be understood that I meant “no thermal resistance” for the conductive aspect of insulation (the plates being perfect conductors), and zero reflectivity for the radiative aspect of insulation (the plates being black-bodies). But I appreciate the correction on a point I didn’t make.
In that case, youre debunking was vacuous.
Nate bashes a straw man, and “declares victory”.
Nothing’s changed. This:
Plates together:
244K…244K…244K
Plates pulled slightly apart:
244K…290K…244K
is an absurd conclusion, to an extension of the GPE logic. Continue to defend it, if you wish, you just make yourself look silly. Fine by me.
“Plates pulled slightly apart:
244K290K244K
is an absurd conclusion”
Why is it absurd, DREMT?
When you consider that the thermal resistance can increase by 10,000 x when plates are separated.
What is thermal resistance? It is R = (Temp diff)/(Heat flow rate).
Temp diff = (Heat flow rate) x R
That means that for a fixed Heat flow rate, say 200 W for 1 m^2, if R is 10,000 x higher, then the
Temp difference needs to be 10,000 x HIGHER!
Thus a Temp diff of 45 K is no longer absurd.
Yes Nate, when the plates are separated, radiation takes place instead of conduction. Great point, never been made before…
Fine. Then you already understood that there is no absurdity at all. Right?
I understand if you wave your arms hard enough, you can make any problem go away.
Nate, you must believe photons can’t pass through a vacuum?
A 10,000x increase in temperature is a BIG increase, DREMT.
A temp difference of 45 degrees or whatever it is therefore not absurd.
It’s just not that complicated.
Unless you are working very hard to miss the point..
‘, you must believe photons cant pass through a vacuum?’
Fantasizing again, JD. Quote me saying any such thing.
Read it and weep, Nate: “When you consider that the thermal resistance can increase by 10,000 x when plates are separated.”
Or maybe you want to now argue with yourself.
Sorry, JD, not weeping. Really cant tell what your babbling about.
Quote me, tell me what you disagree with, and most importantly, explain why?
Or just go troll somewhere else..
You can deny your own words. That’s about the same as arguing with yourself. Either one qualifies you as a clown.
Found the info on that “textbook”, yet?
You have lost touch with reality, JD.
Says the clown that cannot find his “textbook”.
Both of you guys are really not even trying to make a sensible argument anymore.
Just deny facts, physics, reality, declare everyone wrong.
What’s the point, other than to troll?
Says the clown that cannot find his “textbook”.
Clown Nate is now in full denial of his own words.
Nothing new.
I hope I can be less predictable as I have been away from these debates for around a year.
I have just reviewed a smattering of the prodigious output of many of those who comment here. I particularly note that there appears to be no point to be debating technical issues with JD/DREMT. This is eerily similar to the character that shared the same delusions whose two original names cannot now be written ( I will refer now to as Gasterisk) . The only difference is the shedding of the trademark “hilarious” with replacement with interminably repetitive “stop trolling” . Surely this is a case of the putz (sic) calling the pot black.
Perhaps Dr Roy will declare (I am sure it wont require Congressional approval) a real emergency and banish JD/DREMT as he has done to this unfortunate creature’s previous incarnation (last seen in April last year).
I predicted this as the likely fate for Gastrorisk a year ago but, as I said then, he was likely reappear as a sock puppet so it may be to no avail to banish him. This proved to be so.
However as we have now two puppets, one of them could be usefully employed as an enema if needed while the emetic quality of the other could be also employed in a medical emergency.
To paraphrase the immortal Bard, “a fool by any other name would sound just as stupid”
p.s. apologies for the bilious nature of my comments but reading ridiculous material generated by charlatans can make one snarky. On that note I think I will return to more useful pursuits such as teaching my cat astrophysics. I am sure I will have better luck if he enquires about lunar rotation.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Dear Putz. Only 37 stop trolling comments so far in this thread. Behind on your usual. quota. Over to you for another installment.
Thanks, yes. MikeR, please stop trolling.
Talk about boring. Maybe your partner in grime could contribute something more substantial. I am sure he is in close proximity.
OK, I will talk about boring. Your current contributions. Now, MikeR, please stop trolling.
Keep them coming. One more repetive comment on the way to oblivion. Maybe it is wishful thinking but I think you my be entering the final stage of the valley of the shadow of Dr Roy (or his moderator).
You may need another name for your new sock puppet. I have many suggestions.
All very interesting. But, the great thing about this is, you can wax lyrical and be as creatively offensive as you like; you’re still trolling, So, I will keep asking you to stop, and eventually, you will.
Now, MikeR, please stop trolling.
Gastrorisk, as they say no one gets out of here alive so your trolling will one day will inevitably cease. Rather than waiting for this eventuality it might be better to leave the confines of your foxhole and smell the roses. It would be a win-win situation for all.
Mike R, please stop trolling.
Gastritis, I suggest you follow your own advice.
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
You are incapable of following your own advice. How pathetic.
You must have been upset by the “bad language”. That’s all I can assume it is. The unspeakable name I called Ball4 seemed to have upset some. Plus there was the shameful use of the “s” word. Don’t worry, I apologize for the offence caused, and will return to “Ball4”, and at worst, “poop”, in place of the “s” word. Maybe “crap”, if that is acceptable. I realize that people are incredibly delicate things, and their sensitive nature must be protected at all costs.
Your standard, numbered “PST” service will continue after this announcement. Thanks for your patience.
I am pleased to note that your anger management issues are being addressed and you have now appear too have turned the corner and are using less offensive language. This is progress. Can I credit this improvement to my suggestions regarding your lifestyle issues and changes to your medication?
It is also pleasing to see you are capable of restraint in the short term in posting repetive of comments admonishing others for trolling. Let’s hope you can manage to restrain yourself on a longer term basis, but baby steps.
p.s. I hope you don’t mind me providing further feedback if you follow up on your threat and regress.
#3
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Isn’t projection a wonderful thing.
I hesitate to use the word ‘hilarious’ but in the case of Gastro-DREMT , who is totally oblivious to the concept it is entirely justified.
#4
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Developmentally delayed or just a slow learner?
#5
MikeR, please stop trolling.
#5 why do you keep repeating yourself? Surely not for my benefit.
Around around Gastrorisk goes where he stops no one knows.
#6
MikeR, please stop trolling.
It seems he travels in ever decreasing circles! Guess where he ends up?
#7
MikeR, please stop trolling.
It appears he may have ended up in that orifice where the sun don’t shine.
#8
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Now that he is back in the environment where he is most comfortable, will he reemerge? I cannot contain my excitement as I await for the next instalment.
#9
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Of course i will be outlasted in this war of attrition by DREMT as I am somewhat constrained by having to earn a living and interacting with friends and enjoying the outdoors i.e. the full gamut of normal human activities.
Clearly DREMT’s lack of such constraints (his internal monologues with JD must be fascinating), in combination with his extremely limited repertoire and mastery of cut and paste means the rest of us cannot compete.
So I am going to do some gardening on this beautiful warm day in Oz.
So DREMT while you are ensconced in your foxhole, bask in the glow of your monitor but a word of warning. In the absence of sunlight, you may need to take some Vitamin D . Also these solo pursuits may also lead to blindness. Take care.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
QED
This must be someone else replying, using MikeR’s handle. After all, MikeR’s out and about enjoying the full gamut of normal human activities. Whoever it is, please stop trolling.
Nah it’s just me. Couldn’t resist. At least you have stopped trolling which is, while it lasts, excellent news! Keep up the good work.
MikeR, PST.
DREMT, JST.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Gastro, just stop trolling. Less polite but more to the point.
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Gastrorisk,
JST. Pretty please.
No man with #2 cojones could deny such a hearfelt request.
#3
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Gastrobug,
You are way too modest about your achievements. You have currently #58 PSTs! This impressive achievement should be noted and recorded in the annals of trolldom.
The big question is will you break the 100 before you are summarily ejected? We may find out soon enough.
Apropos of the above, will GastricBypass reply with his standard monotonous
” #n
MikeR, please stop trolling. ”
or could this troll attempt to be more creative?
I think everyone, other than perhaps the various flavours of Gastro , would agree that there is nothing more obnoxious than a boring repetitive troll.
#4
MikeR, please stop trolling.
More pertinent. Can Dr Evil control his compulsion to incessantly troll? The answer follows.
#5
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Right on cue, we have our answer.
#6
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Follow up question. Now that we have the answer to the above, does he need to continue his infantile behaviour? I am confident I know the answer but I don’t want to spoil the surprise.
#7
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Spoiler alert.
I can feel a #8 coming on. That’s four #2s. You can always rely on comments from Dr Evils Team of Maniacs if you are blocked up. No need for a glycerine suppository.
#8
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Day 5. Anybody prepared to accept that the Green Plate Effect is debunked? That’s the first step.
Can I skip it and go straight to step 12?
The first step is for DREMT to get back on his antipsychotic meds.
The next step is for him to admit that his debunking train has long since derailed.
Nate have you been able to get the info on that “textbook” yet?
Nate, not a good idea.
Clozapene is known to exacerbate obsessive compulsive disorders. Perhaps there is in the section in the latest DSM that describes treatment protocols for those who obsessively post repetitive comments.
There is some urgency in the matter because there have been almost 500 comments by Huffman/DREMT already, 10 times the output of any others that have commented here.
I think what may also complicate treatment is the range of comorbidities exhibited. The most prominent is his persistent delusional state that his understanding of physics and science in general, is vastly superior to everyone else who posts. This is accompanied by disdain for facts provided by established scientific organizations and any information in books and/or the internet that is at dissonance with his entrenched views.
I am not sure what his prognosis is but a good start would be if someone could supervise his computer use. There may be initial withdrawal symptoms so physical restraint may be required. Hopefully he can then be gently reacquainted with the outside world and end up being reintegrated into society as a fully functioning human being.
The evidence from his postings suggest that It could be a long journey.
46 – 101 K? The Green Plate Effect’s debunked. Oh well.
Snap out of it JD-DREMT,
I seem to recall that well over a year ago, when you were both just a twinkle in Gasterisk’s eye, that the nonsense about the plates being at the same temperature was debunked. I can refer you back to relevant links to remind you.
The fact that you have managed to keep the whole farce going for so long is testament to your persistence but unfortunately to little else.
MikeR, you appear new here, but yet you claim some “knowledge” that supports the bogus blue/green plates nonsense.
Let’s see your nonsense.
Gasterisk your attempt at concealing the origins of your new sock puppets are to say the least amusing. These proteges who have the same highly idiosyncratic (emphasis on the first three syllables) views of physics and first appeared within 3 days of each other after your exile is highly suspicious. The fact that sometimes your stream of consciousness appear to merge on occasions also raises suspicions. It’s like a long married couple who finish each other’s sentences.
In your defence I may be misjudging you. Perhaps, in addition to your other afflictions you may be harbouring multiple personalities with each personality unaware of the presence of the other.
Another possibility is that you are conjoined twins, sharing the same brain. In the latter case you can pull the other leg (or legs) .
Just as a reminder to Gatrorisk this link might jog his memory.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/01/sydney-heat-and-bomb-snowstorm-pimped-out-for-climate-change/#comment-284265 .
Pointless, content-free horse-shit.
MikeR claimed he could link to a “debunk” of the correct plates solution. But when asked, he couldn’t deliver on what he said.
Snap out of it MikeR. JD’s debunk started here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344407
Since then it’s just been a bunch of people squawking in denial. Hilarious, really. And Mike, you haven’t actually made a single point yet. Hate to break it to you. All you have done is basically just spew out a bunch of offensive BS. Absolutely no substance whatsoever.
The link you have just posted has a link to Gastrorisk’s postimg depiction of the plates from well over a year ago!
If you are not Gastro in disguise, I think you should clarify. Is this your own work? Everything is identical including, by memory, the colours of the arrows to his original work.
As the original has disappeared I think you should have provided the provenance of this masterpiece of logic. You wouldn’t want to be sued for plagiarism.
Just further evidence, if it was necessary, as to identity of the sock puppets. I think puppetry of the penis may offer you guys a career path.
More content-free BS.
More content-free BS from the DREMT socket without any response to my comments. Perhaps he is pleading the 5th amendment? I don’t think he shouldn’t worry about that . I think there is more than enough incriminating evidence as to who you clowns are.
Anyway to further jog the memory of Gastrorisk and his appendages, here is a link to some Excel calculations and diagrams from back in December 2017, not long after the Eli Rabbett discussion started. the link is here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11JnLJn1Mgh-eBteiGNPT__q7dVeTaidm/view?usp=sharing .
Note the startling resemblance of the Gastro version in this document to what is being currently peddled.
Of course Gastro could not reconcile his diagram with resorting to an extra green arrow representing reflection from a black body.
It is called a black body for good reason. Gastro and the sock puppets must wonder why. Should I break it to them slowly? The shock could kill them.
More crap.
“The link you have just posted has a link to Gastrorisk’s postimg depiction of the plates from well over a year ago!”
Complete lie, the link I posted was from just a few days ago.
I’m beginning to figure out MikeR. He was involved in the plates discussion earlier. But, he hasn’t kept up. He doesn’t realize that adding the third plate completely destroys the false concept that a cold plate can warm a hotter plate.
If three plates are together, with 400 Watts incoming to the middle (blue) plate, the temperatures would all be the same 244 K.
244K…244K…244K
Pulled slightly apart, the temperatures would remain the same.
244K…244K…244K
The clown version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, a clear violation of the laws of physics.
244K…290K…244K
Clowns love pseudoscience and consequently must ignore reality.
Nothing new.
Gastro/DREMT
I was slightly mistaken, the image that you linked to above had slightly different hues to the original. Conceptually it is identical with even the placement of the arrows arranged in the same manner.
I should know because, if you look back in Nomember 2017, you will see that you credited me with constructing the diagram! http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-277672
The reason I posted this diagram was to illustrate how stupid this representation. Then you ran with it! Truly amazing.
The original postimg links from them are now stale but the google drive link in my comment directly above still works and shows the original two plate image at right labelled Gasterix.
Let the reader of these comments, if they can be bothered, compare and make their own conclusions.
Additionally the spreadsheet that I have linked to above can be downloaded and the calculations based on the two depictions can be checked for internal consistency.
I am sure those equipped with Excel and are numerate can readily understand the calculations and decide accordingly the validity of Gasterisk’s version. Hopefully the others who are not able to understand the calculations are not also so gullible that they fall for the sock puppet’s snake oil.
I have not been following carefully the Eli Rabbett plates saga over the past year so much of this may have been covered already. That is why I am totally flabbergasted that Gastro and his offspring are still hard at peddling uch patent nonsense. Effn amazing!
JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K
When the givens are the same as the GPE, then upon separation the middle plate increases in temperature closer to 262K and the other two green plates decrease in temperature i.e. they don’t stay at 244K as JD shows, they decrease closer to 220K to conserve system energy. JD is just as confused as ever, nothing new.
JD should learn some physics or continue to be the blog entertainer.
(Poor fluffball has it all mixed up, as usual. He can’t get anything right. It’s best to just let him continue making a fool of himself. Maybe he will do another fake experiment for us?)
I see JD hasn’t learned any physics yet, great entertainment though.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
JD fails to understand laws of physics, now laws of supply and demand, and psychology.
The supply of your fake science has way outstripped demand. You may have to pay to have hauled to the dump.
No one knows what you are blabbering about, Nate.
But that’s okay because you don’t know yourself….
Its called wrong thread, JD. Youll figure it out, but not physics or economics.
You’re as incompetent at placing your comments as you are at everything else.
Nothing new.
Another empty assertion from the Huffingboy/DRsEMT sock puppet. Don’t feed the trolls.
“Another empty assertion…”
Just scroll up, for the preceding five/six hundred comment discussion…
(maybe I shouldn’t feed the Swanson troll, but hey ho).
Huffingboy/DRsEMT sock puppet, oh one of infinite wisdom, do tell us how you know to which this comment responds.
Swanson, are you planning to provide the info from your bogus “experiment”, today?
JD, are you planning to provide the info. from your replication of E. Swanson’s experiment, today? You know, the resultant data showing E. Swanson’s experiment is “bogus”.
fluffball is so uneducated that he’s likely never heard the adage: “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.”
So, when he tries to imitate my comments, I’m flattered.
Definition of flattered: “make oneself feel pleased by believing something favorable about oneself, typically something that is unfounded.” Now learn some physics JD.
Now poor fluffball is trying to back out of his unintended flattery.
Amusing.
JD actually tries to back out of his use of the term flattery, learn some science JD and some English & keep up the entertainment.
More imitation from fluffball just means more flattery.
Typically something that is unfounded, like JD’s physics.
“do tell us how you know to which this comment responds”
Time of posting. You wrote yours on March 16 9:04 am, an hour after I had written “Day 5. Anybody prepared to accept that the Green Plate Effect is debunked?” at 8:13 am. At the time, your comment was one of the only ones beneath what I had written. So, I assumed that what you were referring to as the “assertion” was, “the Green Plate Effect is debunked”. Which is why I chose to remind you that it was not just “an assertion”, as there was the preceding five/six hundred comment discussion to consider.
Actually, that’s probably an under-estimate of the size of the discussion.
The Japan Meteorological Agency global average surface temperature data for Feb. 2019 have been posted. The past February was the 4th warmest in the JMA record. http://ds.data.jma.go.jp//t/products/gwp/temp/feb_wld.html
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/feb_wld.html
Dr S,
One might be inclined to ask why the past February was cooler than at least three which came before recently, (and cooler than all those that occurred before the seas ceased to boil and so on).
What is your point?
Cheers.
Upthread, Nate posed a problem that he stated was from a “basic physics textbook”. I recognized the problem for what it was, more pseudoscience. I asked Nate for the information on his “textbook”. So far, for some reason, Nate has been unwilling to provide information about his “textbook”.
Its almost as if the “textbook” does not exist.
But, the pseudoscience solution to the problem exists. Nate claims that the two plates in his problem will have a dQ/dt of 60 Watts. But, then the energy in/out flows to the plate dont balance.
Just more pseudoscience.
Upthread JD claimed he could solve this basic physics problem without using the radiative heat transfer equation, and squash the solution I showed.
After many efforts at distraction, the troll has still failed to produce.
Shocking.
Wrong again, Nate. My last offer was to squash your pseudoscience if you would agree to not comment here for 60 days.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345525
I warned you the price might go up. Now, it’s 90 days.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345812
“Nate claims that the two plates in his problem will have a dQ/dt of 60 Watts. But, then the energy in/out flows to the plate dont balance.”
The boundary conditions on this heat flow problem are fixed plate temperatures, with energy in/output free to be whatever they need to be.
Keep posting JD, it just keeps revealing your supreme ignorance.
“Boundary conditions” don’t allow for violating conservation of energy, clown.
Of course, in your pseudoscience, laws of physics mean nothing.
Double down or triple down on stupid, JD.
You may notice in the problem no mention of heat inputs or outputs.
Therefore they cannot be imbalanced!
Except in your imagination.
Nate, the plates are emitting. That means the plates are losing energy. To maintain their temperature, they need a supply of energy to equal the energy they are losing.
But, your fake problem, from your fake textbook, doesn’t involve physics. So make up anything you want. That’s what clowns do anyway.
Triple down and quadruple down on stupid, JD.
It is simply 2 plates held at fixed Temp with an unknown heat flow between. Thats it. Thats all.
Temperature FIXED BC means you get whatever heat input is NEEDED to FIX temperature.
What would you like it to be? You can have it.
Its not that complicated.
sense.
You have found the wrong answer (60 W), but the energy flows don’t work out, so you adjust the energy flows from the original conditions to match your wrong answer.
You could make any answer appear correct doing that. 6 W would work, or 600 W, or 139.5W. Pick any answer and adjust the energy flows to fit.
That ain’t how it works, clown. But your ongoing flounderings are most entertaining.
Please continue.
Nate,
That is about as stupid as the dimwitted pseudoscientific climatological fools claiming that the Earth must emit as much energy as it receives from the Sun – no more, no less.
Over the last four and a half billion years or so, the surface has cooled – without losing any energy, according to the bumbling buffoons. A genuine miracle!
Your stupid mental cavorting, with supposedly black bodies of supposedly infinite conductivity, and the amazing additional property of only absorbing and emitting radiation normal to the surface (or maybe they are infinite in extent?) is pointless.
If, as you claim, these miraculous plates are held at fixed at fixed temperatures by means of an infinite and infinitely variable heat source or two or three, who gives a toss?
Just give up the mindless attempts at obfuscation, and try to convince any rational person that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer makes its temperature rise! That is what you are claiming happens when you increase the amount of CO2 (or pretty much anything else) in the atmosphere (between the surface and the heat source).
Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann are demonstrated scientific illiterates. Have a go at describing the GHE in scientific terms, and coming up with a testable GHE hypothesis. You can’t, and neither can they. You must be really, really, gullible if you believe this GHE nonsense is science.
Carry on regardless.
Cheers.
60 w is wrong? What is correct one, Junior Dufus?
And what eqn did you use to find it?
MF, unable to follow a discussion, offers up his usual rant of non-sequiturs, red herrings, and strawmen.
Who gives a toss?
Nate,
You wrote –
“60 w is wrong? What is correct one, Junior Dufus?
And what eqn did you use to find it?”
Ooooh! How sciency is that? Demanding an “eqn”! That’ll scare ’em, no doubt.
What is any of this to do with the pseudoscience of climatology? How many degrees is 60 W? Or 300 W? You have no clue about science, have you?
Just as thick as the rest of the crowd of incompetent fumbling bumblers – endlessly babbling about winning and losing, consensus, evidence and all the rest of the incoherent gibberish they love. Anything to avoid facing the fact that you can’t even define the GHE, much less produce a testable GHE hypothesis .
Do you really believe the Earth is heating up after four and a half billion years of cooling? What brand of Harry Potter wand have you used to achieve this most unnatural feat? Maybe you could demonstrate the awesome heating powers of CO2 under controlled conditions – in reality rather than in your imaginary world of fantasy and stupidity. How hard can it be?
Do let me know when you have something remotely scientific to offer.
Cheers.
Nate, it’s bad enough that you didn’t realize any answer can work for any problem, if you get to change the original conditions to match the answer.
That’s just pathetically vapid.
But, to actually claim that your problem came from a “basic physics textbook”, was “beyond the pale”.
Falsehoods, insults, misrepresentations, and made-up physics, make for typical pseudoscience. And your continual promotion of same just makes you a clown.
Ok. You reject standard physics, but offer nothing to replace it.
Unable to find heat flow between parallel black plates of 1 m^2, at 303K and 293 K?
Then what the hell good is your version of heat transfer physics?
Wrong again, Nate. I reject YOUR fake, made-up physics from your fake “basic physics textbook”.
My last offer was to squash your pseudoscience if you would agree to not comment here for 90 days.
I haven’t raised my price yet. If you want me to show you how to correct the problem, do you agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days?
Hilarious, JD.
The demand for your fake physics has plummeted since it was revealed that the product fails to work as advertised.
You made it abundantly clear that your alternative physics cannot give an answer for this problem that any high school student can solve with ordinary physics in 1 minute.
Nate, obviously you can’t risk giving up commenting. Obsessions are hard to give up, even temporarily.
As I don’t want to encourage your obsessions and delusions, your future comments will be ignored, until you can face reality.
JD, having tried distraction, delay, denial, dumbness about boundary conditions, will depart.
Having failed to offer an alternative way to solve a high school level heat transfer problem, as promised, without using the ‘bogus’ radiative heat transfer equation, he must resort to labeling the problem unsolvable and pseudoscience.
I agree with him in one respect. Easily solved physics problems are unsolvable with fake physics.
Nate, please stop trolling.
Is there anything in or of the atmosphere which slows the loss of heat to space?
If atmosphere was doubled, does this reduced the amount of heat loss to space?
Related, Earth Atmosphere has about 80% N2, if double the amount of N2, so it’s 90% Nitrogen; would this addition reduce the amount of heat loss to space?
add 3.57 x 10^18 kg or 3570 trillion tonnes of N2 and at 1 atm 15 C air temperature and into air temperature of 15 C, then it will increase global air temperature due to increased heat caused by compression.
But once heat caused by compression is lost to space, will the added atmospheric mass reduce the heat loss to space as compared to the atmosphere before adding the 3.57 x 10^18 kg of N2?
gbaikie says, March 17, 2019 at 7:47 PM:
Yes. Its temperature. Plus, relative to that temperature, and on transient timescales, H2O.
gbaikie says, March 17, 2019 at 7:47 PM:
Not after reaching the new steady state, no. The steady state heat loss equals the heat input.
gbaikie says, March 17, 2019 at 7:47 PM:
Not in the steady state, no. The surface T, however, would end up higher with the same heat input/output.
–Kristian says:
March 18, 2019 at 12:31 PM
gbaikie says, March 17, 2019 at 7:47 PM:
Related, Earth Atmosphere has about 80% N2, if double the amount of N2, so it’s 90% Nitrogen; would this addition reduce the amount of heat loss to space?
Not in the steady state, no. The surface T, however, would end up higher with the same heat input/output.–
Surface air temperature would higher? Or do you mean ground and/or ocean surface would be a higher temperature. Or do mean both surface air and ocean and ground surface would warmer and/or just average temperature would be higher.
gbaikie says, March 18, 2019 at 6:27 PM:
Last one.
And if 1/2 the amount of N2, it lower average temperature?
It seems we are not including, that if double or 1/2 N2, less or more sunlight reaches surface.
It seems if have 1/2 as much N2, one gets more direct sunlight reaching the ground surface, though not much more sunlight in terms total sunlight of direct and indirect sunlight.
So has little effect upon ocean, though with twice as much N2, tropical ocean works better as world heat engine- reduces the difference between tropical and rest of world’s average temperature and 1/2 the amount of N2, makes the engine not work as well, and larger differences between tropics and rest of the world.
Or most significant difference is upon global average air temperature.
gbaikie says, March 19, 2019 at 10:04 AM:
Yup. Atmospheric bulk mass matters.
That will happen too. But it’s highly unlikely that it would happen to such an extent that it would cancel out the thermal effect from the change in total mass.
Sure.
Yes, I agree.
Day 7. They don’t seem to have much left but insults, at this point. Anybody prepared to accept that the Green Plate Effect is debunked?
You guys are like the black knight on Monty Python.
Your arguments have had all their legs and arms chopped off.
But you still think you’re winning.
Quit looking in your mirror, clown.
Ouch! You really got me there.
Nate, please stop trolling.
gb,
The rate of heat loss is not particularly relevant. If you allow the Sun to warm something for six hours, then reduce the sunlight to nothing for twelve hours, the object will lose all the heat it absorbed from the Sun. If it is insulated, it will heat more slowly, and cool more slowly.
It will still lose all the heat it gained.
Absorp-tivity and emissivity will change the rate at which the object heats and cools. Faster heating carries the corollary of faster cooling.
No miracles. Just physics. Nature has carried out an experiment using the Earth. Starting with a big ball fo molten rock, with a very large radiogenic heat source, the results are in. Cooling.
Cheers.
“Warm something for six hours, then reduce the sunlight to nothing for 12 h”
How bout 11.5 h of sun then 12.5 h of no sun, Mike-bot?
Thats what my region has right now. And we are warming! Spring is springing.
Explain that, Mike.
N,
Why should I explain something to someone who would not understand?
However, for others, the Suns radiation to an object on the surface only increases until the Sun reaches the zenith. Then objects on the surface are receiving ever decreasing amounts of insolation. As to absolute sunlight hours, in the land of the midnight sun, the sun shines continuously for months. Temperatures do not rise continuously.
I’ll let you look up the seasons for yourself, as you seem to be unaware of the Earth’s inclination to the plane of the ecliptic, and the elliptical shape of its orbit .
Try for another stupid gotcha. Maybe you will do better next time, but I doubt it.
Cheers.
Mike, you are the one taking something complex, Earth’s temperature, and try to portray it as strawman simple, and get the wrong answer.
Same thing you do with the GHE. And surprise surprise, you get the wrong answer.
N,
You are obviously deranged. Your comment seems to have nothing at all relevant to the answer I provided.
Are you actually disputing anything I said? It is surely not my fault if you are incapable of understanding the reasons why the Earth experiences seasons!
If you believe that you know the reasons, why did you ask for an explanation? Your attempt at trolling didn’t work out that well, did it?
Carry on with the deny, avoid, divert tactics, if you wish.
Cheers
–Reply
Mike Flynn says:
March 18, 2019 at 3:51 AM
gb,
The rate of heat loss is not particularly relevant. If you allow the Sun to warm something for six hours, then reduce the sunlight to nothing for twelve hours, the object will lose all the heat it absorbed from the Sun. If it is insulated, it will heat more slowly, and cool more slowly.
It will still lose all the heat it gained.–
Yes, roughly speaking. Though same if sun heat for 12 hours and reduce the sun to nothing for 6 hours. With Earth, it’s roughly 6 hours of sunlight and 18 hours of not much heating from sun with an average 12 hours of night [zero sunlight].
Though in polar region it more like 6 months of some sunlight with 6 months of no sun.
And of course, how cold it gets is not so much the duration of sunlight but the duration of no sunlight [night]. Mercury has long night and cools to about 100 K at night.
But if Mercury had a significant atmosphere, it could not cool to 100 K at night [greenhouse effect]. Or with an atmosphere, Mercury would certainly have wind. But if Mercury had an atmosphere like Mars [thin atmosphere] then it wouldn’t have much greenhouse effect.
If you imagine the atmosphere not retaining any heat, then an atmosphere on Mercury, would not have wind. Wind is proof that atmosphere retains heat better than surface.
gb,
Maybe you are misunderstanding me. Anything (including the atmosphere) “contains heat” as long it is above absolute zero.
When external heat sources are removed, the atmosphere cools. There is a natural heat source below the atmosphere called the Earth. The mantle is within 5 km of the surface in some places, and molten magma flows through the crust continuously, creating the mid-ocean hedges. Plenty of heat available at the bases of both the aquasphere and the atmosphere.
At night, the surface cools. As has the Earth over the last four and a half billion years.
As to the influence of the atmosphere, about 1366 W/m2 reaches the atmosphere from the Sun. About 1000 W/m2 reaches the surface. The maximum surface temperature achievable is around 90 C, which accords with theory. On the Moon, with no atmosphere , the maximum temperature should be that due to 1366 W/m2 – around 120 C for a black body. The maximum measured temperature exceeds this, so the nominal 1366 W/m2 generally used may be less than the actual.
So having an atmosphere results in lower maxima, as would be expected by reducing the amount of radiation hitting a thermometer.
And all without mentioning the GHE or CO2! Amazing!
I’m happy to continue, if you would be so good as to directly quote anything you disagree with, and let me know your reasons.
Cheers.
–Mike Flynn says:
March 18, 2019 at 6:44 PM
gb,
Maybe you are misunderstanding me. Anything (including the atmosphere) “contains heat” as long it is above absolute zero.–
I think we both agree, that Earth’s atmosphere is not making the surface hotter. Or greenhouse on the Moon would have higher noon time air temperature as compared to earth’s air temperature or even the air temperature in parked car with windows rolled up [or any kind of greenhouse or insulated box].
Solar ponds on Earth reach max temperature of about 80 C and on the Moon a solar pond would reach 120 C. Or simply any sealed can of water would reach 120 C [or hotter].
“When external heat sources are removed, the atmosphere cools. There is a natural heat source below the atmosphere called the Earth. The mantle is within 5 km of the surface in some places, and molten magma flows through the crust continuously, creating the mid-ocean hedges. Plenty of heat available at the bases of both the aquasphere and the atmosphere.”
As said before, it’s possible internal heat of Earth might warming the ocean a bit. But I don’t think internal heat of Earth is significant part of what causes Earth [or Venus] atmosphere to warm up much.
But I think the average temperature of entire ocean is important part of global climate. And when one considers average ocean temperature has apparently gotten as cold as 1 C, the internal Earth might be a rather important part of why Earth has never been a Snowball Earth.
–As to the influence of the atmosphere, about 1366 W/m2 reaches the atmosphere from the Sun. About 1000 W/m2 reaches the surface.–
I think what increases Earth average temperature, particularly regions outside the the tropics, is the ocean.
And the ocean is warmed by direct and indirect sunlight, and direct and indirect sunlight when sun is near zenith on clear day is 1120 watts per square meter.
Or earth’s tropics are about 40% of Earth surface, and tropics receives more than 1/2 of sunlight reaching the Earth surface and the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world [the tropical ocean warms to rest of the world.
Or without high average temperature of the tropical ocean, the rest of the world would have much lower average temperature [cooler nights and colder winters].
–So having an atmosphere results in lower maxima, as would be expected by reducing the amount of radiation hitting a thermometer.
And all without mentioning the GHE or CO2! Amazing!–
Well, I have not ruled out possibility that greenhouse gases [mostly H20 water vapor] has warming effect- causes a higher average temperatures- which largely about night time and winter temperature.
I have rule out that greenhouse gases cause 33 K of warming, I think at most it would be 15 K or less.
And I am playing the greenhouse effect theory rules of clouds counting as greenhouse gases [and obviously clouds are not actually gases]. Or when some claim that clouds could be as much as 1/2 of greenhouse effect, I agree that clouds might as significant as gases which called greenhouse gases.
Anyhow, I am lukerwarmer who is aware that we currently in an Ice Age.
And I don’t think 15 C is warm.
Just curious…where/how do you get that the GHE on Earth is 15K or less?
I agree. I believe upwelling heat from below the surface is about 0.1 W/m^2 and the tidal dissipation from the Earth/Moon system is about 0.01 W/m^2. So tidal heating is clearly insignificant. Right now the energy imbalance in the geosphere is about +0.7 W/m^2 (give or take). Geothermal is an unlikely candidate to explain this imbalance because it would require an unrealistically high perturbation in geothermal activity to explain it.
b,
Your figure of 0.1 W/m2 gives a BB temp of about 35 K. This could be assumed to be the temperature of the surface in the absence of external inputs.
Curiously enough, this is in the near vicinity of the supposed GHE effect temperature of 33 K or so.
Actually, if the calculations of surface heat due to sunlight are about 255 K, based on incoming radiation, this applies to a body at 0 K. But if the body is already at, say, 33 K, then the additional heat would lead to temperature of 288 K.
Similar to needing less energy to raise water to 100 C if you start at 33 C, rather than 0 C.
Just a thought.
Cheers.
I agree that an absolute 0.1 W/m2 flux would yield a ~35K temperature. However, what we want to know is what is the temperature perturbation of a radiant flux perturbation of 0.1 W/m2 relative to a more realistic baseline.
If surface heat were 255K then:
j = 5.67e-8 * 255^4 = 239.74 W/m2
Then using perturbation analysis:
(j + j’) = 5.67e-8 * (T + T’)^4
T’ = ((j + j’) / 5.67e-8)^1/4 – T
T’ = ((239.74 + 0.10) / 5.67e-8)^1/4 – 255 = -0.026K
So the temperature perturbation T’ is +0.026K with a flux perturbation i’ of +0.1 W/m2.
So assuming the Earth were an ideal BB then a 0.1 W/m2 perturbation from the baseline only produces a temperature perturbation of about 0.03K from the baseline. This makes sense because it requires smaller and smaller changes in T to increase/decrease the radiant flux since it is proportional to the 4th power.
I guess my point is that we don’t want to assume the absence of external inputs here. They make a big difference.
Check my math. Sometimes I goof it up…
–bdgwx says:
March 19, 2019 at 8:22 PM
Just curious…where/how do you get that the GHE on Earth is 15K or less?–
Hmm. I just mean greenhouse gases as described in Greenhouse Effect Theory are warming less than half then the claimed 33 K.
The theory starts with a model call the ideal thermally conductive blackbody which establishes baseline of uniform temperature of about 5 C at Earth’s distance from the sun.
The ideal thermal conductive model represent an impossible object as word “ideal” suggests. It would be a passive refrigerator which was not visible in the visible light spectrum. It would be invisible to human eyes and would be coldest possible object at 1 AU distance from the Sun- as it cools the warmest region in sunlight to a uniform temperature of 5 C- or a “normal surface” in sunlight would be about 120 C [and would reflect sunlight].
Or to detect it, one needs to able to detect objects which radiate IR at temperature of 5 C. To be clear it’s the coldest a large sphere could be, other shapes could be colder, and small spheres are less impossible- or main part of the ideal is the thermal conductive aspect and large objects are less conductive of heat over more distance [hundreds of meters].
Anyhow, roughly an object [a manmade object, space rock or planet] at 1 AU distance should be about 5 C. And characteristics of the object, spin, material composition of it, can alter it’s average temperature and it’s temperature in sunlight and shade. And the more thermally conductive the material would result in a more uniform temperature and closer to an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody temperature of 5 C.
For example small fast spinning space rocks at 1 AU distance from the Sun, are or should be a fairly uniform temperature of about 5 C.
Our Moon is example of object which isn’t close to ideal thermally conductive body- and it’s surface temperature ranges from 400 to 100 K. But a meter below the lunar surface it’s closer to ideal thermally conductive body in terms of uniformity and constant temperature [though much colder temperature than 5 C].
So using ideal thermally conductive blackbody as basis of model. one could say Earth should have average temperature of about 5 C, and one can say that roughly Earth average temperature is about 5 C.
But greenhouse effect theory, adds a factor to model. It’s says that earth is like a ideal thermally conductive body which reflects about 30% of the sunlight.
So ideal thermally conductive blackbody absorbs 340 watts and emits 340 watts.
Earth absorbs 240 watts and emits 240 watts.
An ideal thermally conductive blackbody determine temperature related to it’s distance from the sun. And they say because earth reflects sunlight that effectively acts as though Earth is further from the sun.
So if add an atmosphere to Planet at 1 AU and if atmosphere reflects 30% sunlight, then it’s like moving planet further from the Sun- to about 1.2 AU. And then add greenhouse gas it acts as though you moving planet closer than 1 AU to the sun.
So theory says add an atmosphere and makes a planet have lower average temperature, when in fact if add an atmosphere it would increase the average temperature.
Earth absorbs a lot sunlight, but it does absorb as much as ideal thermally conductive blackbody [nothing does] but ideal thermally conductive blackbody also emits a lot of energy, it emit so much energy that it’s refrigerator[moving massive amounts of energy and radiating it into a vacuum. Or if had something like a ideal thermally conductive blackbody it might be useful to cool Earth- though might need to into elevated in the vacuum of space [as this unobtainum of technology was magically designed to work in a vacuum].
So Earth on average absorbs 240 watts, nothing in the solar system absorbs this much energy or emits this much energy. And does so, because it’s fairly close to the Sun, it has atmosphere and it has an Ocean of water. But not particluarly, because it is saltwater or because there greenhouse gases, nor even because it has clouds in the atmosphere. And also because has tilt to it’s rotation and fairly fast rotation.
Venus is hot, because it has clouds, and the clouds increase the amount of sunlight which is reflected. AND Venus has a huge atmosphere. Venus also has moderately effective fast rotation [4 to 5 days] because the atmosphere flows globally in 4 to 5 days.
But if you put Venus at Mars distance from the Sun, it would become colder than Earth [the clouds aren’t going to keep it warm because it’s too far from the Sun].
Numerous clowns have demonstrated their severe lack of knowledge about radiative physics. The plates nonsense has really got them wrapped around their own axes. Adding the third plate completely destroyed them. But poor Nate decided he would try one more act of desperation.
He “imagined” a “basic physics textbook”. Then, he imagined a problem from the imaginary textbook. His statement of the problem is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345325
And he provides the incorrect solution of “60 W”.
When I told him that his incorrect solution did not allow for an energy balance, he answered essentially that the input needed to be changed to match the answer.
What!
Yes, the poor clown believes you can change the problem to match the incorrect answer.
Unbelievable.
As I explained to him, you could make almost any answer correct if you can go back and change the incoming energy to match. Of course, he can’t understand.
Nothing new.
Just for kicks, we could expand Nate’s original problem. Plate 1 is always held at 303 K with appropriate heaters/coolers. Plate 2 is held steady with appropriate heaters/coolers at any of the following temperatures.
a) 293 K (10 K cooler)
b) 302 K (1 K cooler
c) 303 K (same)
d) 304 K (1 K warmer)
e) 313 K (10 K warmer)
How much heat is measured going from Plate 1 to Plate 2?
*************************************
I hope everyone can agree that for case (3) there is no heat flow. (But I am sure *someone* will object even to this most basic application of the 0th Law.)
I hope that we can agree that when the Plate 2 is cooler than Plate 1 (cases 1 & 2), there is a heat flow from Plate 1 to Plate 2. Further, the heat flow becomes larger as Plate 2 gets colder.
I hope that we can agree that when the Plate 2 is warmer (cases 4 & 5), there is a heat flow from Plate 2 to Plate 1. Further, the heat flow becomes larger as Plate 2 gets warmer.
**********************************
PS: The answers will be
a) 60 W from Plate 1 to Plate 2
b) 6.3 W from Plate 1 to Plate 2
c) 0 W
d) 6.3 W from Plate 2 to Plate 1
e) 66 W from Plate 2 to Plate 1
`
“I hope everyone can agree that for case (3) there is no heat flow.”
Correct. There IS energy flow both ways though and that energy flow will net to zero change in enthalpy for each of the two plates.
For the other cases, there is also energy flow both ways increasing entropy in each plate and the net energy flow is nonzero with the direction given by the one that increases system entropy.
Adding the third plate completely destroyed JD & DREMT since the solution can be easily shown just by passing HS physics (and theirs isn’t it).
“For the other cases, there is also energy flow both ways increasing entropy in each plate and the net energy flow is nonzero with the direction given by the one that increases system entropy.”
Yes, there are photons carrying energy both ways in every case.
No, the entropy of both plates in not increasing.
The entropy change in a system in classical thermodynamics is
ΔS = Q/T. In one second, 60 J leave the warm plate (Plate 1 @ 303K) and 60 J enters the cool plate (Plate 2 @ 293K)
The entropy changes are
ΔS = Q/T = -60 J / 303 K = -0.198 J/K (Plate 1)
ΔS = Q/T = -60 J / 293 K = +0.205 J/K (Plate 2)
Plate 1 is decreasing in entropy due to the heat flow between them. Plate 2 is increasing in entropy due to the heat flow between the plates. The total entropy (the entropy of the universe) is increasing, which is what that 2LoT requires.
That should be “delta S = Q/T” in the previous post.
tim…”The entropy change in a system in classical thermodynamics is
ΔS = Q/T”.
That’s not correct. Entropy is an integral, it’s a sum of infinitesimal heat quantities.
Clausius defined entropy as the sum of infinitesimal changes in heat, dQ, at the temperature, T, at which each heat change takes place. If you draw the heat from a heat bath of constant T then you can pull T outside the integral sign making entropy the total heat over a process.
Therefore dS = dQ/T as Clausius specified.
You can specify S as a total as ‘delta S’ = Q(1/T2 – 1/T1), where Q represents a quantity of heat transferred from a hotter source at T1 to a cooler body at T2). The only way S can remain positive is when T1 > T2.
Clausius also established that entropy can be 0 for a reversible process and +ve for an irreversible process. It can never be negative.
The negative entropy you have referred to represents a heat transfer from cold to hot, which is not permitted under normal circumstances.
As it applies to the blue plate/green plate, it means heat can never be transferred from the cooler green plate to the hotter blue plate. It also means any EM from the GP must have no effect on the BP.
Gordon,
I could have been a little more precise and said “The entropy change in a system *AT CONSTANT TEMPERATURE* in classical thermodynamics …” Since that is the situation we had, I jumped straight to ΔS – Q/T. You took a couple extra steps to get to that point.
You stated
delta S = Q(1/T2 1/T1)
which is exactly the same as I had. I calculated each of these terms separately and then added them; you wrote them together.
You do, however make one fundamental conceptual error that shows you are missing some important understanding. You confuse “entropy” and “entropy change”. Entropy is always positive. Every system everywhere has positive entropy. Entropy *changes* can be positive or negative. (Much like pressure is always positive, but pressure changes can be positive or negative).
So you really meant that Clausius established that entropy CHANGE can be 0 for a reversible process and +ve for an irreversible process. It can never be negative.
You compound this error when you say :”the negative entropy you have referred to represents a heat transfer from cold to hot…”
First, you should say “the negative entropy CHANGE … “.
Second, even that is the wrong. The negative entropy change refers to the warmer plate. It is losing both Q and S as it shines IR toward the cooler plate. The warmer plate does indeed have a negative change in entropy. This happens all the time, any time a system sends heat to a cooler system.
The cooler plate has a positive entropy change. And this change is larger in magnitude: +0.205 vs -0.198. The overall change for the universe is +0.007 J/K, which is indeed your ‘delta s’.
Your conclusions about the B/G plate scenario are flawed. Let me ask a simple question — is the B/G plate scenario reversible? Could everything (or indeed anything) in this scenario work equally well with the arrows reversed?
tim…”So you really meant that Clausius established that entropy CHANGE can be 0 for a reversible process and +ve for an irreversible process. It can never be negative”.
What is an entropy change? Sounds much like a net energy balance.
You are describing entropy as an independent phenomenon that can change yet it describes a change in the total quantity of heat in a process. Clausius came up with entropy as a means of stating the 2nd law mathematically.
The only thing that can change is the heat transfer in a system. Heat is real, it is the kinetic energy of atoms as measured by temperature. Entropy is simply a means of summing heat change over a process, it is not a change in itself.
If you regard entropy as Clausius described it in an irreversible process, as a tendency toward chaos from a higher form of order, that comes about because a process breaks up in such a manner as to become less orderly. During that process, heat is given off and can never be recovered to produce the initial order in the atomic bonds.
In an irreversible process, bonds have been broken, energy has been given off in the form of heat, and those bonds will never come together again by their own means.
So where is your change of entropy? Entropy is the breaking up of orderly formations, it is a measure of change (of heat). How does entropy change?
dS = dQ/T
The only change you can have with entropy is the change from a differential quantity to an integral quantity. All S tells you is the sum of changes in heat. Once you have integrated that and found S, how does entropy itself change?
When you have a hotter body at T1 radiating to a cooler body at T2, the equation S = Q(1/T2 – 1/T1) tells us that a quantity of heat, Q, has transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body. If you try to force it in the other direction, S becomes negative, a condition Clausius claimed cannot exist.
dS is telling you that an infinitesimal amount of heat is being transferred at temperature T. It’s the heat that is changing in quantity from a differential quantity to a total quantity.
If the process is reversible, the change is zero over the entire process path. However, if the process is irreversible, the change is positive only. It can never be negative because that would mean a transfer of heat from a cold body to a hot body.
That’s the way entropy was specified by Clausius and I fear modernists have corrupted that definition just as they have corrupted the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to get a two way transfer of EM, hence a two way transfer of heat.
That’s what Eli has done with his green plate/blue plate nonsense. He has corrupted the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to allow a heat transfer from a colder green plate to a warmer blue plate.
In the original Stefan equation, he drew on the work of Tyndall, who heated a platinum wire electrically till it glowed. As he increased the current, the wire glowed different colours, indicating colour temperature as it warmed from about 700C to 1500C.
The EM given off was from a heated device to ambient room temperature. a one way flow. Eli came along and claimed that somehow, EM from the room air could be radiated to the platinum wire at 1000C, raising its temperature.
Suppose you now put that heated wire in a blast furnace where the ambient air is 2000C. What will happen? The wire will obviously get warmer but you would not expect it to radiate EM to the blast furnace to warm it.
That’s what the BP/GP thought-experiment is claiming. It’s actually an analogy for this nonsense we call AGW, where cooler GHGs in the atmosphere can back-radiate EM to the surface in order to raise surface temperature.
A complete load of bunk.
“The only thing that can change is the heat transfer in a system. ”
Internal energy can’t change?
Pressure can’t change?
Temperature can’t change?
Enthalpy can’t change?
All of these are state functions that can can change as the state of the system changes. I am not describing entropy as an “independent phenomenon”. I am describing it as a variable determined by the state of a system.
“All S tells you is the sum of changes in heat.”
No. IN classical thermodynamics, all that the CHANGE is S tells you is the sum of changes in heat DIVIDED by the temperature of the object providing the heat.
With such fundamental misunderstandings, it is not surprising that you say a number of mostly correct things, but also a bunch of wildly inaccurate things.
Tim writes: “No, the entropy of both plates in not increasing.
…Plate 1 is decreasing in entropy due to the heat flow between them.”
That’s incorrect Tim; you of all commenters should have this right but your assertion can be proven wrong. I know it is tempting to surmise that if entropy increases in a real heating process, then entropy decreases in a real cooling process. That’s a fairly reasonable expectation (and a popular urban legend!), but it is not true, which attests to the peculiarity of entropy. For both real natural heating and cooling processes, entropy increases.
You may be able to find your own source for the math proof with a little research, if interested. Two source books on my virtual shelf on the topic are Bent 1965: “The second law” and Fast 1968: “Entropy”.
“If you try to force it in the other direction, S becomes negative, a condition Clausius claimed cannot exist.”
That’s incorrect Gordon. dS = dQ/T is for an imagined reversible process (imagined since none exist) so look up what is meant by reversible; for such an imagined process just run its movie in reverse from state 1 to state 2.
And, by the way, dS = dQ/T applies to only one case: the universe as a whole. The real definition of entropy for a real system by Clausius is S2-S1 .GT. Integral from state 1 to state 2: [Q(t)/T(t) * dt] so T is NOT a constant over dt in any real system process from state 1 to state2 thus can not be taken out from under the integral as a constant over time. All thermodynamic processes involve time.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I hope we can all agree that Tim and fluffball are as desparate as Nate.
I hope we can all agree that Tim always tries to confuse the issue, when his pseudoscience gets busted.
I hope we can all agree that fluffball will say anything to avoid reality.
*********
Now, if we stick with the original problem Nate conjured up, which Tim labels a), then Tim makes the same blunder Nate made. The energy flows don’t balance, without readjusting for the incorrect answer.
Tim, learn some physics.
JD, all your posts are clearly no more than empty insults since you have nothing more.
Prove me wrong! Un-confuse the issues. Explain how the energy flows don’t balance (they do!). What “readjusting” are you referring to (there was no readjusting). Explain what is wrong with any of my calculations (you can’t), and how you would do better.
What specific statement or number do you disagree with?
It is amazing how people keep saying things like “learn some physics”. But their “physics” never includes results or ideas from:
* physics textbooks
* practicing engineers
* equations from the 1800’s
* equations from the 1900’s
Tim, you don’t know enough physics to understand basic problems. That’s why you have been constantly told to “learn some physics”.
For the incorrect answer to Nate’s problem (60 W), the energy flow would look like this:
293 K plate–Energy in: 60 W + 358 W = Energy out: 418 W.
The 358 W was re-adjusted from 836 W, to match flows with the incorrect answer.
You could make ANY answer work, by re-adjusting energy. For example, say 30W was your incorrect answer, then
293 K plate–Energy in: 30 W + 388 W = Energy out: 418 W.
To make it simple for you to understand, a car travels 50 miles in one hour, what was its average speed?
An incorrect answer would be 25 mph. But, you can make the incorrect answer appear correct just by “adjusting” the distance travel or the travel time. 25miles/1 hr = 25 mph, or 50 miles/2hr = 25 mph.
That how problems are correctly solved!
Learn some physics.
“The 358 W was re-adjusted from 836 W … ”
Where did either of these numbers come from? You seem to have simply pulled them from thin air! Are they suppose to represent the result of some calculations you did? They are certainly not anything anyone else ever said.
You still haven’t said how much energy YOU think goes from one plate to the other. WHAT IS THE RIGHT ANSWER if it is not 60 W? (according to the JD rules of physics. Show your work, not your talent for ‘clever’ insults based on people’s names!)
Another of the Tall Tales of Huffman,
With his remarkable ability to pluck numbers from thin air,
Gastrorisk/JDHuff must have a background in creative accounting.
Could he be behind Donald Trump’s amazing variation in valuations of his properties for taxes ,insurance and egotistical purposes? What we have seen so far he would have been useful in this role. Maybe he was Trump’s personal physicist.
Tim,
Simplify things a bit. Back to basics.
The Sun (heat source).
One plate – the atmosphere (call it blue because it looks blue from the ground).
The other side of the plate – where the thermometer is.
1366 W/m2 on one side of the plate. 1000 W/m2 emitted by the other side of the plate.
Measured. I say that 1000W/m2 results in a lower temperature than 1366W/m2. You will tell me how I should ignore reality, and lurch off into fantasy.
That is no doubt due to the fact that you are stupid and ignorant. Imaginary and poorly thought out speculation is no substitute for reality.
Cheers,
Tim naively asks: “Where did either of these numbers come from? You seem to have simply pulled them from thin air! Are they suppose to represent the result of some calculations you did?”
Tim, if you knew anything about radiative physics, you would know where the number came from. If the 293K plate is to be at 293K, it must be radiating 418 Watts/m^2, from the S/B Law. Since the plate has two sides and a total area of 2 square meters, it must radiate 836 Watts. That means some source must be supplying 836 Watts, incoming.
Now, if the other plate results in an net 60 W incoming, instead of allowing 418 W outgoing, then the source must be reduced to 358 W. That way, energy in = energy out, 358 W = 60 + 418.
Tim whines: “You still haven’t said how much energy YOU think goes from one plate to the other.”
I haven’t revealed the correct answer, but I’ll make you the same offer I made Nate. If you will agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days, I will show you how to get the correct answer. Do you agree?
Here’s your chance to learn some more physics….
Errata (Sorry, 1st cup of coffee):
That way, energy in = energy out, 358 W + 60 W = 418 W.
JD, it seems, would like to spread the word that he is thoroughly confused about basic heat transfer.
He cannot possibly give me an answer to the simplest possible radiative heat transfer problem, the heat flow between parallel 1 m^2 black (e=1) plates, one held at 303K, one held at fixed temperature of 293 K, separated by 1 cm of vacuum.
Do th Junior Dufus declares:
“For the incorrect answer to Nate’s problem (60 W), the energy flow would look like this:
293 K plate–Energy in: 60 W + 358 W = Energy out: 418 W.
The 358 W was re-adjusted from 836 W, to match flows with the incorrect answer.
You could make ANY answer work, by re-adjusting energy. For example, say 30W was your incorrect answer, then
293 K plate–Energy in: 30 W + 388 W = Energy out: 418 W.”
Of course, the correct answer, 60 W is easily found using the radiative heat transfer equation, which he claims is ‘bogus’.
“Now, if the other plate results in an net 60 W incoming, instead of allowing 418 W outgoing, then the source must be reduced to 358 W. That way, energy in = energy out, 358 W + 60 = 418”
There is nothing wrong with this calculation, JD,, except you are making assumptions about the temperature of the surroundings, that were not stated.
However, it is addressing a question that was not asked in the problem: ‘What is the heat input to the plate held at 293K?’
Nor is it asked for the plate ‘held at 303K’
It asks ONLY for the heat flow BETWEEN the plates.
Which can only be 60W with the parameters given in this problem.
The problem states that the plate is ‘held at 293K’ and the other ‘held at 303K’.
That means pay no attention to how that is accomplished.
JD says: “Since the plate has two sides and a total area of 2 square meters ”
The original problem says nothing about the other side. The problem asks us “Find the heat flow rate between them”. You can imagine what the surroundings are like, and what the back side of the sheets are like, and what heat flows are going to the surroundings, but that was not the question being asked.
If you are going to answer a *different* question, then it is up to you to state what problem *you* are trying to solve. It is not ‘naive’ to not be able to guess what question you might be trying to answer!
For the question being asked, the heat flow rate — the net thermal energy transfer from the warm plate to the cool plate — is 60 W.
* It doesn’t matter how the sheets are radiating to the surroundings.
* doesn’t matter how the backsides of the sheets might be insulated or what their emissivities are.
* It doesn’t matter what electric heaters might be in ether sheet.
* It doesn’t matter what chilled water might be circulating through the sheets.
Your “836 W” relates to a different question you are choosing to answer instead of the question actually asked.
“If you will agree to not comment on this blog for 90 days, I will show you how to get the correct answer. Do you agree?”
Sure (if indeed your answer is correct!). And if I ask a group of actual physics professors and they all agree with Nate and me, will you make the same promise?
Tim, I was curious how you would try to slither out of this one. You took all day to figure out your “escape”, but you got caught anyway.
This ongoing discussion has been about “plates”. That’s “plates”, with TWO sides. Nate used the word “plates”. You used the word “plates”. NOWHERE in Nate’s problem did ANYONE mention these were ONE-sided plates!
So, what has happened here is that you have figured out a way to get around the fact that the energy flows don’t work out. You have figured out you needed ONE-sided plates!
That’s tricky, but tricks and deception do not change reality. For REAL plates, in the scenario here, the energy flows do not work out because the equation used is BOGUS.
Learn some physics, and clean up your act. Clowns use tricks.
“what has happened here is that you have figured out a way to get around the fact that the energy flows don’t work out.”
No, JD, No, no no. Hes absolutely right. ‘If you are going to answer a *different* question, then it is up to you to state what problem *you* are trying to solve. ‘
The energy flows do work out in the problem, BY DESIGN.
They work out because the temperatures of the plates are FIXED!
It does not make sense for you to say the temperatures can’t be fixed. Of course they can!
The whole point of radiative heat transfer between two surfaces is that you only need to know the temperatures and properties of those surfaces.
It doesn’t matter, as Tim says, about any other surfaces, etc
JD, *You* started this sub-thread to discuss this problem Nate introduced.
“Two thin 1 x 1 m metal sheets painted black are parallel and separated by 1 cm in vacuum. One sheet is held at room temperature, 293 K, and the other is held at 303 K.
Find the heat flow rate between them, dQ/dt. Assume emissivity of the sheets is 1 and view factor = 1.
That is what YOU wanted to discuss and that is what we are discussing now. There are innumerable other questions we COULD discuss, but right now the questions is simply to find the flow rate of heat, dQ/dt, from one surface of one sheet to one surface of a second sheet.
For that stated question, there is the one, clear, correct answer. Whatever other flows of heat might be going into or out of either of the two sheets, the flow via thermal radiation from one sheet to the other is 60 W.
Tim, your continued effort to misrepresent, spin, and distort is amazing and amusing.
You start by mentioning my comment above, but you quote Nate! Tricky!
Then you claimed I wanted to discuss that quote. But what I wanted to discuss was the fact the Nate’s problem was bogus, as was his “basic physics textbook”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345916
What we have learned is that the 2-plates, 3-plates, and now the one-sided plates, are all failed attempts to promote pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
JD is clearly wrong, but can never admit error.
That could be ok, if he would learn from it. And come back not repeat the same error.
Will he? Probably not.
Mike, I agree with your conclusion for your simplified scenario.
Adding your “blue plate” (the atmosphere) whose sole effect is reducing incoming solar power from 1370W/m^2 to 1000 W/m^2 will have a cooling effect on a thermometer on they surface. This “blue plate” will cool the surface. The fact that you seem to think I would reach any other conclusion suggests you really have no idea what I think or understand.
Here’s the problem — the “blue plate” has a second effect, which you completely ignore. I agreed with you on the above effect. Now it is your turn. Stop anywhere you disagree.
1) The atmosphere effects IR radiation.
2) The atmosphere absorbs some of the IR radiation from the surface before it can escape to space.
3) The temperature of any surface is a function both of how much power it is absorbing AND how much power it is getting rid of.
4) Reduce how easily the power get out (keeping input power the same), and the temperature must go up!
Tiim keeps making the same mistake.
Putting more ice in a cooler will not increase the temperature of the cooler. Even if there is a light bulb in the cooler, adding more ice will not increase the temperature.
Tim just can not understand.
Putting more ice in a cooler WILL increase the temperature of the cooler if the dry ice is replaced by water ice, you know, like an IR active atm. replacing space. Even with a light bulb in there! Switched “off” OR “on” (like IR active atm. in day/night).
JD just needs to learn some physics. But JD has learned good entertainment principles which never cease from JD around here. Tragedy is when I stub my toe, comedy is when JD falls down a well or does physics.
Fluffball chases his own tail.
Nothing new.
Day 8. It seems we have the first member of “the Team” in agreement with us about the solution to the 3-plate problem: Ball4. At least, he agrees with us that this:
Plates together:
244K…244K…244K
Plates pulled slightly apart:
244K…290K…244K
is obviously wrong. Whilst the rest of “the Team” are on record as agreeing with, and defending, the above; Ball4 is resolute in his agreement that it’s wrong. Thanks for the support, Ball4.
8 days of DREMT denying facts, physics, reality, and declaring victory anyway.
Rather pathetic.
Why is it obviously wrong?
Here’s Ball4’s answer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
I look forward to seeing you two debate the issue.
DREMT,
Doctor Empty?
I am not going to debate with Ball4, but he is right, the green plate temperature goes down initially, but still the final answer is 244, 290, 244. Once the green plates are separated from the blue, they are now radiating in two directions so the loss is less so the whole thing must increase in temperature to restore the balance. The green plates go down because there is no longer conduction. Then they go back up as the 400 watt heating element increases the temperature of the blue plate to restore the energy balance.
I was asking you why it is obviously wrong.
No answer eh?
No scientific explanation, just playing games.
“I am not going to debate with Ball4, but he is right, the green plate temperature goes down initially, but still the final answer is 244, 290, 244.”
That is not what Ball4 is saying. He is disputing the final answer of 244K…290K…244K, and has consistently done so (I can link to previous comments if you wish). Reason he has given is a 1LoT violation. Your thoughts, in response? Then perhaps Ball4 can reply to you.
I’ll be happy to mediate, and moderate, as usual.
Ball4 says the JD diagram is wrong, I want to know why you think it’s an obvious error to have the 244 290 244 solution.
I was asking you Doctor Empty, don’t pass the buck.
Show you have knowledge.
No, bob, stop trying to squirm your way out of it. Ball4 is disputing the 244K…290K…244K solution.
Two more examples of that for you to try to ignore:
1) http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345437
2) http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345336
I will quote Ball4 from my earlier link (of my 8:59 am comment), and you can take that as my answer if you like:
“JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K”
So there you go, bob. Your middle (blue) plate is increasing in temperature, by 46 K no less, with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which is a clear violation of 1LoT.
Now how is that a violation of the first law.
It’s the same thing as insulating your house with the same furnace, if you slow down the energy loss, you wind up with a warmer house.
b,
On the other hand, I use insulation to keep my house cool. The exterior furnace (the Sun) produces too much heat for me.
What is your point? That the atmosphere prevents about 25% of the Suns energy from reaching the surface, making it cooler?
Cheers.
Mike,
the point was whether or not the laws of thermodynamic are applied properly to a stupid problem.
You wrote –
“Mike,
the point was whether or not the laws of thermodynamic are applied properly to a stupid problem.”
Rubbish. You were just trying to make someone look foolish, by supposedly asking a stupid gotcha.
Why would anyone care whether you think the laws of thermodynamics were properly applied to anything or not?
Anyone who believes that reducing the amount of insolation at the surface makes it hotter, is hardly be likely to be recognised as an authority on thermodynamics, are they?
Keep trying to turn fantasy into fact. Maybe it will work, one day. Maybe Michael Mann will get a Nobel Prize around the same time. Good luck.
Cheers.
bobd…”Its the same thing as insulating your house with the same furnace, if you slow down the energy loss, you wind up with a warmer house”.
Applies only to heat conduction, not radiation. To slow down radiation loss you need to install a reflective layer. It’s not worth the bother since heat loss via radiation at terrestrial temperatures is insignificant.
R-rated insulation slows down the loss of heat by conduction only. Walls and windows stop convection but radiation goes straight through walls. If it didn’t you’d never get radio reception in a wood frame home.
Gordon, then how come your radio reception goes out in tunnels and underpasses?
huh?
It depends on the wavelength how much the radiation penetrates.
Otherwise your oven would heat the whole house.
…and, it’s gone full circle, back to the “insulation” arguments…
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 20, 2019 at 11:50 AM:
Do you understand the thermodynamic principle of insulation, DREMT?
How does insulation work, thermodynamically?
“How does insulation work, thermodynamically?”
Are you wanting another of your childish semantic arguments, Kristian?
Well, if so, chew on this awhile: Insulation does NO work, thermodynamically.
Evading again, JD?
Come on, dazzle us with your intellect. How does insulation work, thermodynamically? What’s the basic principle?
Klown, you’ve already been dazzled by my intellect.
Insulation does NOT produce work, thermodynatically.
Evade that.
bobd…”Gordon, then how come your radio reception goes out in tunnels and underpasses?”
That’s why I stipulated ‘wood-frame’ buildings. Back in the bad old days before cable reached all communities, you could get a perfectly good TV reception in a wood-frame home with an indoor antenna atop your TV.
In a tunnel or underpass, you are surrounded with rebar-filled concrete.
JDHuffman says, March 20, 2019 at 4:13 PM:
Can’t say I have.
Haha! Who says it “produces work”? How does it work? As in “function”? Thermodynamically. Be both know you’re not this stupid, JD.
So, care to enlighten us?
Or are you determined to keep evading the question?
Speaks volumes.
Kristian, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 23, 2019 at 8:26 PM:
LOL! Talk about having come “full circle”.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346079
Do you understand the thermodynamic principle of insulation, DREMT?
How does insulation work, thermodynamically?
Care to respond?
Kristian, how long’s a piece of string?
Care to respond?
bobdroege wrote –
“Once the green plates are separated from the blue, they are now radiating in two directions so the loss is less so the whole thing must increase in temperature to restore the balance.”
Complete nonsense. This is about as stupid as a balding bumbling buffoon claiming that the Earth must increase in temperature, after it cools, to achieve some sort of mythical “balance”!
Any fool ( even a pseudoscientific fool) can see that the Earth has not “increased in temperature” to restore any “balance” as it has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. It cooled. It lost energy, and continues to do so. Every night, for example. Or in winter.
Diversions into plates (whether one or two sided), insulation, overcoats, pot lids and all the rest have not resulted in a useful definition of the GHE, much less a testable GHE hypothesis. Just more desperation from a stumbling, fumbling task of pseudoscientific climate clowns.
Even recruiting school children to ignore their education, and “strike” (relieving their teachers of the burden of having to support the “strikers” in their leisure time), might be as ineffective as the “Childrens’ Crusade” of the Middle Ages. Just another misguided disaster.
No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should!
Cheers.
MikeFLynn,
You are right it doesn’t have to balance, but that was the point of the problem, what are the temperatures and flows when steady state conditions return, ie, everything is stable and no longer changing.
And the earth has warmed and cooled over the last 4.6 billion years, no matter what you think.
And you have no evidence that it was all molten all at the same time, now do you?
Here’s a hypothesis for you.
The earth cools by emitting infrared radiation, and increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces this rate of cooling causing an increase in the global average surface temperature.
If you don’t think it’s a hypothesis, then you are confused.
And we are testing it as we type our silly thoughts on our computers.
You wrote –
“The earth cools by emitting infrared radiation, and increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces this rate of cooling causing an increase in the global average surface temperature.
If you dont think its a hypothesis, then you are confused.”
No it’s not a hypothesis – at least not one that makes any sense. Here’s one definition of a hypothesis –
” . . .a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.”
You seem to be proposing that demonstrated cooling (say at night), results in an increase in temperature, because the rate of cooling is diminished. By definition, a cooling body’s temperature does not increase – even if surrounded by the finest insulating material in the universe. An imaginary 100% effective insulator could do no more than stop the body cooling, not increase its temperature.
You may believe the Earth was created at absolute zero if you wish, and has since heated. You may believe that it was created 5 minutes ago by the Flying Spaghetti monster, if you wish.
My assumptions are that the Earth was created in a completely molten state, and currently is more than 95% molten. The Earth has quite obviously cooled since its surface was molten. Or even since the temperature dropped far enough o allow the first liquid water to form anywhere at all.
If you wish to disagree with anything I write, you could always quote me, and indicate your grounds for disagreement.
I doubt you will, because pseudoscientific nonsense believers reject inconvenient facts.
Cheers.
You are assuming the earth is 95% molten?
Why don’t you look it up?
The core is solid and the crust is solid.
That leaves the mantle, with it’s measured viscosity, you can look that up too, I would call it a viscous solid.
So not much of the earth is actually molten.
bobdruggy, please stop trolling.
You’re right. Here in Sweden, climate policy has begun to be governed by children. They don’t even have to be in school, they justify their absence with the hypothesis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzeekxtyFOY
The inflamatory rhetoric is hilarious, until you realize some will fall for it.
“You can’t solve a crises if you don’t treat it as a crisis”.
“You claim you care about your children, but you are sacrificing their future”.
I feel sorry for her! It must be a fool’s manuscript she reads!
Tim Folkerts,
You wrote –
“Now it is your turn. Stop anywhere you disagree.
1) The atmosphere effects IR radiation.
2) The atmosphere absorbs some of the IR radiation from the surface before it can escape to space.
3) The temperature of any surface is a function both of how much power it is absorbing AND how much power it is getting rid of.
4) Reduce how easily the power get out (keeping input power the same), and the temperature must go up!”
I am assuming that you meant ” . . . emits IR radiation.”
Unfortunately, you assume that IR emitted by the atmosphere (by definition at most the same temperature as the surface which emitted it) is somehow “absorbed” to excess by the surface which emitted it in the first place – effectively warming itself! This is nonsensical.
Here is what happens. The surface is above absolute zero. It emits radiation. Its temperature drops as a result. A portion of the radiation emitted is returned to the surface – some is reflected off clouds, particulate matter, the molecules which make up the atmosphere and so on.
Unfortunately, not all. Just some. A portion. Not enough to compensate for the energy radiated away. The temperature falls. More quickly where there is less water vapour or clouds – as in the arid tropical deserts. Less quickly where there is more particulate matter, water vapour, clouds and so on. But a slower rate of cooling is not heating. The surface is receiving less energy than it lost.
Until sunrise of course. The the surface starts heating again, for a few hours. Nothing places the energy lost from the interior of the Earth during the night, or winter. Fourier realised this, as did Lord Kelvin, and everybody else with any sense.
Hence the fact that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature. The temperature has fallen.
If you want to continue, quote what you are disagreeing with. I am not interested in responding to things I didn’t say. I’ll leave that to you.
Cheers.
“I am assuming that you meant ” . . . emits IR radiation.””
No, I mean it effects IR. It can absorb and emit IR, rather than being transparent. It is a “plate” in the sense you are using the word.
“A portion of the radiation emitted is returned to the surface – some is reflected off clouds, particulate matter, the molecules which make up the atmosphere and so on.”
You are directly on track to understand the issue and then …
“Not enough to compensate for the energy radiated away.”
.. and then you just throw out the answer! No matter how little energy is returned to the surface, it must have some impact on the surface temperature! The surface absorbs this energy and now has to radiate it away a second time. Since there is a limit to how well the surface can radiate away thermal IR, the rate of cooling will drop.
“But a slower rate of cooling [over night] is not heating.”
But a slower rate of cooling *is* a warmer surface temperature at dawn. When the sun comes up the next morning, it has a head start. If the day starts at 20 C instead of 18 C, then (everything else being constant), the next day will be a bit warmer because of the admitted slower rate of cooling. And the next morning will be a bit warmer yet. The average surface temperature will continue to be a bit higher than without the returned energy.
“Nothing [re]places the energy lost from the interior of the Earth during the night, or winter.”
And nothing has to! No one is arguing against a slow cooling the the core and mantel over the past 4 billion years. But we don’t live in the core. We live at the surface. For the surface, the interior of the earth provides less than 1 W/m^2. It is a bit player in the surface temperature. The core can continue to cool slowly with no measurable impact on the surface temperatures for the next year or century or eon.
Tim, you’re still making the same mistakes.
“No matter how little energy is returned to the surface, it must have some impact on the surface temperature! The surface absorbs this energy and now has to radiate it away a second time.”
False. Energy arriving the surface must be aborbed AND increase the average internal energy of the surface to raise surface temperature. That’s why you can’t warm your coffee with ice cubes.
“Since there is a limit to how well the surface can radiate away thermal IR, the rate of cooling will drop.”
False. The “limit” is determined by the surface temperature. A cooler surface is more “limited” than a hotter surface. A hotter surface is less “limited”. Learn some physics, clown.
“But a slower rate of cooling *is* a warmer surface temperature at dawn. When the sun comes up the next morning, it has a head start. If the day starts at 20 C instead of 18 C, then (everything else being constant), the next day will be a bit warmer because of the admitted slower rate of cooling. And the next morning will be a bit warmer yet. The average surface temperature will continue to be a bit higher than without the returned energy.”
False. Tim, not only do you not understand physics, you don’t understand cycles or seasons.
“That’s why you can’t warm your coffee with ice cubes.”
You can if you replace the dry ice in your coffee with those ice cubes.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Tim Folkerts says, March 20, 2019 at 6:20 AM:
But, Tim, this ISN’T the issue. The surface isn’t getting warmer because the atmosphere catches some of the outgoing IR from the surface and sends it back down to it to warm it some more. This is IPCC’s “GHE” version for dummies and preschool kids. Why are you promulgating it?
The atmosphere simply emits more thermal radiation AS IT GROWS WARMER. If catching more outgoing IR from the surface isn’t making the atmosphere warmer, then it won’t make the SURFACE any warmer either.
The heat transfer from surface to atmosphere is NOT purely about radiation, Tim. Far from it. And you know that.
*****************
Yes, I do know you’re involved in a much more basic discussion with these types, but please try and stay consistent and truthful in your comments.
You’re only feeding the confusion with comments such as yours. Is that what you want? What is your goal here, Tim? Clarity, or confusion?
Tim Folkerts says, March 20, 2019 at 6:20 AM:
This is even worse, Tim!
Tim,
Maybe you meant to write “affects”, rather than “effects”?
A slower rate of cooling is not heating.
You are just denying reality. The surface does not getter hotter day by day due to receiving less energy back than it emits. This is just climatological pseudoscience.
Whether you want to accept it or not, heating an object with sunlight for 6 hours, then allowing it to cool for 18 hours, does not make it hotter than it was the day before. Try it yourself – during winter for example. Or year to year.
The surface has cooled for four and a half billion years, in spite of the fantasy scenario you posit. The sun shines for four and a half billion years, and the surface cools in spite of it.
Unfortunately for all the climatological pseudoscientific nutters, Nature has actually performed an experiment using the Earth. No heating observed. The surface cooled. Deny it if you want, it doesn’t matter.
Cheers.
Yawn.
Yaaaaawn.
‘Whether you want to accept it or not, heating an object with sunlight for 6 hours, then allowing it to cool for 18 hours, does not make it hotter than it was the day before.’
Of course it does, MF.
Go to your vacation igloo in Siberia, fire up the wood burning stove for 6 hours, then turn it off for the next 18 h.
Is your igloo warmer than the day before?
Now throw some more snow on top of the igloo. Try the same experiment.
Is it even warmer, now?
Nate, please stop trolling.
Day 9…
…the usual.
Actually, its day 530, since Eli Rabett brought up the GPE, and you guys began your deep dive into deep denial of facts.
By now you’ve heard all the arguments, and been exposed to the basic heat transfer physics, and seen experiments, many times over.
Still, you guys are as committed as ever to ignorance.
So now the new strategy is to completely ignore facts and even deny basic laws of physics, ie troll.
Time to move on.
nate…”Actually, its day 530, since Eli Rabett brought up the GPE, and you guys began your deep dive into deep denial of facts”.
It’s Eli who is in deep denial. His thought experiment has long since been debunked by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, two experts in thermodynamics.
Eli tried his strange logic on them. When they claimed heat could only be transferred from a hotter body to a cooler body, in accordance with the 2nd law, Eli ranted that meant one body was not radiating.
G&T pointed out the obvious: that any net balance must apply to heat only as laid down by the 2nd law, which does not apply to EM. You cannot mix EM and thermal energies and get a net balance of a generic energy.
This nonsense about a net balance of energy lies at the basis of Eli’s argument. He thinks, like other pseudo-scientists, that ‘energy’ has to flow both ways between bodies of different temperatures. That notion is based on an incorrect extension of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which some quacks have extended to incorporate a two way heat transfer via EM. S-B applies only to a one-way transfer of heat.
The premise is ridiculous. How can a body cool and warm at the same time? How can a body emit EM and absorb it at the same time other than at thermal equilibrium.
No one has ever tried to explain how that can happen, they have simply added a part to the S-B equation to allow for it. Then they have claimed the net balance of energy without specifying the energy involved. A net balance of energy is a very strange summation of EM and heat to satisfy the pseudo-science.
Gordon,
You guys have had 3 semesters to learn how to solve ONE quite basic heat-transfer homework problem.
Thousands of engineering and science students have solved it, including, most likely, G&T.
What seems to be the problem?
Ideologically handicapped?
Yes Nate,
If another semester is failed then it is normal practice for the student to be ejected. Maybe these clowns should look for another less taxing course.
Perhaps a course where they can improve their rhetorical skills or a course in choreography. I would pay to see their version of the two plate problem as an interpretive dance. They would be more convincing and certainly less boring.
As for handicapped, let me count the ways.
“Thousands of engineering and science students have solved it, including, most likely, G&T.”
Nate, please stop trolling.
The clowns can’t take your daily reminder, DREMT. Many have already departed, as their ship sinks.
Yep, that third plate really bust the whole thing wide open. They’ve been strongly in denial ever since. It even got to the point that some of them were talking about the difference in thermal resistance due to adding a vacuum gap. Pretty silly argument, unless you want to rename the whole thing “The Vacuum Gap Effect”.
Their desperation is great entertainment. One of them even mentioned “enthalpy”, as if he knew what that was. The blue plate increasing to 290 K from 244 K, with no change in PV, represents an increase in internal energy. But, they can’t explain where the new energy came from.
And fluffball is still trying to warm coffee with ice cubes.
The comedy continues.
“You couldn’t make it up”.
☺️
Yes you could.
This recently discovered document was transcribed from a recording found at an archaeological site in Berlin and is the corrected transcript for the film Downfall.
Aide to the Fuhrer (Sergeant Schulz) –
Mein Fuhrer, Professor Von Braun suggests politely that the implementation of the plan to extend the 3rd Reichs dominion to outer space needs to be modified. Your idea of a staging post on the far side of the moon needs to be modified. He humbly suggests that the base should be established at the lunar equator rather than at a pole which has two main advantages. It will not be visible from earth and more importantly we will require less energy for the onward journey due to the speed of lunar rotation which he says mas been measured many times and is 4.627 m/s .
He says if you try and leave the moons surface from near the pole there will not be enough energy for both you and Eva to head off on the next stage of your journey. The frozen Aryan embryos from your personal Doctor in Brazil are also unfortunately not ready.
Enraged Fuhrer, (banging the table in uncontrolled fury) –
Dummkopf ! I have been told repeatedly by my other advisors General Joachim Dietrich Huffman and DR Evil Mini-me Twin that the moon does not rotate and the suggestion it does is Allied disinformation! I must be also be clearly visible at the poles to give my followers hope.
The other ridiculous idea that this idiot Von Braun , the man who was supposed to bring victory with his V2 rockets., wants is to have gold multilayer insulation on my module so that I will not freeze to death. How is that supposed to help? This back radiation nonsense is a Jewish Bolshevik idea. I thought we had got rid of such decadent scientific ideas when we terminated with extreme prejudice the services of our untermensch scientific advisers.
My genius at military strategy (I shot all my climatologists and replaced them with my astrologer Dr Wilhelm Happer after they thought an invasion of Russia in winter was a bad idea) is only rivaled by my scientific knowledge .
I should know. Consensus Conshmensus. When I hear the word Science, I reach for my revolver.
I am off now to Odessa and then on to my launching place in equatorial Brazil and then the cosmos.
Apropos of the above. The most appropriate video that accompanies the above can be found using your favourite search engine with the key words “Downfall rant parodies trailer 2018”.
Erm…OK, MikeR.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Eerm…OK, MikeR.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346166
Eeerm…OK, MikeR.
DrEMT. Please stop trolling.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Gastro-DrEMT to use your full title. You are victorious in your never ending quest to be the last troll standing. Your debating skills are outstanding and I stand in awe at your rhetorical flourishes.
Please administer the coup de grace.
Eeeerm…OK, MikeR.
Sqeeerm baby Sqeeerm.
OK weirdo.
Finally we have some progress. The troll has extended his repertoire. If he can’t stop then at least he can be encouraged to be a little bit more innovative.
“Sqeeerm baby Sqeeerm”.
Where is your mind at, MikeR?
I know I should have spelt it squirm to avoid any misunderstanding but you get the idea.
Yes, I’m worried that I do get the idea.
That’s very pleasing. You have got the message.
Yes, I get the message that you’re pleased by that sort of thing.
Yes it is good we are on speaking terms. I thought for a minute that I may have offended you. Inadvertently of course.
No offence taken, it’s more just a question of concern for the safety of people around you.
DREvil. The safety of my family and friends is paramount. Despite this i am not taking your threat to their safety too seriously.I am certain they are all safe here in Australia, far away from your evil clutches.
It was not my intention to come across like I was threatening anyone. Your friends and family are quite safe from the “evil” of being politely asked to stop trolling – so long as they don’t start trolling here, as you have done. In which case, I would politely ask them to stop.
My afore-mentioned concern was for the safety of any unsuspecting members of the public who may have the misfortune to come into contact with Mike “Sqeeerm baby Sqeeerm” R.
Your standard, numbered “PST” service will continue after this announcement. Thanks for your patience.
Dr Evil,
You can find my reply to your threat to continue your PST barrage here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346420
Enjoy.
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DR Evil,
please refer to
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346467 .
I hope this will encourage you on your journey to recovery.
p.s. there is a remote possibility that someone will actually read our exchanges. So think before you post #3.
#3
MikeR, please stop trolling.
How tiresome is this? Just a rhetorical question?
#4
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Dr Evil,
Please stop beating your wife.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
#5
MikeR, please stop trolling.
And why can’t you stop trolling and beating your wife?
#6
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Can Gastro/DREMT control his obsessive compulsive posting?
The answer will follow.
#7
MikeR, please stop trolling.
I think we can take that as a no.
#8
MikeR, please stop trolling.
“It even got to the point that some of them were talking about the difference in thermal resistance due to adding a vacuum gap. Pretty silly argument”
Well if its that silly, DREMT, you should have been able to easily rebut it. But of course you can’t, so you didnt.
But no matter, you will declare victory, like the Flat Earthers.
And your high-fiving is pathetic.
Just stop trolling.
nate…”DREMT…It even got to the point that some of them were talking about the difference in thermal resistance due to adding a vacuum gap. Pretty silly argument”
Nate…”Well if its that silly, DREMT, you should have been able to easily rebut it. But of course you cant, so you didnt”.
The rebuttal should be obvious. Thermal resistance is related to how well a material conducts heat in a solid. It is well established that air itself has a very high thermal resistance due to the separation of the molecules. The lowest thermal resistance is in good electrical conductors since heat conduction depends on valence electrons, the outmost band of electron in an atom.
I am presuming the BP/GP pseudo-science takes place in a vacuum since all the talk is about EM. Heat cannot be transferred directly through a vacuum since heat is a property of mass and there is no mass in a vacuum. In such conditions, heat can only be transferred via EM after it is converted to EM at the hotter end and converted back to heat at the cooler end.
A vacuum offers infinite thermal resistance. Heat cannot flow through a vacuum as heat and through the atmosphere via conduction heat transfer obviously depends on collisions between molecules, which is a very slow means of transfer.
Heat transfer through the main atmosphere, consisting of 99% oxygen and nitrogen is by convection where thermal resistance is not an issue. Radiative heat transfer involving GHGs has to be considered a joke, considering on average that GHGs account for no more than 1% of the atmosphere.
‘A vacuum offers infinite thermal resistance.’
to CONDUCTIVE HEAT TRANSFER, but not to radiative heat transfer.
But you seem to agree that, without the conductive contribution, the thermal resistance will dramatically increase with a vacuum gap.
This is something DREMT cannot seem to comprehend.
Sure I do. So, just relabel the problem “the Vacuum Gap Effect”, since you’re no longer claiming the temperature increase of the blue plate is due to adding the green plate/S. You’re saying it’s due to the vacuum gap.
‘Sure I do.’
You comprehend that ‘ without the conductive contribution, the thermal resistance will dramatically increase with a vacuum gap.’?
Then why do you keep declaring that plates TOGETHER ought to behave the same, thermally, as plates SEPARATED?
You make absolutely no sense, DREMT.
Nate’s a staunch defender of “the Vacuum Gap Effect”.
But anyway, back to the Green Plate Effect…
Ha!
More silly attempts at distraction from you not making sense.
If you say so, Nate.
And so say all of us.
Yes, that goes without saying.
You think a vacuum gap makes no difference.
I wonder if you will ever understand how wrong you are?
That will be the day that you do an experiment.
Svante, if the Green Plate Effect was ever meant to have anything to do with “the thermal resistance of a vacuum”, it would have been called “the Vacuum Gap Effect”. If you don’t understand that, that’s not my problem. Go argue with Ball4, who says the 244K…290K…244K is “a clear violation of 1LOT”.
To enable Dr Evil’s Manic Troll to understand the physical significance of the gap between the plates he could conduct a simple physics experiment.
Most people could perform the following as a thought experiment but those ill equipped intellectually need to perform this experiment empirically.
Take the two plates seperated by a small gap. 1mm should do . Insert into the gap two small objects, testicles if equipped or thumbs otherwise. Bring the plates rapidly together. Observe the effect. Repeat until the effect is well understood.
As they say, if you have them by the balls, the mind will follow.
“…a clear violation of 1LoT”
Got you by the Ball4s, MikeR.
That was quick.
You must be very relieved. The conclusion of the experiment could have left you with a feeling of euphoria.
Do you want to repeat the experiment with the plates heated with a blow torch to understand the full thermal effects as well?
Odd fellow.
As oddness goes I can only defer to someone who posts obsessively repetive comments admonishing others for trolling. Between you and your other intellectual vacuous persona, you have posted over 600 comments here and we still have 9 days of March to go!
Mike, I don’t know who you think I am, or what exactly it is you’ve got against me, but you’re talking about genital torture on a climate blog. Get a grip.
I think you should have used your thumbs but it was ypur choice.
The example I have given here was way more appropriate than that introduced by your spiritual mentor and you intimate other (has he gone off in a huff?).
For example , I always wondered why the topic of lunar rotation was introduced into a blog concerned with climate change. An enormous time was wasted discussing to a topic that was totally extraneous. The explanation could have been found in a 5 minute Google search and the attempts of many to explain fell on deaf ears, despite the gullible being sucked in.
If you want convince that you are not one of Gasterisk’s two sick puppets then you might try disassociating yourself from his crackpot ideas. That would be a great start and I might then give you the benefit of the doubt.
Mike, I don’t need you to give me “the benefit of the doubt”. I’m just requesting that you stop trolling with your bizarre, perverted nonsense.
A troll that can’t stand the heat if not the enthalpy.
I shall certainly stop if you desist in posting boring repetitive trolls. Approximately 70 this month and several today already. I know it is simple to cut and paste PST preceded by the insertion of your current sparring partner. This is such old school trolling.
You need to lift your game and I will accordingly stop my responses as long you act appropriately.
Do we have a deal?
…and if the subject matter of some of his comments wasn’t creepy enough, he also keeps records of my posting habits…
DR Evil it isn’t difficult to follow your trail of destruction. There is a search option at the top right of your browser. Just type in the key words “Please stop trolling” and the comments are enumerated. Even you with your limited skills you could manage this.
Do we have a deal or not?
No, Mike. I’ll tell you what, though. You can keep commenting like a weird, creepy pervert, and I’ll keep asking you to stop trolling. Fine by me.
Since you want to personally your crusade, I must respond that I am quivering in my jocks (a useful Aussie expression).
Accordingly if you are going respond to my comments with your tedious trademarked comment so be it, but think of the others who do so little offence to your fragile ego.
Additionally do I take it from your rejection of my “benefit of the doubt” that you are, as commonly presumed, a reincarnation of the dearly departed Gasterisk?
Next time either drop the pretense or make it a little less obvious. Same goes for the Huff.
Try again, in English?
Thanks for pointing out the grammatical issues. The first sentence should have read of course , ” Since you want to personally continue your crusade ” but I am sure you got the gist?
This is reminiscent of the old joke about the Engineer, who while facing upwards in a malfunctioning guillotine ,says ” I think I see your problem”. Again many thanks.
I think so. You have some strange ideas about why I ask people to stop trolling, and you jumped to the wrong conclusion about someone called “Gasterisk” (which seems to be a name you call somebody who used to comment here a long time ago, who you are obsessed with for some reason). I think that was about it.
DREvil, if you think I have strange ideas about your behaviour then you should be able provide a reasoned justification for the behaviours you exhibit.
In particular, how do you justify continually reposting a comment that consists entirely of the same phrase “…. please stop trolling ” on an endless loop?
I await your explanation.
Mike “Sqeeerm baby Sqeeerm” R, your genital torture-related fixations and general perversions are what need “a reasoned justification”, and it’s not me you will need to provide it to.
Your standard, numbered “PST” service will continue after this announcement. Thanks for your patience.
“the Green Plate Effect was ever meant to have anything to do with ‘the thermal resistance of a vacuum’, it would have been called ‘the Vacuum Gap Effect’
Ok, DREMT, you seem to think its all about what things are called. Physics is not like botany. Physics is quantitative.
Call it whatever you like, but it won’t change the result that your numbers don’t match nature’s numbers.
If you solved problems correctly, you get numbers, and they match experiment.
And they don’t violate established laws of physics.
That is how you know your model is correct, and only THEN you can declare victory.
Can you do that?
Sorry, no.
Dr Evil,
In your mind you can find justification for you behaviour due to our robust exchanges. However it does not account for your incessant trolling in the months directed at others before I even reappeared.
This vexatious behaviour directed at others continues unabated. So as per usual just more bluster and , pardon my French, more bull shit.
Oh poor Dr Evil. You took my last comment seriously.
Unfortunately you appear to be so irony deficient that your haemoglobin levels might be the cause of a range of your other afflictions, particularly involving those that involve thought processes.
Maybe try increasing the red meat in your diet. You need to be able to maintain your rage if you are going to continue to meet your commitments. No-one said non stop trolling would be easy.
Accordingly I will enquire as to your mental health if I see any decline in your output so please resume your normal transmissions.
So go for it. Whatever rocks your boat.
Creepy Pervert,
You can find my reply to your threat to continue your barrage of trolling here.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346446
Enjoy.
A very positive review of the above comment is as follows-
A new key attribute that DR Evil brings to the role of Troller in Chief is plagiarism which is on display here. He is capable of such outstanding work with masterful use of cut and paste. I am in awe.
The original can be found here –
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346421
A less positive review –
This author is totally incapable of an original thought. His most salient contribution to the canon of English Literature is his trademark monotonous PST. What a total waste of bandwidth.
MikeR, please stop trolling.
DR Evil,
The red meat seems to have done the trick. Good work. Maybe you will eventually understand the concept of irony. Probably not.
#2
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Clearly no understanding of irony which was totally predictable. Why does he bother?
#3
MikeR, please stop trolling.
At least there appears to be some minimal method in his madness. However he will have to give up when he gets to #20 due to overflow of his digits. Maybe he could use the digits of his imaginary friend Huff as a mental aid?
#4
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Only if you bring me a shrubbery.
NI!
#5
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Only if you move the shrubbery from Burnham wood to Dunsinane.
#6
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Only if you bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia.
#7
MikeR, please stop trolling.
Tim,
“But a slower rate of cooling *is* a warmer surface temperature at dawn. When the sun comes up the next morning, it has a head start. If the day starts at 20 C instead of 18 C, then (everything else being constant), the next day will be a bit warmer because of the admitted slower rate of cooling. And the next morning will be a bit warmer yet. The average surface temperature will continue to be a bit higher than without the returned energy.”
And yet that is not what happens, else humid areas would reach higher temps than arid areas with the same insolation.
The opposite in fact occurs because water cools the surface to the atmosphere, drives convection to the tropopause, and then cools the atmosphere to space.
The majority of IR leaving the TOA comes from water at the tropopause..
Far from warming the Earth, h20 is its primary coolant!
The confusion stems from the fundamental flaw in the whole GHE paradigm…
It gets cause and effect backwards..
The Earth is not warm because it has an atmosphere… It has an atmosphere because it is warm…
“The Earth is not warm because it has an atmosphere… It has an atmosphere because it is warm…”
That’ll rankle the clowns, PhilJ!
Good one.
Are you thinking the warming observed today is caused by a decrease in total precipitable water in the atmosphere?
No. Clouds.
Gotcha. Clouds are a tough nut to crack. The net forcing is very sensitive to the type of cloud, whether they occur at day vs night, whether they are high vs. low, etc. To confirm this effect would need to understand what arrangement could produce a positive forcing in the troposphere and negative forcing in the stratosphere. Then we’d need to figure out where the positive forcing from GHGs like CO2, H2O, CH4, CFCs, etc. was going if it wasn’t going into the troposphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, etc.
Of course we’re still left with the problem of figuring out what caused cloud patterns to change in the first place. In other words, we’d still be missing the root cause. And not to be forgotten we’d need a convincing explanation of where the positive forcing from GHGs like CO2, H2O, CH4, CFCs, etc. was going if it wasn’t going into the troposphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, etc.
bdgwx, you appear obsessed with “forcing”.
“The net forcing is very sensitive…”
“…a positive forcing in the troposphere and negative forcing in the stratosphere.”
“…the positive forcing from GHGs like CO2, H2O, CH4, CFCs, etc.”
“And not to be forgotten we’d need a convincing explanation of where the positive forcing from GHGs like CO2, H2O, CH4, CFCs, etc.”
If you’re at all interested in science, the atmosphere does NOT create energy. There is NO “forcing” from the atmosphere.
Of course, if you’re more interested in pseudoscience.
b,
“Forcings” is a pseudoscientific climatological term, which doesn’t seem to appear in mainstream science. Even worse, it often appears as “climate forcing” which is particularly meaningless. Climate is the average of weather, and as such, has precisely no ability to do anything at all. It is a number – or at best a series of numbers.
No need for “forcings”. “Forcings” is just climatological gibberish, concocted by people who cannot or will not learn physics. Try and come up with a scenario which needs”forcings”, because no other physical concept is adequate to explain an observed phenomenon! How did you go? Not well at all, I’m guessing. Feel free to surprise me.
Cheers.
I’m assuming that most people around here are familiar with the jargon “forcing” when used in the context of a perturbation in watts per sq. meter. This jargon is not in any way meant to imply that the agents that induce these perturbations create energy.
It’s not unlike the selection of building materials in your home that induce positive/negative forcings that increase/decrease the equilibrium temperature even when the furnace output remains constant. Ya know…insulation results in a positive forcing perturbation and a window results in a negative forcing perturbation.
bdgfx thankfully admits her ignorance: “I’m assuming that most people around here are familiar with the jargon “forcing” when used in the context of a perturbation in watts per sq. meter. This jargon is not in any way meant to imply that the agents that induce these perturbations create energy.”
bdgfx does not understand that creating W/m^2 is not creating energy.
Pseudoscience is so much fun….
b,
You wrote –
“Im assuming that most people around here are familiar with the jargon forcing when used in the context of a perturbation in watts per sq. meter.”
Layering jargon upon jargon serves to confuse rather than clarify. ” . . . perturbation in watts per sq. meter . . .” is just more meaningless gibberish.
If you are trying to say that clouds reduce the amount of insolation reaching the ground, resulting in lower temperatures, why not just say so? Or are you trying to say something else entirely? I’m sure you can express yourself without having to resort to pseudoscientific climatological jargon, but feel free to prove me wrong.
The IPCC is an efficient gibberish generator –
“Sometimes internal drivers are still treated as forcings even though they result from the alteration in climate, for example aerosol or greenhouse gas changes in paleoclimates. The traditional radiative forcing is computed with all tropospheric properties held fixed at their unperturbed values, and after allowing for stratospheric termperature, if perturbed, to readjust to radiative-dynamical equilibrium.”
Maybe you could translate this into something useful, but I certainly can’t. Drivers? Forcing? Radiative-dynamical equilibrium? What a load of tosh.
Cheers.
bdgwx….”I’m assuming that most people around here are familiar with the jargon “forcing” when used in the context of a perturbation in watts per sq. meter. This jargon is not in any way meant to imply that the agents that induce these perturbations create energy”.
You are correct in the sense that forcing is jargon, not a reality. The word forcing comes from climate model jargon where models are programmed with differential equations. In that theory, a main function can be ‘forced’ by another function called a ‘forcing function’.
For example, in electrical engineering, an amplifier can be represented by a differential equation. To get a response, a unit impulse function (square wave) is input to the main function to get a response at the output. The square wave has a rapidly rising front edge and a rapidly falling rear edge. In an amplifier, that condition can produce transients and oscillations.
The square wave, as a mathematical equation, forces the main equation representing the amplifier. The climate clowns (aka modelers) have transferred that imaginary forcing to the atmosphere where it has no application. The same clowns think heat can be trapped by molecules of CO2.
Jargon!!!
Clouds by day induce a negative radiative forcing and generally lead to cooler temperatures. Clouds by night induce a positive radiative forcing and generally lead to warmer temperatures.
And again, “forcing” is not meant to imply that energy is created or destroyed. It’s only meant to imply that there is a change or perturbation of the power per unit area over some region relative to a baseline.
For example if we use perturbation analysis in the SB law you would have…
(j + j’) = σ(T + T’)^4
…thus the perturbation in the amount of j’ would cause a change in the temperature T’ according to…
T’ = ((j + j’) / σ)^1/4 – T
If “force” is offensive to you guys then I’m more than willing to adopt a reasonable alternative vernacular if it aids the discussion as long as we all agree that what is being discussed is W/m^2 with the understanding that conservation of energy hasn’t been ignored.
bdgwx. are you unable to understand the S/B Law?
The S/B Law yields the equation S=σT^4.
Are you unable to understand the simple equation?
There is no T’.
Why are you preverting physics?
b,
Yet more incomprehensible and meaningless jargon. You may have even become so confused that you have forgotten what propaganda you are trying to propagate.
Maybe somebody actually cares what you are willing to do (or not) in regard to aiding the discussion, as long as everyone agrees with you. Vey noble of you.
However, you cannot even say how a thermometer responds to a change of 10 W/m2, in measurable degrees, can you? What is the point of paying any attention to your jargon laden nonsense? Tell me, if a thermometer is exposed to 300 W/m2, what temperature will the thermometer show? You can’t actually say? How about a change of 10 W/m2? No clue?
Why am I not surprised?
Cheers.
Yes, I am familiar with the canonical form of the SB equation. I’m using the perturbation technique on it to illustrate what is meant by “force”. I was hoping the injection of the perturbation terms and rearrangement of the equation would have been obvious.
Anyway, continuing with the simplified example of using the SB equation then 300 W/m^2 would result in a temperature according to:
T = (300 / 5.67e-8)^1/4 = 269.7K
And with a 10 W/m^2 increase it would be
T = (310 / 5.67e-8)^1/4 = 271.9K
Or using perturbation analysis
T’ = ((j + j’) / σ)^1/4 – T
T’ = ((300 + 10) / 5.67e-8)^1/4 – 269.7K = 2.2K
Which as you can see is 271.9K – 269.7K = 2.2K.
Here j’ is perturbation or “force”. You can even rearrange terms to solve for the perturbation or “force” if you like.
j’ = 5.67e-8 * (T + T’)^4 – j
Also notice that the same 10 W/m^2 perturbation produces different perturbations in the temperature depending on what the initial temperature actually was.
For example, 200K with a +10 W/m^2 increase would result in a +5.3K change in T while 300K with the same +10 W/m^2 increase would result in a smaller +1.6K change in T.
Perturbations or “forces” can be positive or negative. Positive results in warming. Negative results in cooling.
Dr. Spencer himself uses this jargon in his own publications. I hadn’t realized that there was dispute regarding how this term is used in the climate science community. Most of the discussions I’ve had with people led me to believe this was universally accepted jargon. My apologies for the confusion.
b,
Nope.
You were so interested in promoting your propaganda, that you couldn’t be bothered actually admitting that you cannot tell how a thermometer will respond to a given irradiance. Too many variables, of course.
Rattling on about SB, and other irrelevancies is the sign of the pseudoscientific climatological believer.
Even your SB calculation is pointless, although looking very impressive. Wow! Meaningless and irrelevant calculation to 0.1 K. How sciencey is that?
Maybe you could enter the world of reality, and tell me what temperature would be needed to cause a surface of aluminium foil to emit 300 W/m2? Or anything else?
But no matter. I was just trying to point out that you have precisely no clue about the temperature of an object if the only information you have is the irradiance to which it is subjected. None.
Saying “Also notice that the same 10 W/m^2 perturbation produces different perturbations in the temperature depending on what the initial temperature actually was.” indicates to me that you are confused between an object emitting radiation, and one absorbing the same irradiance. The SB law relates to an actual temperature, and the emitted power proportional thereto. No initial temperature involved.
Carry on. It’s not my fault if you are too thick to realise that the jargon associated with climatological pseudoscience serves no useful purpose in the real science community. Climate science is an oxymoron. Climate is the average of weather. I believe that Dr Spencer, being a trained meteorologist, realises this.
Carry on with the nonsense.
Cheers.
bdgwx, your algebra is correct, but your physics is incorrect. Correctly solving an equation does not mean the answer becomes reality.
I can claim that I can run 1000 mph. Here’s the proof:
distance = speed * time
d = st
s = d/t
s = 1000 miles/1 hour = 1000 mph
QED
That’s not reality, and neither is atmospheric “forcing”. Changing the word to “perterbation” is funny, but avoids reality.
Your examples of clouds affecting local surface temperatures is already correctly described as “weather”. Trying to alter the terminology is the first step to the AGW/GHE pseudoscience.
I only used the SB law as an example to help clarify what is meant by a radiative forcing. It is no different than saying radiative change or radiative perturbation. When you read climate related literature you’re going to see the term force or forcing a lot despite the fact that it apparently triggers some people.
(Another typo! It should be “perturbation”, of course.)
Yes, I’m aware of how pseudoscience-related literature works. The will claim that “forcing” is not creating energy, then they will use it to create energy. Just as they do with various laws of physics. They will claim something does not violate a law, when it violates the law.
Nothing new.
JD tries to win friends and influence respectful, intelligent commenters by insulting and belittling them, right out of the gate.
Of course, he is also letting on that he is one of our resident trolls.
bdgwx, there’s probably no better example of how “forcing” is used to pervert science than the infamous Arrhenius equation: “ΔF = 5.35ln(C/Co)”. The units are “Watts/m^2!
The bogus equation tries to claim that adding CO2 to the atmosphere “creates” energy. Notice that the “5.35” is made-up, and the natural logarithm of a ration is dimensionless. So, the “Watts/m^2” has to also be made-up. Pure pseudoscience.
JD, the Arrhenius equation isn’t saying that adding CO2 atmosphere “creates” energy. What it is saying is that it induces a radiative perturbation both below and above the CO2 layer in opposite amounts such that the net is zero.
For exmaple, a doubling of CO2 would produce 5.35*ln(560/280) = +3.7 W/m^2 below the layer and -3.7 W/m^2 above the layer. No energy is created or destroyed here. The positive radiative perturbation induces a warming pressure below the layer and the negative radiative perturbation induces a cooling pressure above the layer. This is why the troposphere and hydrosphere (mostly hydrosphere) is warming while the stratosphere cools.
The sensitivity parameter used, in this case 5.35 W/m^2, is tuned specifically to match, as close as possible, the effect of the radiative perturbation that CO2 induces in Earth’s atmosphere. There have been many attempts at quantifying the sensitivity parameter over the years using various techniques. Arrhenius didn’t come up with the 5.35 value. This value came from Myhre 1998. The IPCC had been using 6.30 prior to this work.
It is also important to note that the radiative perturbation sensitivity is not the same thing as the climate sensitivity. The former is W/m^2 and the later is K per W/m^2 as measured that the ECS (equilibrium climate response). These values are still very much debated with climate sensitivity being more uncertain than radiative sensitivity.
Here is a link to the Myhre et. al. 1998 publication.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238498266_New_estimtes_of_raditive_forcing_due_to_well_mixed_greenhouse_gases
Yes, I’ve seen it all before. Claiming that CO2 can somehow warm the troposphere, while cooling the stratosphere, takes us into “climate comedy” It’s like CO2 can somehow direct heat flow!
But the funniest part is that clowns claim CO2 is cooling the stratosphere, while it is warming the stratosphere! CO2 is so magical, it can do anything!
And the reason they keep playing with numbers, trying to determine the correct “sensitivity”, is because there is NO sensitivity to CO2–none, zero, nada. (One very knowledgeable physicist has claimed massive amounts of CO2 might have a slight cooling effect, but the effect would not be measurable.)
You will be able to find many such errors/inconsistencies. That’s why it’s called pseudoscience.
bdgwx, observe that JD is the blog’s entertainer, nothing to do with science.
JD claims to have seen it all before yet humorously & incorrectly writes Arrhenius instead of Myhre, the wrong physics, and doesn’t understand the 5.35 is from difference of irradiances so natural units are W/m^2. You can’t make up the hilarity JD provides especially his cartoons showing black bodies reflecting all incident radiation and the name calling.
JD simply runs away from all testing & observation just like DREMT. Together, they are a three-ring circus of entertainment around here.
JD does serve a purpose though:
https://despair.com/products/mistakes?variant=2457302467
“JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290…244K”
Yeah DREMT, it’s a blast watching fluffball argue with his own fluff.
The troposphere and hydrosphere are in fact warming. The stratosphere is in fact cooling. This is consistent with the GHE hypothesis…at least the one the scientific consensus promotes. I can’t really adjudicate the hypothesis you are saying is psuedoscience because I don’t know the details of what you’re thinking. This line of discourse does lead me to believe that your idea of the GHE is different than that which the scientific consensus promotes. Afterall, you think (correct me if I’m wrong) that it predicts a creation of energy, but that’s not at all what climate scientists actually think so I surmise that we can only be talking about two different ideas here. Do you agree or disagree?
bdgwx, the pseudoscience starts with the IPCC. One colossal error is Earth’s energy budget, which relies on the GHE. I don’t know which representation of the budget you prefer, but if you will provide a link, I’ll be glad to show you what is wrong with it.
Would it be acceptable to discuss IPCC AR5 Figure 2.11? Maybe post initial commentary at the bottom to start a new thread so that we can start fresh?
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig2-11.jpg
bd…”Here j is perturbation or force. You can even rearrange terms to solve for the perturbation or force ”
You mean, imaginary force.
bdgwx…”For example if we use perturbation analysis in the SB law you would have
(j + j) = σ(T + T)^4″
In your equation you have added a quantity of heat to a body to raise it’s temperature by T’. We call that heating, or warming. If you subtracted T’, we’d call it cooling. The word forcing is an obfuscation to bewilder the Hoi Polloi.
That’s what AGW is all about, especially in the climate modeling sector….obfuscation…sheer pseudo-science.
bdgwx,
“Are you thinking the warming observed today is caused by a decrease in total precipitable water in the atmosphere?”
umm.. no… guess again? This could be a fun game, or instead you could ask me a question about something I posted?
phil j…”Far from warming the Earth, h20 is its primary coolant!”
I made a comment about that recently from direct observation.
Here, on the west (aka wet) coast of Canada we had an inordinately, sustained period of very cold, dry air. At night, the thermostat was lowered to 18C or so and I noted that the furnace hardly ever came on despite the frigid conditions outside.
When the cold let up to about 2C and the air outside became moist to the point of fogginess, the furnace came on frequently. It was very noticeable. It even felt colder indoors even though it had warmed considerably outside.
I have worked night shifts in -25C dry, conditions outdoors and never felt miserably cold. The coldest I ever felt was on a night shift working near the ocean in low temperature with high humidity. I simply could not warm up outdoors despite wearing rain gear with many layers of clothes underneath.
According to AGW theory, a higher WV content should warm the air but my experience has been the opposite.
“According to AGW theory, a higher WV content should warm the air but my experience has been the opposite.”
Humid warm air feels warmer than same temperature which is drier.
“Feels” means it is actually warmer for a human body- not some kind mis-emotional response or delusion.
But moist air has higher heat content or higher specific heat as compared to dry air. So warm wet air require more heat loss to cool and cold wet air requires more heat to warm.
So far, I have not got to the agw theory aspect or what greenhouse gases to in terms of radiant effects.
So first in Canada there is not much water vapor and if it’s cold, even less. And lastly even if the was a lot water vapor, is a small effect which as far as I know hasn’t been measured.
gbaikie…”Humid warm air feels warmer than same temperature which is drier.
Feels means it is actually warmer for a human body- not some kind mis-emotional response or delusion”.
Good to see you back, have not seen you for a bit.
Humid air feels warmer because the moisture content in the air slows down the evapouration of sweat from the skin. We cool by sweating and if there is more moisture in the air the sweat evapourates at a slower rate.
I wonder how that might be related to temperatures on the colder end of the spectrum.
–I wonder how that might be related to temperatures on the colder end of the spectrum.–
Wet clothes are trouble in cold weather- and sweat can make wet clothes.
So need the right clothes for whatever cold weather [wet or dry].
And body needs to acclimatize to different “climates” and you have know the level activity is not going to cause you to sweat and get damp clothes.
And always have dry socks.
“The majority of IR leaving the TOA comes from water at the tropopause..
Far from warming the Earth, h20 is its primary coolant!”
A surface of water or 1 kg of water has higher specific heat than any other surface or kg of surface material.
Or 1 kg of water require more energy to heat and emits more energy to heat or cool 1 kg of water by 1 degree.
The tropics absorb more energy than then the tropics emits [the tropical ocean is the world engine and the heat transported outside of tropic where is emitted to space.
Water is certainly the primary coolant, but it’s not primary coolant in terms radiating heat to space, other wise the high amount water vapor in the tropics would result in the tropics having a net loss of energy of the heat from the sunlight and not be the heat engine of the world.
‘
gb,
It seems that arid deserts radiate heat directly from the surface to space – pretty rapidly, in fact. They heat up rapidly under sunlight for the same reason.
People don’t seem to realise that both visible and IR light can travel through the atmosphere in quiet straight lines. Stand under the tropic sun. Now move into the shade of a post about as wide as you are. Ah! Sweet relief – the pole blocks the direct IR from the sun. Even a wide brimmed hat will serve for your head and shoulders. Tip it well forward, and it will even help to shade your eyes from direct and reflected visible and UV light.
All part of the rich tapestry of life.
Cheers.
–Mike Flynn says:
March 21, 2019 at 12:01 AM
gb,
It seems that arid deserts radiate heat directly from the surface to space pretty rapidly, in fact. They heat up rapidly under sunlight for the same reason.–
And they say that 30% of all land area is desert.
But even if 30% of land area wasn’t desert, land cools and ocean warms, Earth.
But Ocean don’t make Earth hot, and the ocean would prevent Earth from becoming too hot.
And in that sense, the ocean is a coolant.
Or Earth which has average temperature of 20 C [and Earth has had higher average temperature in past {millions of years ago- or not in an Ice Age}] Earth is not hotter, rather it’s more tropical [ish] – and poles don’t have an ice cap- and have much higher average temperature than Canada does at present time.
gb,
The Earth loses heat to space. Always has, always will, unti the interior becomes isothermal beyond the Sun’s influence.
The Sun’s influence is not discernible beyond about 15 meters. The geothermal gradient is about 25-30 C per km, and heat travels from hotter to colder.
As to oceans providing cooling, the water in Lake Baikal at 1.5 km is around 3 C. The surrounding rock at that depth is about 30-50 C. The water certainly allows more rapid heat loss, if that is what you meant. Same for oceans, but even more so, at greater depths.
Cheers.
gb,
“Water is certainly the primary coolant, but its not primary coolant in terms radiating heat to space, other wise the high amount water vapor in the tropics would result in the tropics having a net loss of energy of the heat from the sunlight and not be the heat engine of the world.”
I have no idea what you are trying to say here…
h20’s high heat capacity and emissivity are some of the reasons it makes such a great coolant…
of course some heat is transported from the warmer tropics to the colder polar regions…
there is far more IR leaving the TOA from the tropical latitudes than at higher latitudes and a majority of that IR comes from h20 at the tropopause
–gb,
Water is certainly the primary coolant, but its not primary coolant in terms radiating heat to space, other wise the high amount water vapor in the tropics would result in the tropics having a net loss of energy of the heat from the sunlight and not be the heat engine of the world.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here
h20s high heat capacity and emissivity are some of the reasons it makes such a great coolant–
Oh, hmm, that reminds me, I was thinking of liquid water.
For ref:
Specific heat (Cp) water (at 15C/60F): 4.187 kJ/kgK
Specific heat ice: 2.108 kJ/kgK
Specific heat water vapor: 1.996 kJ/kgK
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html
and so air about 1/2 of water vapor:
https://www.ohio.edu/mechanical/thermo/property_tables/air/air_cp_cv.html
–of course some heat is transported from the warmer tropics to the colder polar regions
Yes some to polar, but more to other regions.
–there is far more IR leaving the TOA from the tropical latitudes than at higher latitudes and a majority of that IR comes from h20 at the tropopause–
It should be noted that there not much water vapor in the tropopause.
Though there are high clouds in the tropics. And so there is ice particles of clouds in tropopause. Or clouds making ice at that level. And generally the phase change of water involves a lot energy- nuclear bomb levels of energy.
Anyhow the average temperature of tropics is very high, so night and day in the tropics will emit more energy.
The tropics is 40% of earth surface area and tropics receives more than 50% of all sunlight reaching Earth or the 60% of the rest of Earth’s surface receives less than 50% of all sunlight reaching Earth.
JD,
Actually it was you that departed, after failing to solve the simplest heat transfer problem with your fake physics, and being held accountable.
The two of you departed reality long ago.
Have fun trolling each other..
Day 10. Anybody prepared to accept that the Green Plate Effect is debunked? Anybody prepared to acknowledge that the 244K…290K…244K is wrong, like Ball4 has?
“Anybody prepared to accept..”
Nah.
But if you throw in the Flat Earth, Chem Trails, and the Chupacabra, you might find some buyers…somewhere on the internet.
Lumping Ball4 in with Flat Earthers, Chem Trailers and Chupacabrians is a bit below the belt.
Testicle Team, please stop trolling.
Anybody rational?
Kristian wrote (to someone else) –
“Come on, dazzle us with your intellect. How does insulation work, thermodynamically? Whats the basic principle?”
Kristian is not seeking knowledge, rather trying to make someone else look foolish.
Of course, that is the technique used by trolls – known as a gotcha.
Why would he expect anyone to to respond to a gotcha? What would they gain.
Maybe Kristian could try explaining in detail why glass is transparent to visible light, and what germanium is transparent to IR. Just saying photons pass through without being absorbed is obvious, so something a little more explanatory would help me. A couple of paragraphs should be enough, do you think?
Is glass an insulator, do you think? What about germanium? Feel free to dazzle me.
No offence intended, of course.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says, March 21, 2019 at 5:55 AM:
LOL! So it’s a “gotcha” to simply ask someone if they can explain the working mechanism behind a physical effect …
Kristian,
You write –
“LOL! So its a gotcha to simply ask someone if they can explain the working mechanism behind a physical effect ”
You said it, I agree.
Particularly if you did not ask for the purpose of acquiring new physical knowledge.
If you expect rational people to accept that you are too incompetent or stupid to even look for the answer more widely, from a variety of sources, rather than blindly and unquestioningly accept the sole and unverified opinion of a total stranger, then you may well be mistaken.
Maybe you could instead explain the thermodynamics involved with the workings of insulation for the benefit of anyone who knows less than yourself – if you believe you understand how insulation works, of course.
Only joking. I’m sure you believe you know,.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says, March 21, 2019 at 5:44 PM:
No, YOU said it.
Strange, I wasn’t aware I had this conversation with YOU. I didn’t ask YOU, Mike. I asked DREMT. And it was not meant as a “gotcha”. Asking someone a question – even an uncomfortable one – is not a “gotcha”.
Now, begone.
Svante, Begone’s back!
This time from the only non-AGW commenter who has an interesting argument.
Begone is the only non-AGW commenter who has an interesting argument? I thought all he did was announce himself, followed by what he was here to do? That isn’t much of an argument.
How’s it going with figuring out what insulation actually does, DREMT?
Come to a conclusion yet?
Or are you still pretending the question was never asked?
How’s it going with figuring out the length of the piece of string, Kristian?
Come to a conclusion yet?
Or are you still pretending the question was never asked?
.It is ok to feel awkward.. It’s just part of puberty. Hopefully you will eventually grow out of it..
Sorry, The above was meant to be part of an exchange with DR Evil’s Mutant Twin. See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346159 .
Perfect graphic, bdgwx. I’ll copy your link, for easy reference:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig2-11.jpg
Item 1: The “340 incoming” is used to compare to the “239 outgoing”. This is pseudoscience for several reasons. The “340” is NOT the “incoming solar”. It is not even the “average incoming solar”. It is the average TSI divided by 4. You can’t simply divide radiaitve fluxes. They do this to compare to the 239 outgoing so they can have an energy “imbalance”. There is NO energy imbalance.
The correct representation would be 1360 incoming.
(There’s more, but we’ll take one item at a time.)
TSI is the incident radiation measured at a 90 degree angle. If you want to know what the integrated solar radiation is over the entire area of the Earth you have to integrate TSI over the area using the sin(θ) multiplier where θ is the latitude. Or you can just normalize TSI to the cross sectional area of sphere which is entirely perpendicular to the beam angle. Conveniently this is exactly 1/4 the surface area of a sphere because it is none other than the great circle inscribing the sphere. So 340 W/m^2 (not 1360) is the average integrated radiation received at TOA over all points on Earth; not just the point that happens to be at exactly a 90 degree angle.
Your first clue that 1360 isn’t the right value is a quick sanity check using the SB law. Let’s make it a bit more accurate by plugging in an approximate effective emissivity value for Earth of 0.60. Again, just doing some order of magnitude type calculations here. So T = (1360 / 0.60 / 5.67e-8)^1/4 = 447K. Clearly something isn’t right with the 1360 value.
Your first paragraph indicates you know your pseudoscience, but not radiative physics. The “340” is NOT the “incoming solar”. They do that specifically to mislead people. They want to get to “240” net in and “239” net out. That makes for an energy imbalance of 1 W/m^2.
It’s all bogus, but the con works. Fluxes don’t simply add, so their entire effort is pseudoscience. And, radiative fluxes aren’t conserved.
Your second paragraph is just useless algebra. Work that same equation for 161 Watts/m^2 (solar absorbed at surface). You will get a temperature of 262 K.
Even funnier, try 4(161) = 644 Watts/m^2. You will get 371 K, very close to the boiling point of water!
Pseudoscience is both fun and easily busted.
(If you now understand item 1, we can move on to item 2.)
Yes. You will get 262K with 161 W/m^2 and emissivity of 0.6.
Yes. You will get 371K with 644 W/m^2 and emissivity of 0.6.
Even if we assume Earth is a perfect BB 644 W/m^2 would result in 326K.
This should be telling you that even 644 W/m^2 is too high to pass the sanity check.
b,
Do you have a point?
Cheers.
bdgwx, either I’m not transmitting well or you’re not receiving well. Let’s take it one small step at a time:
1) The graphic indicates “incoming solar TOA” of 340 Watts/m^2. That is incorrect. The “incoming solar TOA” is 1360 Watts/m^2.
2) The incoming flux and outgoing flux will not add to zero. Radiative fluxes cannot be treated as scalar numbers, especially if they are different spectra.
3) Since the graphic is using incorrect values of flux, and flux cannot be simply added/subtracted, the “energy budget” is completely bogus.
If you agree with all 3 points, we can move to the next item. If you don’t agree with any of the 3 points, please state your reason, or ask relevant questions.
I think the confusion here is that this graphic is meant to represent the average fluxes over the entire surface area. It is not meant to represent the fluxes as they would be if the Sun were exactly 90 degrees from the horizon which only ever happens at exactly one location. In other words, this graphic is representing the average of all observers and not the cherry-picked observer that happens to be located at the singular spot where the Sun is directly overhead.
Experiment #1. If you were to place many satellites in orbit such that they are all evenly spaced and their detectors are always parallel to the surface of Earth the average flux they would detect would be 340 W/m^2. One lucky satellite will see 1360 W/m^2. Half of the satellites will see 0 W/m^2. The rest will see varying amounts between 0 and 1360. But the average of all of them will be 340.
Experiment #2. If you were to place a single satellite in a Sun synchronous orbit such that the plane of its detector is tangent to the Sun’s radiation sphere then it will always receive 1360 W/m^2.
The solar constant, TSI, or 1360 W/m^2 is what is measured by experiment #2. 340 W/m^2 is what is measured by experiment #1. The IPCC graphic is a conceptualization of experiment #1.
Sorry bdgwx, but the confusion is all on your side. You’re still trying to explain the algebra, that 1360/4 = 340. I stated that in my very first comment. The numbers are correct, but the concept is wrong. You can do the arithmetic, but you don’t understand physics.
Again, you can NOT divide flux. It changes everything. You can divide energy, but you can’t treat flux as energy. You’ll get the wrong answer way more often than not.
The divide by 4 nonsense is an attempt to trick the naive. In your link, the IPCC graphic CLEARLY labels the 340 as “incoming solar TOA”. You can NOT deny that. So the IPCC, either dishonestly or incompently, gets it wrong. Admit it!
If you can’t face reality, there is not need to continue.
Consider…
Total solar irradiance = 1360 W/m^2
Radius of Earth = 6371000 m
Seconds in one full orbit = 365.256 * 24 * 3600 = 31558118 s
Is the total amount of energy received by earth…
A) 1360 * (4 * 3.14 * 6371000^2) * 31558118 = 21.88e24 joules
or
B) 1360 * (3.14 * 6371000^2) * 31558118 = 5.47e24 joules
Note that A uses the formula for the total area of a sphere while B uses the formula for the cross sectional area of that same sphere.
The answer is, of course, B. Note that A is exactly a factor of 4x larger than B. I can divide A by 4 to get B.
Now watch what happens here.
C) (1360 / 4) * (4 * 3.14 * 6371000^2) * 31558118 = 5.47e24 joules.
Notice that I am dividing TSI by 4 first and then multiplying by the surface area of the sphere. Also notice that B and C are the same thing. Dividing the flux by 4 had the exact same effect as dividing the energy by 4 from A. It also has the exact same effect using the integrated irradiance (instead of the solar constant) as in B and multiplying by the cross sectional area of the sphere (instead of the total area of the sphere).
You CAN divide fluxes to get the right answer; at least in this case.
Let me say this in no uncertain terms. The belief that the energy budget of Earth begins with 1360 W/m^2 is dead wrong. This is not negotiable. This is not debatable. It is a mathematical fact that the energy budget of Earth begins as 1/4 * TSI.
Now, I will absolutely give you that TSI is not exactly 1360 W/m^2. There is variation and there is uncertainty in this value. That is certainly debatable.
bdgwx, that’s a lot of arithmetic to avoid reality.
Your IPCC clearly claims the “incoming solar TOA” = 340 Watts/m^2.
That is incorrect. Yet you fully support the blatant representation.
So, you have two problems–you don’t understand physics, and you are willing to swallow anything put out by Institutionalized Pseudoscience.
I can help with the first problem, but I can’t help with the second.
bd whatever…”So T = (1360 / 0.60 / 5.67e-8)^1/4 = 447K. Clearly something isn’t right with the 1360 value”.
Clearly there is a misunderstanding on your part. The 1360 w/m^2 has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth nor is it related to S-B directly.
The 1360 w/m^2 is related to the Sun and it’s the value you’d get if you used your math on solar radiation as related to the Sun. The 340 w/m^2 is allegedly what is left after that energy filters down to the surface.
You cannot plug that 1360 value into S-B to represent the radiative intensity. You’d need the average temperature of the Sun to get a radiation intensity then you’d have to divide that down based on the angle of solar radiation intercepted by the Earth.
That would mean calculating the radiation at the solar surface then calculating it after it has spread out and diminished at a sphere surrounding the Sun with a radius from the solar centre to the Earth at 93 million miles.
In that calculation you’d find your 1360 W/m^2. However, you’d also have to specify the frequency range over which that value applied and that’s where we fall down while employing that value. We notice little change in that value at average solar EM frequencies but there could be a significant change at ultraviolet frequencies that affect us here on Earth.
This is correct. The power flux at the oribital distance of the Earth is approximately 1360 W/m^2…on average.
Now consider a disk placed at this distance and oriented such that it is perfectly tangent to the the radiation sphere of the star.
How much radiation is received on the light side of the disk? 1360 W/m^2 of course.
How much radiation is received on the dark side of the disk? 0 W/m^2 of course.
Also imagine the shadow cast by the disk. Ignore the effect of parallax for the time being. What is the area of the shadow? It is, of course, the area of the plane of the disk.
Now imagine that you have transformed the disk into a hemisphere by putting a dome or whatever over it with the curved side pointing toward the star. What is the area of the shadow cast by the hemisphere now? Again, it is the area of the plane of the original disk. It is NOT the area of the hemisphere.
What is the area of a hemisphere in relation to the original disk? It is 2x greater. But, the hemisphere is not capturing any more radiation than the original disk. Note that the shadow size does not change here. So that 1360 W/m^2 is now spread over an area 2x as large. The hemisphere is now absorbing 680 W/m^2 instead of 1360 W/m^2.
Let’s complete the exercise. Imagine that you build another dome on the dark side of the original disk such the final structure is a sphere.
How much area did you add? The sphere now has 4x the area as compared to the plane of the original disk. And again, the total amount of radiation capture by this structure hasn’t changed. Note that once again the shadow size did not change. That 1360 W/m^2 is now spread out over 4x the area.
The important point…The intersection of a plane and a sphere will etch out an overlap area defined by the cross sectional area of the sphere; not the total surface area of the sphere. Note that I have idealized the problem for simplicity in several regards to make it easier to visualize. This idealization has no significant impact on the final result.
bd…”That 1360 W/m^2 is now spread out over 4x the area. ”
Far more complex than that, the Earth is rotating at a rate of about 1000 mph at the equator, carrying its atmosphere with it. Due to its axial tilt and its position in the solar orbit, various parts of the Earth receive various portions of that 1376 W/m^2.
So that hemisphere is constantly in motion with part of it moving off to the east and part of it re-appearing in the west. After disappearing in the east, the surface and atmosphere cool naturally due to atmospheric contraction and continue to cool for some 12 hours, depending on time of year.
You have a natural warming/cooling due to atmospheric expansion/contraction related to solar heating. Meantime, air, made up of 99% nitrogen and oxygen, absorbs heat from the surface and carries it high into the atmosphere. However, that air, being relatively attached to the Earth by gravity, is also turning.
Very complex problem that cannot be addressed by dividing TOA incoming by 4.
b,
You wrote –
“Note that I have idealized the problem for simplicity in several regards to make it easier to visualize.”
That’s jolly sporting of you. Lowering yourself to the standard of those who believe that you are stupid and ignorant! And all out of the goodness of your heart, with no thought of reward. How noble can one person be, and still live with themselves?
You are to be congratulated for your selfless sacrifice, bestowing your pearls of wisdom on the ungrateful non-believing swine!
That was me being sarcastic, just in case you didn’t realise. Let’s assume you are delusional psychotic, and incapable of actually defining that in which you so passionately believe. There, fixed.
You can’t even describe the GHE, much less provide a testable GHE hypothesis. This might be your idea of science, but is just pretentious nonsense to real scientists. There is no GHE, and your incomprehensible waffling about CO2 perturbations will not make thermometers hotter.Not in this universe, anyway.
Cheers.
b,
Your attempt to ” . . .make it a bit more accurate . . .” is the usual nonsensical and patronising pseudoscientific climatological attempt to appear authoritative, by the look of things.
Preceded by pointless and irrelevant sciencey waffle, you attempt to dismiss NASA, who wrote –
“Today researchers know that roughly 1,368 watts per square meter (W/m2) of solar energy on average illuminates the outermost atmosphere of the Earth. They know that the Earth absorbs about only 70 percent of this total solar irradiance (TSI), and the rest is reflected into space.”, on the basis that your assumptions are more valid than NASA measurements.
Maybe your approximate effective emissivity value for Earth is wrong? The SB law is about the emission related to temperature, not the other way round. Your calculation is obviously crap. Surface temperatures vary between around +90 C, and -90 C. Averages are nonsensical in this context, fatally misleading in others,. This is no doubt why pseudoscientists love averages.
Carry on making completely pointless comments about nothing at all relevant. Maybe you could define the very indefinite GHE? It apparently has nothing to do with greenhouses, and nobody seems to be able to either reproduce or quantify any effect which supposedly ensues from its operation!
Or you could just acknowledge that you are stupid and ignorant, to avert the needless waste of time for people, who have to work it out for themselves.
Do you have some point to make, or are you just flapping your gums for fun?
Cheers.
There is no misunderstanding on my part. TSI is the incident radiation received 90 degrees from the horizon. That only happens at exactly one location at any specific moment. Everywhere else the Earth, because it is a sphere, bends away from the sunlight and causes it to spread the energy over a larger area. Solar insolation is maximized when the Sun is directly overhead. The intensity falls off to zero as it approaches the horizon and in proportion to the sine of its angle off the horizon.
You can easily demonstrate this effect yourself by holding a flashlight 90 degrees to the floor. Then change the angle to 60, then 30, then 15, and so on. What happens? The light spreads out more and more as you reduce the angle.
The only geometry that would receive 1360 W/m^2 would be a flattened cyclinder or disk that was perpendicular to the Sun. But, of course, even that geometry would only receive 680 W/m^2 because the dark side would be receiving 0 W/m^2. Earth is not a disk. It is a sphere.
The Earth receives 340 W/m^2 at TOA on average.
b,
So you have expounded what a reasonably competent 12 year old knows. You have demonstrated the arithmetical ability to derive an average.
What is your point? Is your arithmetic supposed to show the Earth is heating up? Or are you just trying to show that you can divide by four?
Cheers.
My point is that the total amount of radiation the Earth receives integrated over the surface of a sphere per unit area works out to 1/4 the solar constant or TSI. The IPCC’s AR5 figure 2.11 is correct in this regard.
WRONG, bdgwx. The IPCC “340” is incorrect. Quit trying to spread falsehoods.
A more compete discussion is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346248
The belief that 1360 W/m^2 is always received at all points along the surface of Earth doesn’t even pass the sniff test because the Sun only shines on one side at a time. Half is illuminated during day and the other half is dark during the night. At the very least you have to accept that that the true value can’t possibly be anymore than (1360 / 2) = 680 W/m^2 based on the elementary intuition of day and night alone.
I don’t think a typical 12 year old would be able to visualize the geometry correctly and deduce the true 340 W/m^2 value, but she would certainly be able to deduce that it could not be anymore than half 1360 W/m^2 because the Earth always has a dark side facing away from the Sun.
bdgwx, I NEVER said the 1360 was “always received at all points along the surface of Earth “. That’s your attempt to misrepresent me.
You are rapidly becoming just another clown.
So why do you insist on using the incorrect value of 1360 W/m^2?
Remember, you can’t multiple 1360 W/m^2 by the surface area of Earth and whatever period of time you are considering and get a correct value for the total energy received for that time period. It just simply doesn’t work. You must understood this point otherwise nothing about this graphic will make sense to you.
And this distinction will have a huge implication later on when we start talking about this graphic in terms of energy as opposed to just power flux.
bdgwx, I’m not insisting any such thing. Quit trying to misrepresent me.
Why do you feel the need to pervert reality?
JD,
Do you agree that the total solar energy intercepted by the earth in one second is
E = (cross-sectional area of earth) * TSI * 1 sec
= (pi)*(6,387,000 m)^2 * 1360 W/m^2 * 1 sec
= 1.7 E 17 J
(give or take a little rounding off)?
“The IPCC 340 is incorrect. ”
In what way is this incorrect? 340 W/m^2 is the mean absorbed solar power, which is exactly what is being claimed.
FYI, the figure caption says “Figure 2.11: | Global mean energy budget under present-day climate conditions. ” Clearly they consider 340 to be the mean over the globe, not the full-strength, direct 1360 TSI flux.
Tim, flux is NOT the same as energy.
A BB sphere with “disk” area of 1 square meter absorbing 960 Watts/m^2, emits 240 Watts/m^2, at equilibrium.
The “energy in” is 960 Joules/sec. The “energy out” is 960 Joules/sec
Energy in = Energy out, but “flux in” does NOT equal “flux out”.
Learn some physics.
I’d like to see Huffmans calculation.
For a laugh.
Svante, your trolling while following a false religion is the “laugh”.
You just don’t get it….
“Tim, flux is NOT the same as energy.”
Yes! Here’s the thing — you referenced a diagram that is talking about energy, not flux! So we should be talking about energy. Instead we just talk past each other, because you are talking about something other than what the diagram you referenced is discussing.
If you seriously want to discuss the issues, I could be convinced to continue. Here is a start.
Let’s start with a confusing bit of vocabulary — the word “flux” itself!
Many (probably most) scientists consider “flux” in this context to have units of watts, while “flux density” is W/m^2. As just one example, Wikipedia states:
“Radiation flux is a measure of the amount of radiation received by an object from a given source.”.
“Radiation flux density is a related measure that takes into account the area the radiation flux passes through, and is defined as the flux divided by the area it passes through. The Radiation flux density is also known as Intensity … “
Others (like you) use “flux” for “intensity” measured in W/m^2. Of course, the *concepts* are key. The words used don’t matter, other than creating a strong potential for misunderstanding!
To avoid ambiguity moving forward, I will stick to these definitions. I cannot control what language you choose to use. At least you know what I am talking about. And from your units and context I should know what you are referring to.
“Flux” (in W) measures the total power to a given area by some light.
“Flux density” (in W/m^2) measures the intensity of that light.
*******************************************
The “solar constant” of ~ 1360 W/m^2 would then be a “flux density”. In fact, it is specifically a “normal (perpendicular) flux density” — measured with the surface perpendicular to the direction of the light from the sun.
Similarly, consider your example:
“A BB sphere with “disk” area of 1 square meter absorbing 960 Watts/m^2, emits 240 Watts/m^2, at equilibrium.”
The “960 Watts/m^2” in this example is like the solar constant — a “normal flux density”. This is the incoming light intensity. The surface is indeed absorbing light with a normal flux density of 960 W/m^2. (Normal to the direction of the sunlight, NOT relative to the surface of the sphere).
Tim, if you are going to pound on your keyboard that long, you should try to get something right.
Tim incorrectly states: “you referenced a diagram that is talking about energy, not flux!”
Wrong Tim, the diagram is about flux, not energy. They try to treat flux as energy, and that confuses people that don’t understand the relevant physics.
And, you can play your semantic-kid games all you want. There are several here that enjoy that game. But in physics, a “flux” involves an “area”.
Learn some physics.
Tim, JD both of you use ill-defined terms despite Tim’s effort at clarification. I don’t expect JD to change but Tim might. Confusing radiometric terms with photometric terms is one reason.
“Radiant intensity is another SI derived unit and is measured in W/sr.”
“Irradiance (a.k.a. flux density) is another SI derived unit and is measured in W/m^2.”
“Radiance is the last SI derived unit we need and is measured in W/m^2-sr.”
http://www.physics.muni.cz/~jancely/PPL/Texty/IntegracniKoule/Radiometry%20and%20photometry%20FAQ.pdf
JD, Fig. 2.11 is labeled mean energy budget, so you don’t know what you are writing about since “Energy is the integral over time of power”. Even though you patronize the power utility, what you are actually buying is energy in watt hours.
A BB sphere with “disk” area of 1 square meter irradiated by 960 Watts/m^2, does NOT emit radiance 240 Watts/m^2-sr from each m^2, at equilibrium which is why the term “mean” is employed in Fig. 2.11.
Pound on your keys some more JD, your entertainment is never ending.
bdg…”My point is that the total amount of radiation the Earth receives integrated over the surface of a sphere per unit area works out to 1/4 the solar constant or TSI. The IPCCs AR5 figure 2.11 is correct in this regard”.
The IPCC are a load of politically-appointed buffoons. Some of their top officials were exposed in the Climategate email scandal as being utter charlatans. One of them admitted in private that global warming had stopped, which it had at the time, but in public he continued to offer the lie that global warming was proceeding quickly.
In their 3rd assessment, TAR, the IPCC claimed it was not possible to predict future climate states. Having claimed that, they went ahead and predicted them anyway, using an amassed set of probabilities from various climate models.
In the early days, they claimed, based on the models, that a doubling of CO2 would produce 4C to 6C warming. These days, the have adjusted that lie down to a bit over a degree C.
The IPCC are politically-correct liars. They are about as trustworthy as a con-man (aka politician). They work for politicians and they tell them exactly what they want to hear. The politicians then perpetuate the lies as justification for carbon taxes and other forms of taxation.
From the moment they were formed, they have preached climate model theory mainly because one of their co-chairs, John Houghton, was a climate modeler.
After TAR, they began predicting future climate states till expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed out the obvious. The models are unvalidated therefore they can predict nothing. So the IPCC amended their bs from ‘predictions’ to ‘projections’, another form of lie.
One of their biggest lies was the notion that it is 90% likely humans are causing global warming. That notion was put forth by 50 politically-appointed lead authors who write the Summary For Policymakers. As Richard Lindzen, who was following the proceedings closely, pointed out, that opinion differed from the opinion of the 2500 reviewers who did the actual review. Most of them wanted to wait and see what developed.
The IPCC has a corrupt policy of releasing the Summary before the main report then amending the main report to suit the Summary. That means, IPCC decisions come from 50 politically-appointed lead authors, two of whom were caught in Climategate threatening to block papers from skeptics.
I don’t listen to anything from the IPCC because most of it is based on pseudo-science based papers submitted by climate alarmists and climate modelers.
Tim, I just checked back to see if you had responded and I noticed something I missed from your comment:
“If you seriously want to discuss the issues, I could be convinced to continue.”
What sanctimonious hogwash! As if you could actually “seriously” discuss ANY issue. You can’t even answer a simple yes/no question. Wanna try?
1) When a racehorse or a race car makes a lap on an oval track, is it also “rotating on its own axis”?
2) If you pull the 3 plates slightly apart, with the middle one receiving 400 Watts, and all at 244 K, will the middle plate rise to 290 K?
Both questions can be answered with one word, if you can “seriously” discuss an issue. (No spin.)
“Both questions can be answered with one word”
1. Once
2. Undetermined
Keep pounding JD.
The IPCC got one thing right, at least –
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Not possible means it cannot be done.
Regardless of multi coloured plates, or brightly coloured cartoons.
Cheers.
““Tim incorrectly states: you referenced a diagram that is talking about energy, not flux!”
And yet the diagram is called the “global annual mean energy balance diagram”. The caption reads “Global mean energy budget under present-day climate conditions. Numbers state magnitudes of the individual energy fluxes in W m2″. But JD knows better.
“But in physics, a flux involves an area.”
In physics, the term is used ambiguously! Magnetic flux an integral over an area. So is electrical flux. Googling “radiative flux” shows similar numbers of hits for something measured in Watts vs something measured in W/m^2 (ie sometimes the word is used as a synonym of “intensity” and sometimes as a synonym for “intensity integrated over an area”). You continue to be hung up and words, not concepts.
Basically, you continue to claim you are always right despite clear evidence that you might not be. You continue to claim you are always right based merely on the words you wish to use, not on how the rest of the world uses the words.
You are the one stuck on semantics, not me! You are the one looking for one word “gotchas”, not actual understanding of concepts.
The offer was real. If you want to discuss issues, we can do that. It seems clear you don’t but it was worth a try.
Tim, you can’t understand the simple diagram. It doesn’t matter what the caption reads. The units are “Watts/m^2”. That is clearly NOT “energy”. They try to claim it is energy, and they treat it as energy, but that just makes them (and you) WRONG.
You are the one tangled up in semantics, but unable to understand simple concepts. You didnt even answer the straight-forward questions I asked above. Let’s see if you can answer with “yes” or “no” to a different question:
3) A BB sphere, with “disk” area of 1 square meter, absorbs 960 Watts/m^2. At equilibrium, it is radiating 240 Watts/m^2.
3a) Does 960 Watts/m^2 equal 240 Watts/m^2?
3b) Can “Watts/m^2” be treated as energy?
Both questions can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no”.
3a) No
3b) Yes
3a) is no because it confuses units of irradiance and radiance; the 240 is a mean the 960 is not a mean.
3b) is Yes because the integral over time of power can be treated as energy.
JD is so tangled in semantics that JD is unable to correctly understand simple science concepts such as Earth’s energy budget.
ball4 is exactly right. Since the values in the graphic have been normalized to the cross section of Earth and averaged over a sufficiently long period of time they can be treated [almost] interchangeably with energy. That 340 W/m^2 at TOA can be treated like energy by simply multiplying the value by whatever time period you want. For example, the amount of energy received by the Sun in one day is 340 Watt-days per m^2 or over a year it would 340 Watt-years per m^2. This trick doesn’t work when using the solar constant though. Nevermind the fact that the solar constant is only valid at the spot where the Sun is 90 degrees from the horizon.
bdg…”At the very least you have to accept that that the true value can’t possibly be anymore than (1360 / 2) = 680 W/m^2 based on the elementary intuition of day and night alone.”
You once again demonstrating a misunderstanding of the 1360 W/m^2. Remove the Earth completely from the picture but imagine a sphere where the Earth was located at a radial distance from the solar centre of 93 million miles. The 1360 W/m^2 represents the solar intensity on that sphere in W/m^2 at 93 million miles.
The 1360 W/m^2 has nothing to do with the Earth, it’s shape, or the rotation of the Earth. It is a solar constant at 93 million miles whether the Earth is there or not.
Here’s your derivation for the 1360 w/m^2
Presume distance to Sun is 150 x 10^6 km = 150 x 10^9 metres.
The area of a sphere is A = 4.pi.r^2
Work out r^2 = (150 x 10^9m)^2 = 2.25 x 10^22 m2
4.pi = 4 x 3.14 = 12.56
Area of sphere = 12.56(2.25 x 10^22)m^2 = 2.826 x 10^23 m^2
Radiation intensity at the Sun’s surface = 3.846 x 10^26 watts. We need to know how much that power will spread out onto the sphere we just calculated so we divide that power by the area of the sphere:
3,846 x 10^26 W/(2.826 x 10^23 m^2) = 1.3609 x 10^3 W/m^2
= 1361 W/m^2.
Anywhere on that sphere with radius 150 x 10^6 km, the power will measure 1361 W/m^2.
That has nothing to do with the Earth or its properties.
JD,
Your math in the most recent posts is spotless. That is indeed how to calculate the solar constant — the watts of solar power heading though a square meter directly facing the sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
The solar constant is ~ 1360 W/m^2. The solar constant is definitely not 1360/4, nor is it some value between 1360 and 0.
“Anywhere on that sphere with radius 150 x 10^6 km, the power will measure 1361 W/m^2.”
Yes, but …
We are not really interested in THAT sphere. The sphere we ARE interested in is the earth. Any where on this sphere with radius 6380 km, the power will measure 1361 W/m^2 * cos(theta) on the sunny side and 0 W/m^2 on the night side. Check an actual square meter. Measure the joules each second. Real square meters will not all get 1360 W.
And if you average over all the square meters, the average of actual power will be 340 W/m^2. That seems like a pretty simple, useful number.
Tim believes: “That seems like a pretty simple, useful number.”
Yes Tim, it is a useful number to fool the masses.
The “masses” don’t follow these details.
People who know science are not “fooled” by 340 W/m^2.
The only problem seems to be a few stubborn fools who can’t see more than one narrow perspective.
We agree on this Tim, “People who know science are not ‘fooled’ by 340 W/m^2”. But there are plenty of people here that ARE fooled by the nonsense.
But we don’t agree on this: “The only problem seems to be a few stubborn fools who can’t see more than one narrow perspective.”
“Reality” is a “narrow perspective”, Tim, so the stubborn fools are the ones always trying to avoid it.
Speaking of avoiding reality, you still haven’t answered:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346363
bdgwx wrote –
“The positive radiative perturbation induces a warming pressure below the layer and the negative radiative perturbation induces a cooling pressure above the layer. This is why the troposphere and hydrosphere (mostly hydrosphere) is warming while the stratosphere cools.”
I defy anyone at all to derive any useful information at all from this delusional farrago
Just more pseudoscientific waffle trying to appear sciencey.
All part of the GHE fantasy.
Cheers.
Day 11. The Green Plate Effect’s still debunked. Oh well.
DREMT…”Day 11. The Green Plate Effects still debunked. Oh well”.
Was their anything to be debunked? Seemed to me from the outset it was a crock.
True, but you know what they’re like. I mean it’s actually been debunked at least a dozen times already. What I guess I should say is that this time, the “3-plate” debunking is so effective and simple that they’re having a really hard time wriggling their way out of it. Though of course, they are professional wrigglers.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 22, 2019 at 5:56 PM:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346085
You still haven’t given an answer, DREMT; still avoiding the issue:
What does insulation do, thermodynamically?
Kristian,
If you really do not know, why are you asking a total stranger for an explanation? Do you not believe the many explanations (of varying usefulness) widely available on the internet?
You seem to be trolling, to no good purpose. Continue along that stupid and ignorant course, if you believe it will bring you satisfaction or solace.
It seems a bit odd to me that you demonstrate irritation, just because someone does not dance to your grating and discordant tune. Your question is not well posed – what are you using as a definition of insulation?
It still seems like a “gotcha” to me, rather than a genuine attempt to learn something you are ignorant about. Others may well disagree, and provide an answer so that you can sneer at their supposed lack of knowledge. I wish you well in your endeavours to educate yourself, if you really are as ignorant as you claim.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says, March 23, 2019 at 12:11 AM:
Mike, I’m trying to lead a horse to water here.
I could also ask him:
How do you raise the internal energy/temperature of a thermodynamic system. What energy flows do you need to be in control of?
This touches on some of the most basic principles of thermodynamics, principles that DREMT and JD still seem to have serious problems dealing with.
This is typical of Kristian. He has nothing to offer except argument. His argument then leads to a link to his blog. He’s only here to plug his worthless blog.
My attitude is just let him argue with the others that love to argue over “heat”, or other issues they seldom understand. He hasn’t indicated where he stands on 244K increasing to 290K, with no changes in energy. That’s because he doesn’t know….
I just assume that if I wait long enough, if Kristian actually has a point, he will eventually make it.
Haha! You seriously do not dare to get into this topic, JD.
How come? What are you afraid of?
# What does insulation do? How does it work, thermodynamically? (No, not what “work” does it do; how does it operate, what is its working mechanism?)
# How do you increase the internal energy/temperature of a thermodynamic system, specifically from a steady state? What energy flows do you need to control?
Again I ask: Care to enlighten us?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 23, 2019 at 6:07 AM:
Do you understand how insulation work, DREMT? And if you do, please explain, so that we can have it verified that you know.
That is my point. Which, of course, you already knew.
JDHuffman says, March 23, 2019 at 5:34 AM:
This is exactly the reason why I ask you. Because you appear utterly oblivious to the concept of insulation and the basic thermodynamic principle explaining how it works.
All of this was explained to you way upthread:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344392
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344615
But also back then you ducked the entire discussion. As seems to be your custom.
Klown Kristian, see why people don’t waste time with you?
Four empty comments, with nothing but your rambling innuendos. I seriously doubt that you have ever studied physics. Like some others here, you seem to only have a “wiki” level understanding of the issues, but love to pound on your keyboard.
I can clearly state my position. I have even provided a diagram of the correct solution to the plates. And I, and others, have explained why the incorrect version is wrong. All very CLEARLY. You can’t do that.
You can’t even state what your exact postition is on the 3-plate issue. You try to hide behind some childish attempt at asking people to explain “insulation” to you.
My opinion is that you’re just a clown with a blog you want to advertise. You’re welcome to change my opinion, if you can.
JDHuffman says, March 23, 2019 at 9:31 AM:
So, still dodging the question. Still afraid to get into this topic.
Weak, JD. Weak.
I thought this is why you’re here in the first place. To educate us.
So why not simply explain us how insulation works, thermodynamically. What’s the big deal?
JDHuffman says, March 23, 2019 at 9:31 AM:
The plate issue is all about insulation. JD. That’s why I’m asking. You seem not to be aware.
Come on, stop playing stupid. Stop evading. I start to wonder whether you’ve actually come to realise you’re ultimately unable to defend your position?
Klown, if you have something relevant to state, state it. Don’t beat around the bush. Quit trying to hide behind some childish attempt at asking people to explain “insulation” to you.
If you believe “insulation” can violate the laws of physics, state your belief as succinctly and clearly as you can. Leave no room to spin away from your false belief, when I squash it.
IOW, put up or shut up.
JDHuffman says, March 23, 2019 at 1:04 PM:
Hahaha! Who’s “beating around the bush” here? That’s YOU. Apparently, one simple question has completely thrown you off.
What’s the deal, JD? Why won’t you answer? What are you afraid of?
Kristian,
You wrote –
“Mike, I’m trying to lead a horse to water here.
I could also ask him:
How do you raise the internal energy/temperature of a thermodynamic system. What energy flows do you need to be in control of?”
Why would you be trying to lead a horse to water? I assume you are just being silly and obfuscatory – lying, in other words. There is no horse involved, and your motives do not involve assisting your non-existent horse to obtain a drink of water.
As you say, you could have any number of other gotchas – all equally pointless and meaningless.
Why would anybody care whether you asked one witless gotcha or another?
Maybe you could just say what you believe in, and why you believe it. Or continue appearing ignorant and stupid. It really makes no difference to anything, does it? Do what you wish.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says, March 23, 2019 at 5:06 PM:
Because, in order for the horse to drink the water, you first have to lead it to it. Problem is, this particular horse seems positively terrified of the water, which makes it behave more like an a.., sorry, a donkey.
Klown, it appears no one is interested in your childish word-games.
Go troll your own blog.
JDHuffman says, March 24, 2019 at 7:30 AM:
What word-games? Oh, the ones where I ask you a simple question about insulation and you absolutely refuse to answer, like a child knowing it’s been busted, but all the same tries its best to worm its way out?
Why don’t you just answer the question, JD, and be done with it? Rather than continuing to twist yourself into pretzels trying to escape.
Frankly, it’s painful to watch. (But also quite funny.)
Why is it that you don’t dare to explain how insulation works, JD? What about it has got you so terrified …?
Poor Klown. He can’t get anyone to play his game.
JDHuffman says, March 24, 2019 at 3:31 PM:
Apparently, I can get you to respond every single time, can’t I?
What does insulation do, thermodynamically, JD?
Don’t you know? How can you be so certain you’re right about those plates of yours, then? It’s ALL to do with the concept of insulation, after all.
I guess this is the reason why you’re so scared of this simple question. Because you know where it leads …
Kristian, please stop trolling.
bdgwx wrote –
“The belief that 1360 W/m^2 is always received at all points along the surface of Earth doesnt even pass the sniff test because the Sun only shines on one side at a time.”
I believe that bdgwx just fabricates beliefs to suit himself. I am unaware of anybody who has expressed the belief that is referred to. Maybe b’s believer” is just another facet of b’s bizarre fantasy world.
The usual lunatic ramblings of the pseudoscientific climatological cultist unable to actually specify what they supposedly believe in, themselves.
All part of the rich tapestry of denial – climate version.
Cheers.
If I’ve misrepresented your position on this then set me straight.
I do think it will be difficult if not impossible to have a meaningful conversation about the IPCC’s energy budget graphic unless it is understood why 340 is used for TOA.
b,
“If Ive misrepresented your position on this then set me straight.”
What position of mine do you believe you have misrepresented? Why would I want to have conversation with you if you cannot even bring yourself to disagree with something I wrote, rather than something I didn’t?
In any case your stupid cartoon graphic, complete with arrows of various sizes and colours, representing upward, downward, latent, sensible and twirly whirly radiation, heat, or something, seems to be based on an even more witless cartoon authored by Kevin Trenberth and others.
This one showed the entire Earth’s surface being illuminated at once, with equal amounts of radiation at all points on every continent. The Earth was portrayed as being a flat disk. Apparently, the excuse for this inanity was that it was really ” a lie for children” as no person outside the pseudoscientific climatological cult could possibly understand the reality of the GHE.
This is no doubt the same K Trenberth who attempted to reframe the scientific process into a pseudoscientific one, discarding the usual null hypothesis requirements, and substituting his own. He may suffer from delusions of grandeur for all I know, or some other form of delusional psychosis. You can presumably produce objective evidence to demonstrate he does not suffer from a serious mental impediment?
Maybe you can have meaningful conversations with yourself in a mirror. Hopefully, you will win the argument at least as often as you lose.
Cheers.
That isn’t my graphic.
If you’re thinking that this graphic is implying that the Earth is flat or that all locations are illuminated simultaneously then you’ve totally missed the context of it.
bdgwx, that IS “your” graphic. You linked to it. Up until now, you “believed” in it. Of course, any time you want to disavow it, and leave the false religion of AGW/GHE, then welcome to reality.
And, the graphic DOES imply that the whole surface is illuminated simultaneously. But, you seem to realize that is not possible. Maybe you’re starting to see through the hoax.
The Fig. 2.11 graphic does NOT imply that the whole surface is illuminated simultaneously. The irradiance shown is measured over multiannual periods. The radiance shown is a measured mean over the same multiannual periods. JD simply doesn’t understand even such a simple concept as Earth’s energy budget and bungles the proper use of radiometric terms.
It’s okay to divide by 4, because that is the “mean” over the entire surface. But, that does not imply that the “mean” is actually valid.
The clowns must believe using an invalid value, invalidly, results in a valid result!
It’s fun when they get tangled up in their pseudoscience.
jd, That isn’t my graphic. That is from Wild et. al. 2013 and incorporated by the IPCC after being peer reviewed by several hundred experts. You can read all about it here.
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/usys/iac/iac-dam/documents/people-iac/wild/Wild_et_al_ClimDyn_2013.pdf
And no, the graphic does not imply that the whole surface is illuminated simultaneously. You have grossly misunderstood the context of the graphic. Refer to section 5 in the peer reviewed publication linked above for a detailed description of the graphic.
bdgwx, it’s the same graphic as you linked to, above. Did you forget?
And yes, the graphic does imply that the whole surface is receiving 340 Watts/m^2 simulataneously. You just don’t want to INFER that. The “disc” receives 1360. So if you only want to deal with 340, where does the other 1020 go?
You need to realize you have been indoctrinated. Open your mind and stop denying reality.
Yes. I linked to it, but it’s not my graphic. I do accept it’s authenticity and it’s correctness though if that’s what you’re asking.
What it is inferring is that global mean works out to 340 W/m^2 after all of the energy has integrated over the entire surface of Earth and over at least one orbital cycle. That is not the same thing as implying that every sq meter of Earth is continuously illuminated.
Asking where 1020 W/m^2 went doesn’t even make sense. In the context of this graphic there is no 1360 W/m^2 or 1020 W/m^2.
Even if there were a hypothetical disk with the same radius as Earth it still not be receiving 1360 W/m^2 everywhere because there would be a dark side that was receiving 0 W/m^2. The average over the entire disk (both day and night sides) would be 680 W/m^2. But, it’s moot because the Earth isn’t a disk.
The reality is that Earth is a sphere. The necessarily means that the total amount of energy the entire Earth receives over at least one orbital cycle works out to 1/4 the solar constant. That is an absolute fact. It is reality.
Yes. I linked to it. But it is not my graphic. It is the work of other people. I do accept it’s authenticity and correctness though if that’s what you’re asking.
What the graphic implies is that when you integrate the total amount of energy over the entire Earth for at least one orbital cycle around the Sun it works out to 340 W/m^2. That is not the same thing as assuming that 340 W/m^2 is falling on every square meter continuously.
Asking where 1020 W/m^2 went doesn’t make sense. In the context of this graphic there is no 1360 W/m^2 or 1020 W/m^2 to begin. Even if we considered a hypothetical disk it still wouldn’t work out to 1360 W/m^2 TOA because the disk still has a day side and a night side. It would actually work to 680 W/m^2.
But that’s moot because the Earth isn’t a disk. The reality is that it is a sphere.
bdgwx says: “Asking where 1020 W/m^2 went doesn’t even make sense. In the context of this graphic there is no 1360 W/m^2 or 1020 W/m^2.”
bdgwx, you must account for ALL energy, in an energy budget.
Exactly. So why make up 4x the amount of energy then there actually is?
bdgwx actually asks: “So why make up 4x the amount of energy then there actually is?”
Just when I thought clowns couldn’t get any dumber….
bdgwx says: “If Ive misrepresented your position on this then set me straight.”
bdgwx, I’ll be happy to set you straight. You asked “So why do you insist on using the incorrect value of 1360 W/m^2?”
1360 W/m^2 is NOT the incorrect value. It is the correct value. So I NEVER insisted they use an incorrect value.
bdgwx says: “I do think it will be difficult if not impossible to have a meaningful conversation about the IPCC’s energy budget graphic unless it is understood why 340 is used for TOA.”
I agree. That is why I am trying to explain why that concept is bogus. Let’s use the same example I’ve already mentioned:
A BB sphere, with a “disk” area of 1 square meter, absorbs 960 Watts/m^2. At equilibrium, it is then emitting 240 Watts/m^2.
1) Does 960 Watts/m^2 = 240 Watts/m^2?
The question can be answered correctly in only one word.
Tell me why you think 1360 W/m^2 is the correct value. Tell me what the other values should be. It would probably be best to provide a link to a graphic that you feel is correct and which has been published in a reputable peer review journal.
Tell me more about this 960 W/m^2 value.
bdgwx, 1360 W/m^2 is widely used as a good approximation for the “solar constant”. After adjustment for albedo, the value becomes 960 W/m^2.
You avoided the simple question.
1) Does 960 Watts/m^2 = 240 Watts/m^2?
No they have different units, JD bungles the units. The earth’s energy balance is measured nearly balanced in/out with slight imbalances +/- driven mainly by ENSO and arctic sea ice coverage in the satellite era.
All this is way beyond JD’s comprehension but available in the published literature. Keep pounding that keyboard JD, it is amusing how often you write entertaining comments.
“Watts/m^2” is the same as “Watts/m^2”. The units are NOT different.
Fluffball bungles the units.
jd, we are in agreement that 1360 W/m^2 is the solar constant. The answer to your question is an obvious no. But why are you trying to compare 960 with 240 anyway? That doesn’t make any sense. These are two different concepts.
Where and at what time do you think this 960 W/m^2 is occurring?
Are you thinking you can integrate 960 W/m^2 with respect to time and expect to get the correct answer for the energy?
bdgwx says: “The answer to your question is an obvious no.”
bdgwx, it’s obvious because of the way I presented it. But, it is not obvious the way the IPCC tries to trick you. Look at the graphic you provided:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig2-11.jpg
The graphic has incoming of 340 – 100 = 240. Then they have outgoing of 239. They are trying to show a 1 Watt/m^2 “warming”.
But, they are comparing fluxes, not energy.
So back to my clear example of the BB sphere. You acknowledge that 960 Watts/m^2 does not equal 240 Watts/m^2. But if you convert the flux to energy, 960 Joules/sec in does equal 960 Joules/sec out. Energy in equals energy out, but “flux in” does NOT equal “flux out”. So, they are treating flux as energy, to make it appear the “flux in” must equal the “flux out”. They are deceiving you.
It’s like the old shell game. It fools many.
And, we’ve only started debunking the ludicrous “Energy Budget”. If you now understand the 3 points to item 1, we can move on to item 2.
1) The graphic indicates “incoming solar TOA” of 340 Watts/m^2. That is incorrect. The “incoming solar TOA” is 1360 Watts/m^2.
2) The incoming flux and outgoing flux will not add to zero. Radiative fluxes cannot be treated as scalar numbers, especially if they are different spectra.
3) Since the graphic is using incorrect values of flux, and flux cannot be simply added/subtracted, the “energy budget” is completely bogus.
Do you agree?
jd, No. I don’t agree. And neither do the worlds leading experts.
bdgwx, and thus you leave science to worship the “world’s leading experts”. That’s much easier than thinking for yourself.
If you like your pseudoscience, you can keep your pseudoscience.
We’re done, but as time allows, I will complete the debunking of the “energy budget”. That needs to be done, and will be fun. (Too busy this evening, patio fire pit needs watching. Putting massive CO2 into the atmosphere to feed the trees.)
Enjoy your weekend.
“”Watts/m^2” is the same as “Watts/m^2″. The units are NOT different.”
Put down your bong, JD.
Radiance units from your sphere are Watts/m^2-sr, which means you missed a factor of 4 when you integrate over the surface of the sphere to get W/m^2. A sphere radiates into more sr. than a disk. THEN you get the energy balance as shown in Fig. 2.11 – in which that work is already done FOR you.
Mean 240 total radiated out from your sphere vs. ~ 240 irradiance constant in from the sun net of albedo and the imbalance is +/- a small amount due ENSO and arctic sea ice coverage variations as measured in the satellite era depending on multiannual time period observed.
But of course my expectation is this is all WAY above JD’s level of accomplishment so there will be some entertaining comments from JD next & likely some name calling as JD runs away from observations.
fluffball has stumbled into making a point I have mentioned before: “fluxes can’t be simply added/subtracted”.
For example, a flat BB plate in front of a wall of ice will receive about 300 Watts/m^2. If the other side receives 400 Watts from a different source, the two fluxes do NOT add to 700 Watts/m^2.
So fluffball is correct in that the fluxes must be treated differently, but they have the same units, Power/Area or Watts/m^2.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while….
JDHuffman says:
With square edges of 1 m and space instead of ice the plate must emit 0 W + 400 W to keep temperature steady.
Replace space with ice, input is 300 W + 400 W.
The plate will warm until it emits 700 W.
To make it clearer, Svante, replace the 400 incoming with 1000 Watts/m^2 incoming. No other changes.
Let’s see if you can see your folly then.
(I predict not.)
1) No
In JD’s example, irradiance of 960 is confused with mean radiance of 240 so they cannot be equal as irradiance and radiance have different units which JD bungles.
Same units, fluffball.
1) No
Different units because JD does not understand the difference between radiance from his sphere and its irradiance, but this is to be expected from an entertainer such as JD.
Same units, fluffball.
Your blind persistence won’t change reality.
JD’s ineptness misses the SI radiance units are per steridian and thus misses the factor of 4 not missed by those who know radiometry. JD remains entertaining with such displays & JD could discover these errors with simple testing but runs away instead.
Yes fluffball, fluxes can be different. That’s why they can’t be handled with basic arithmetic. But, the units are the same, W/m^2.
Good squirrel.
JD misses that a disk side radiance goes into a hemisphere of directions, a sphere’s radiance goes into two hemispheres which when accounted for properly is the factor of 4. Typical for an entertaining commenter like JD but not for those that understand physics. JD just needs to learn some physics.
Fluffball has changed from “units” to “area”. I guess he realized he was making one of my points for me. Now, he’s learned that the surface area of a sphere is 4 times the surface area of a circle with the same radius.
And he’s so proud of himself….
JD, using the correct area 240in=240out for your sphere. You should learn that too, the factor of 4 is correctly employed now apply your learning.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“A BB sphere with “disk” area of 1 square meter irradiated by 960 Watts/m^2, does NOT emit radiance 240 Watts/m^2-sr from each m^2, at equilibrium which is why the term “mean” is employed in Fig. 2.11.”
I can’t see any figure 2.11 at your link.
I presume you have a point to make in relation to the non-existent GHE?
From Wikipedia –
“A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.”
There is no requirement that this black body emits any radiation as a consequence, although this might seem counterintuitive. It may or may not. You need at least to specify the environment in which the black body is situated, plus one or two other things depending on circumstances.
None of this is in any way relevant to a GHE that neither you nor anybody else can actually describe in any meaningful way. The Earth’s surface has an appropriate temperature for its 99% composition above the melting point of rock. On top of this, the surface becomes hotter when the incident sunlight is powerful enough. It becomes cooler in the absence of sunlight.
The Earth’s innate surface temperature has obviously dropped since it was molten. It is lower than when the first water condensed from gas. It is lower than when it was 30 C hotter. The Earth continues to cool. It is a big blob of red hot to white hot stuff, floating in a very “cold” environment.
If you think it is likely to spontaneously heat up, you are quite deranged. It is about as silly as putting a red hot lump of iron in the sun, and expecting it to spontaneously get hotter, after cooling a little.
Carry on being nonsensical. It’s pointless in the sense of influencing anybody with power, but if it makes you content, that’s a good thing.
Cheers.
“I cant see any figure 2.11 at your link.”
Try a little harder to follow the discussion Mike.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346208
“the surface becomes hotter when the incident sunlight is powerful enough…The Earth continues to cool.”
Good, laughable entertainment Mike; try a little harder to write meaningful physics backed by tests.
B4,
Thanks. I was hoping for something useful, not a laughable cartoon (brightly coloured though it might be). Such matters as cooling at night, during winter, or during the last four and a half billion years escaped the foolish graphic artist entirely. Maybe he was a member of the pseudoscientific climatological cult, do you think?
Presumably this emanates from the same IPCC who stated –
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
They obviously realised the stupidity and irrelevance of the type of nonsense to which you so proudly link.
No imbalance. No GHE. No CO2 heating.
I am pleased you cannot advance any facts to contradict any statements I made. Good for me, very sad for you. Dream on.
Cheers.
You contradict your own statements Mike, no help from me is required:
“the surface becomes hotter when the incident sunlight is powerful enough…The Earth continues to cool.”
Try a little harder to write meaningful physics backed by tests.
B4,
Just repeating something I said will probably make you look a little less stupid and ignorant.
Keep it up. I appreciate the support – even from someone like you.
Cheers.
You appear stupid and ignorant without help from anyone Mike, your contradictions are part of your act not mine. Try a little harder to write meaningful physics backed by tests.
I notice fluffball has stopped using “experiment”. He has substituted “test” into his fluff. He got caught with so many fake “experiments”, he had to change terms.
He’s only fooling himself, and those like him.
I notice JD has performed no tests nor experiments because JD has been caught being wrong so many times. JD is only fooling JD (the easiest to fool) and those who do not do tests or experiments.
fluffball tries to imitate me, again. He’s obviously hoping to flatter me.
But, flattery will get him nowhere.
“There is no requirement that this black body emits any radiation as a consequence, although this might seem counterintuitive. It may or may not. You need at least to specify the environment in which the black body is situated, plus one or two other things depending on circumstances.”
You need to specify the temperature of the blackbody. Period.
A blackbody emits P/A = (sigma) T^4. The environment does not matter. Other “circumstances” don’t matter.
Tim, please stop trolling.
How much is the current solar min affecting global temperatures?
And how will the solar min effect global temperature within the next year?
I think the current solar min has an effect upon weather as has the past solar mininums has had effect upon weather.
Most notable to me is the weather effect in terms of US farming, though not sure if the bad effect will continue until end of spring and into summer, though next fall and winter could have equally or worst effects.
Day 12 (debunked, despite the squawking).
My how time flies when you’re having fun….
Hehe.
Yes, this:
Plates together, 244K…244K…244K
Plates slightly apart, 244K…290K…244K
is pretty funny, I agree.
So you’re still hiding under the rug. Why? What are you so afraid of?
What does insulation do, DREMT?
Come on, you can do it. Explain. Only one short sentence required.
“Only one short sentence required.”
OK, how about this one, from Ball4, in regard to the 244K…290K…244K:
“JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist.”
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 24, 2019 at 4:32 AM:
No. That’s not the short sentence required. And you know that.
You’re still evading.
What are you so afraid of?
What does insulation do, DREMT?
Your continued absolute refusal to provide an answer to this simple question is getting comical.
Klown Kristian, maybe if you put even more words in bold?
Have you considered fireworks? They usually attract attention.
JDHuffman says, March 24, 2019 at 3:46 PM:
The bolding of words are simply meant as a guiding aid for you to recognise what my question to you really is. Because you seem to have a hard time spotting it.
So, now do you have an answer? Here it is again:
What does insulation do, thermodynamically, JD?
Just one quick sentence will suffice.
Why are you so afraid of this simple question?
K,
Why do expect anybody to bend to your will, just because you are too lazy or incompetent to try to help yourself?
Do you have awesome super powers? If someone declines to obey you, are you going to call thunderbolts does upon their heads?
Maybe you could pout and sulk if somebody has the audacity to absolutely refuse to answer your silly gotcha. Your choice.
Cheers.
How does insulation work?
As general matter, insulation is about inhibting energy transfer.
Within an atmosphere it tends to be mostly about inhibiting heat loss to cooler air, or warmer air warming a cooler object- convectional heat loss, and conductional heat loss.
A chemical reaction or fire will burn at a certain temperature, if surround a fire with bricks, you reduce the heat loss of the fire so it near the highest temperature that the chemical reaction can make.
And the bricks are acting as insulation- inhibting the hot gas by reducing the conduction heat loss by using bricks- the wider the layer of bricks will lowers the outside surface temperature of bricks, but wider layer of brick will not significantly increase the temperature of the hot gas- as it has limit to how hot the chemical reaction can warm up the hot gas. Or different chemical reaction have different highest temperatures than they can generate.
But wider bricks would always reduce amount heat loss, and wider brick wall could reduce the amount of fuel used to generate high temperatures.
Non magnified sunlight also has temperature, and magnified sunlight as limit of the same temperature as surface of the Sun [very hot].
On topic of climate or dealing with vacuum environment there other significant factors related to insulation. With vacuum you have radiant heat loss and evaporational heat loss. Evaporational heat loss was used by Apollo lunar spacesuit, in order to keep astronaut at cool and comfortable temperature.
But on Earth, if put a lid on coffee and lid on pot water on the stove, it acts as insulation to reduce evaporational heat loss.
And controlling evaporational heat loss is essential part of how a human body maintains it’s temperature.
Radiant energy depends upon the temperature of surface which emitting radiant energy. A human body doesn’t lose much heat from radiant heat loss, nor does a car lose much heat from radiant heat loss, but since car engine gets quite hot and since car exterior can warmed to higher temperature from sunlight- one could say a car is more about radiant heat loss as compared to human body.
If put a car on the Moon, than it then it would nearly all about radiant heat loss and you would have design a way to keep it cool- if want to run it’s engine for any length of time. And having a hood on engine would just add unneeded insulation.
Anyhow as general rule radiant heat loss, becomes more significant the hotter the object is or the colder you need to maintain something- such as storing liquid hydrogen in Low Earth orbit- in terms hours, days or weeks, and you don’t want to vent the hydrogen [and lose it] and cool it by evaporation.
And what it used is multi layers of mylar to insulate sunlight from warming it, that would be insulation [or cheap insulation] to use in the space environment.
The most effective insulation to use in space environment to prevent solar heating is quartz over silver. And silver reflects sunlight and conducts heat to the glass and glass emits IR [and makes silver surface colder than compared to not having quartz glass on top of it].
jd, Computer the amount of energy you think the Earth is receiving every second. If I’m understanding your thought process correctly I think you’re going to get the wrong answer.
bdgwx, the estimate is just the 960 times the “disk” area.
Of course, that’s just a crude estimate.
Why are you asking me when you have the “world’s leading experts”?
(Are those the guys the wear the really funny hats and robes?)
Correct. Now divide by the surface area of Earth. You get 240 W/m^2. Now here’s the cool thing. This can now be used interchangeable with energy.
Energy every second = 240 W-seconds/m^2
Energy every hour = 240 W-hours/m^2
Energy every day = 240 W-days/m^2
Energy every year = 240 W-years/m^2
And at TOA the figure is 340.
bdgwx, do you understand the difference between a “total” and an “average”?
Earth receives a TOTAL energy of 960A, but an AVERAGE of 240A.
Energy balances MUST use TOTAL, or average, but not mix the two. If you insist on dividing incoming by 4, then you must also divide outgoing by 4, or your numbers won’t work.
Learn some accounting, and then some physics.
That is not correct. Earth receives a TOTAL of 240 Watt-years * SA(earth) every year. This works out to 240 Watt-years for every square meter on AVERAGE.
The Earth most definitely does NOT receive a TOTAL of 960 Watt-years * SA(earth) every year.
I don’t think you’re understanding what 1360 and 960 represent. Let me try to explain in a different way. These values represent the the MAXIMUM W/m^2 received at a particular location and at a particular time. They are not the TOTAL or AVERAGE for the whole Earth or for a whole year. In fact, the only locations on Earth that can even experience a 90 degree Sun angle are the regions between 23.5S (Tropic of Capricorn) and 23.5N (Tropic of Cancer) or less than 50% of all possible locations on Earth. Remember, no latitude greater than 23.5 can ever observe the 1360 (or 960) values.
1360 (or 960) cannot be used to represent either the TOTAL or AVERAGE energy received by Earth.
bdgwx, take a deep breath. I know you’re getting desperate seeing your pseudoscience collapse, right in front of your face, but you’re at the point of arguing with your own pseudoscience.
The 1360 Watts/m^2 is most definitely the average incoming solar flux. We all accept that estimate. This is the amount impacting Earth’s “disk”, of area A. So the energy rate is 1360A Joules/sec, at TOA, and 960A Joules/sec adjusted for albedo. Don’t try to change reality.
“Earth receives a TOTAL energy of 960A, but an AVERAGE of 240A.”
JD, you are using two different areas!
Earth receives a TOTAL energy of 960 (disk A), but an AVERAGE of 240 (sphere A). Just like Earth emits a TOTAL energy of 960 (disk A), but an AVERAGE of 240 (disk A).
The thing you can’t mix is different areas in your calculations. If you insist on using disk area for your calculations of incoming, then you need to use disk area for outgoing. 960 (disk A) in and 960 (disk A) out. That will make energies balance.
Or use 240 (sphere area) in and 240 (sphere area) out. That also balances.
“960A Joules/sec adjusted for albedo.”
That’s the global mean planetary albedo JD scattered from the entire surface area of your ideal sphere (A=4*pi*Rsphere^2). See that factor of 4 in the spherical area? THAT’s reality JD.
Earth being an oblate spheroid leads to a more exact factor of 4.003.
Tim, maybe that will get thru to JD but I expect not.
Tim and fluffball, you two clowns are just saying the same things over and over, trying to miss the point you fear. Allow me to mess you up even more:
The cartoon divides the incoming solar flux by 4. The cartoon indicates the evaporation is 84 Watts/m^2. So, has the 84 Watts/m^2 also been divided by 4?
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig2-11.jpg
Good point on the mean planetary albedo ball4.
And good explanation Tim.
I just don’t see how we can even begin to discuss Earth’s energy budget unless JD understands how much energy goes in/out.
This is going to have huge implications later on when (err…if) we start discussing the energy imbalance that is currently being observed.
bdgwx, you may have noticed I’ve moved on to Item 2, the evaporation rate indicated in your diagram. Has the value indicated, 84 Watts/m^2 been divide by 4?
The evaporation 84 is one of the observed “Surface components of the annual mean energy budget for the globe” so the total evaporation LH annual mean energy budget for the observed globe in watts was divided by the observed global area (total A = 4*pi*Re^2) to get the ~84W/m^2 just like irradiation 1360 (1-albedo)/4 ~ 240W/m^2.
For more details, read the reports JD.
Fluffball answered quickly. Thanks!
I won’t say whether he is right or wrong, yet. We’ll see if anyone else answers.
I predict Svante and bdgwx will go with fluffball, if they even answer.
And, of course, we definitely won’t get any answer from Tim. He won’t even answer a basic question.
For more details, read the reports JD.
Well, as expected, the lovers of pseudoscience don’t even understand the pseudoscience they love.
The correct answer is “NO”. The evaporation was NOT divided by 4. They divided the actual average TSI by 4, but they did not divide the actual average evaporation by 4.
That ain’t science, and it ain’t even basic accounting.
Nothing new.
JD, that doesn’t make any sense.
Again, the graph represents figures that are in reference to the total area of Earth.
TSI is in reference to the “disk” area of Earth. It must be divided by 4 to normamlize it to the total area of Earth.
The evaporation figure is already in terms of the total area of Earth. Therefore it does not need to be divided by 4.
bdgwx, you keep making the same mistake, over and over.
The average TSI is 1360 W/m^2. That amount represents the total energy arriving the “disk”. For an energy budget, you MUST us the total energy arriving. The evaporation is the total evaporation energy, converted to Watts/m^2. If you divide incoming by 4, you must divide all other Watts/m^2 by 4, otherwise you end up with such nonsense as your diagram shows.
No, that’s wrong. I’m not saying it right.
Too MUCH coffee….
Glad you realized your mistake JD.
Incoming solar could of course also be averaged around the globe, but its more elegant to use the disk to sphere conversion. The result is the same of course.
Hectic morning, here. Let me correct my last sentence:
“If you divide incoming by 4, you must divide all other energy by 4…”
Much better.
JD, that still doesn’t make any sense.
You divide 1360 by 4 to normalize it to the spherical area of Earth.
All values in the graphic (including the 340) are already normalized to the spherical area of Earth. Therefore you don’t divide any of them by 4.
I agree, bdgwx, scientifically it doesn’t make any sense. I don’t know why they would be trying to “balance” fluxes, while calling it an “energy balance”.
Of course, if they’re trying to fool people, the more obfuscation, the better.
—Tim Folkerts says:
March 24, 2019 at 4:15 PM
Earth receives a TOTAL energy of 960A, but an AVERAGE of 240A.
JD, you are using two different areas!
Earth receives a TOTAL energy of 960 (disk A), but an AVERAGE of 240 (sphere A).—
Well sun is only shining on a disk or sunlight hemisphere.
So about 960 watts for disk or 480 watts average over the sunlit hemisphere.
Or average over 24 hour period of 240 watts per square meter.
But for about a 6 hour period of a 24 hours day one gets the most amount sunlight energy intercepting an area of the sunlight side of spherical Earth.
—Just like Earth emits a TOTAL energy of 960 (disk A), but an AVERAGE of 240 (disk A).—
Not sure what you saying, here. But one hemisphere is dark while the other is sunlit- the average 480 + 0 does equal 240
—The thing you cant mix is different areas in your calculations. If you insist on using disk area for your calculations of incoming, then you need to use disk area for outgoing. 960 (disk A) in and 960 (disk A) out. That will make energies balance.—
Sunlight enters as a disk area and doesn’t exit in disk area, rather exits in spherical area. And whenever surface is warmed to highest temperature, it’s emitting the most amount of energy. So generally after noon one gets warmest surface temperature.
And ocean has fairly uniform day and night temperature and land has more of peak temperature after noon.
b,
If you want to waste your time, compute the amount of energy that the Earth has received from the sun over the last four and half billion years.
Now explain why the surface has still cooled, night is still colder than day, winter is still colder than summer, and the temperature still drops when you move out of the sunlight, into the shade – if you wish, of course.
You will just appear stupid and ignorant if you think that your pseudoscientific diversionary tactics will make any rational person believe that you can describe the GHE, and that testable GHE hypothesis exists. It is your choice of course, and you are free to do as you wish.
You can even believe that Gavin Schmidt is a world renowned climate scientist, if you want. Or pretend that Michael Mann is a Nobel Prize winner! Ah, the wonderments of the pseudoscientific climatological fantasy!
I am not surprised you use a pseudonym.
Cheers.
Ball4 complained about something I wrote, but could not provide a reason for his complaint.
As Ball4 seems to place great reliance on the words of dead physicists, I will quote from the 1824 Burgess translation of Baron Fourier (Fourier transforms and all that) –
“Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
Fourier went further, and attempted to calculate the age of the Earth by extrapolating, backwards, measurements of the rate of cooling. Unfortunately, as with Lord Kelvin, he was unaware of internal heat production due to radioactive decay, and the exponential nature of the reduction in output due to varying half lives of the materials involved.
His logic was excellent, his knowledge was deficient.
Clever enough of me to agree with Fourier’s logic and measurements, I guess. Until the Earths becomes isothermal, Fourier’s words remain useful – “Thus the earth gives out to celestial space all the heat which it receives from the sun, and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
Cooling. Slowly.
Cheers.
“..and adds a part of what is peculiar to itself.”
Is the reason for the slight energy budget +/- imbalance shown Fig. 2.11 from ENSO and arctic variations in the satellite era, the solar input being constant to +/- 0.1% over the cycle, so indeed Fourier had the reason with which Mike needs to be provided.
Cooling except when “the surface becomes hotter when the incident sunlight is powerful enough.”
B4,
Thank you for supporting me – yet again.
I understand why you cannot actually challenge what I wrote – it is factual.
Maybe you think that repeating an inconvenient fact often enough will make it go away – by invoking some sort of mystical climatological anti-sympathetic magic, perhaps.
The Earth has cooled for four and half billion years, and continues to do so, in spite of the calamity laden desires of the nutters who wish to practice pseudoscientific climatological magic.
Would you mind imitating me some more in your comments? Flattery is always welcome – even from dimwits such as yourself.
Cheers.
The Earth has cooled for four and half billion years except when “the surface becomes hotter when the incident sunlight is powerful enough.” Flattery is typically for something that is unfounded, like much of Mike’s physics for reasons Mike could understand by actually doing some tests.
B4,
Just keep repeating what I wrote. You can always write something of your own, as you have done here, and try and pass it off as mine.
I’m surprised you can’t find the nerve to surround your made up stuff with quotes – if you have to lie, you might as well go the whole hog. Just more deny, divert and confuse, eh?
Cheers.
I am reposting this down here for anyone interested in the derivation of the 1360W/m^2 solar intensity at TOA.
Presume distance to Sun is 150 x 10^6 km = 150 x 10^9 metres.
The area of a sphere is A = 4.pi.r^2
Work out r^2 = (150 x 10^9m)^2 = 2.25 x 10^22 m2
4.pi = 4 x 3.14 = 12.56
Area of sphere = 12.56(2.25 x 10^22)m^2 = 2.826 x 10^23 m^2
Radiation intensity at the Sun’s surface = 3.846 x 10^26 watts. We need to know how much that power will spread out onto the sphere we just calculated so we divide that power by the area of the sphere:
3,846 x 10^26 W/(2.826 x 10^23 m^2) = 1.3609 x 10^3 W/m^2
= 1361 W/m^2.
This is, of course, an approximation since the distance to the Sun is not exactly 150 x 10^6 km.
Anywhere on that sphere with radius 150 x 10^6 km, the solar power will measure 1361 W/m^2.
That figure has nothing to do with the Earth or its properties.
Very cool!
For anyone wondering about pretty pictures of “energy budgets”, NASA’s Pseudoscience and Pointless Computer Games Department has sponsored many.
I particularly like the Trenberth et al. (2009) version (showing all the continents evenly illuminated at once), an even sillier version of the graphic produced by Kiehl and Trenberth in 1997.
Revisions and “improvements” abound. From Wild (2012) comes a version of bewildering complexity. Big numbers, little numbers, multicoloured numbers in different types faces, arrows here there and everywhere! A delight to the incompetent pseudoscientific eye.
All completely useless of course. Ably summed up by Trenberth – “. . . it is a travesty . . . “.
Cheers
Kristian…in a recent post you referenced this older post:
“Then we need to take the surroundings into account. Hence, the radiative HEAT TRANSFER equation:
P/A = (sigma) [T_h^4 T_c^4]
What it does is calculate the rate of heat transfer between the object and its surroundings. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation is simply the equation above set in an ideal situation where the surroundings are so much colder than the object that they can simply be disregarded theyre essentially zero:”
*****
I am not arguing with you here, I find the problem to be interested so I am making a comment with regard to the history of S-B and the relationship between the two Ts in your formula.
I am not simply opining here, I have applied this is electronics to power transistors. A raw power transistor is rated based on its ability to dissipate heat when a certain current is running through it. You can maintain that current rating and drop the temperature dramatically by adding heat dissipation devices and conditions.
In other words, a metal-jacketed power transistor will reach a natural temperature, T, when a certain current is run through it. You can lower T by providing a heat sink (increasing it’s area of radiation), by providing better convection (fan), or by running the device in a cooler ambient temperature. The moment you interfere with any of those conditions, T will rise back toward its natural temperature created by the electric current running through it.
Some have misrepresented that increase in T as being due to its cooler environment but it’s simply about a lowering of the device’s ability to dissipate heat.
I think that’s what the second T is about in your equation.
The initial equation presented by Stefan had no reference to area, nor did it have the second T. It was simply P = (sigma).T^4. The A for area and the e for emissivity came later, from Boltzmann, when he worked out Stefan’s equation using statistical mechanics. He was also trying to prove the 2nd law statistically.
http://www.applet-magic.com/stefanlaw.htm
Stefan worked out his equation from the data acquired in an experiment by Tyndall, wherein the latter heated a platinum filament wire with an electric current. He increased the current till the wire glowed a visible colour then took the temperature. He kept increasing the current while the wire showed temperatures between about 700C and 1500C, and he noted the changes in colour at each temperature.
Someone else calculated the equivalent EM frequencies from the reported colours and Stefan used that info to calculate the famous T^4 relationship between the temperature of a body and the EM intensity radiated. There was no need for area in the calculation.
Obviously, the filament heated by Tyndall was not done in an environment where the ambient temperature was 0 Kelvin. However, the ambient, environmental temperature surrounding a body of temperature T will affect T, normally by lowering it.
If you could heat the platinum filament in isolation, so it could not dissipate any heat, it would reach a natural temperature due to the current flowing through it. The moment you allow any kind of dissipation, T(natural) will drop. And the further the surrounding temperature gets from T(natural), the more T(natural) will drop.
I don’t know what the limiting factors may be but as you provide more conduction, convection, and radiation, you help dissipate heat and the natural temperature of the body drops.
I don’t think there’s anything mysterious here. It comes down to how fast the current can produce heat compared to how fast you can dissipate the heat.
That’s why the original Stefan equation is only true under the ambient temperature conditions in which the Tyndall experiment was performed. So, if it was performed in open air in a lab at 20C, the relationship between T and P would be true only under those conditions.
I have read that the T^4 relationship is not written in stone, that it is dependent on the conditions. I saw it stated as T^5 in one application.
I think Boltzmann introduced the second T in recognition of that fact.
That’s where swannie got it wrong in his two experiments where he drew the conclusion that back radiation from a cooler source was warming the heated source. He was not allowing for the fact that his heated source was not at its true natural temperature due to dissipation via conduction, convection, and radiation.
When he blocked any one of those means of dissipation, the heated source naturally increased in temperature. The S-B equation with both T’s demonstrated that perfectly. The closer the Ts get to each other the more the first T will rise. Conversely, the further they get apart, the lower the first T will get.
That is, provided the second T represents the ambient, environmental temperature surrounding the first T.
With regard to the Earth, our cooler atmosphere is keeping the surface much cooler than it would be if it was not there. Lindzen has claimed even with our atmosphere in place, without convection, our surface temperature could rise to 70C.
That has nothing to do with blocking radiation or slowing it down with GHGs. It comes down to a simple temperature differential between the surface temperature and the temperature of the atmosphere at the surface. There’s your two Ts in the equation.
Of course, it’s nonsense that back-radiation from a cooler atmosphere can cause the surface temperature to rise.
I need to give this a lot more thought. The more I look at the equation: P = e(sigma)A(T2^4 – T1^4) the less sense it makes.
In my analogy, I was thinking in terms of a very hot body surrounded by air at room temperature. I was also not taking the Ts to the 4th power.
The equation is stating essentially, that as T1 -> T2, the radiation will disappear. It’s not clear where the derivation came from.
I can see it as P = e(sigma)AT2 – e(sigma)AT1 where the e’s, and A’s are constant. Then you can isolate the constants and pull them out in front of the equation leaving the T2^4 – T1^4 term.
I stand by what I claimed about a body at temperature T getting hotter as you bring the temperature of the ambient air around it closer to T.
After a long walk to re-align the neurons, I can see one application. If T1 = T2 it means a state of thermal equilibrium.
In that case, what is S-B telling us? P = 0.
GR,
You got it, dude.
“This is a state of equilibrium. In equilibrium, the entropy of the system cannot increase (because it is already at a maximum) and it cannot decrease (because that would violate the second law of thermodynamics).
I’ll wait for the usual crop of suggestions for cunning ways get around the laws of physics. Maybe cleverly hidden heat sources, maybe Gavin’s “new physics” which apparently keep foiling his attempts to get his computer games working properly.
Cheers
Gordon says: ” It’s not clear where the derivation came from.”
And that’s the problem with that bogus equation, Gordon. The derivation is for idealized conditions with imaginary objects. The equation has no practical application in the real world, but is heavily relied on in pseudoscience.
If the clowns use that equation, and get to violate laws of thermodynamics, they can sell the GHE.
But, as the truth comes out, fewer and fewer are buying….
https://assets.amuniversal.com/060d55b002a101377bf9005056a9545d
Hopefully soon most will stop trying to reason with JDHuffman or DREMT. When you don’t respond to either and just read their responses to others you quickly can see they are just trolling.
For all the good scientific minded and educated posters I would appeal to you not to waste another post on either of these trolls. It is an endless empty void.
You can tell JDHuffman is a troll when he states an established radiative heat transfer equation is bogus and only used in idealized conditions with imaginary objects. This is total proof he is just here to troll. He uses taunts to get people to respond to his posts then it is an endless waste of time. I think the intelligent and rational posters think they can reason with g.e.r.a.n. No you can’t he is a troll and logic, reason or rational thought are not part of the game.
It does help to not engage with this one. I think if more ignore him you will have a more rational blog to communicate ideas on. The troll just waste time and disrupt rational scientific debate.
Yes Norman, I arrived at this conclusion many rotating moons ago when the late dearly departed g asterisk ruled his dominion of trolls. The new versions are just as dumb.
think mockery amy be the only solution. If you can’t get through their numbskulls to their brains then there is no hope and you may be more productive to go through the transdermal route.
Sorry for the typos above. Having another bad hair day. Maybe their stupidity is infectious.
Norman,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346490
Perhaps you can be the first commenter to make a counter-argument to Ball4’s point about the 244K…290K…244K? What do you have to say in disagreement with one of your idols? Maybe start your comment with, “Ball4 is wrong, because…”, and then elaborate.
As usual, Norman jumps in with nothing but insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. He’s so frustrated because all of his beliefs are being destroyed, and he can do nothing except rant and rage.
Nothing new.
Mike R
I just wanted to be sure that intelligent with knowledge of science knew that JDHuffman was just a troll. He demonstrates his total lack of any real science knowledge when he calls a well established working physics equation of heat transfer bogus!
His stupid behavior here just wastes so much time. People keep thinking there is a chance to reason with this one. There is not the slightest chance of that. The Dilbert Cartoon shows what JDHuffman is all about. A troll. No point in wasting one post on him. If he posts ignore it unless you want to spend 20 posts on nothing.
Poor Norman is so clueless he doesn’t realize the cartoon is about him. It’s about people that are unable to think for themselves. That’s one common trait of clowns. They are unable to think logically.
A perfect example is Norman advocating not responding to me, as he responds to me!
Nothing new.
norman…”You can tell JDHuffman is a troll when he states an established radiative heat transfer equation is bogus and only used in idealized conditions with imaginary objects”.
There’s no reference to heat transfer in either
p = (sigma).T^4 (Stefan) or in p = e(sigma)A(T2^4 – T1^4).
The only reference to heat is in the temperature T of a body. The equations are about EM radiation from a body wrt the temperature of the body.
If anything, this is about heat dissipation since a body at temperature T radiating EM(p) will cool if it’s T is not maintained internally by external means.
As Kristian claimed, you can take it as a hotter body at temperature T2 radiating to a cooler atmosphere at temperature T1.
Don’t forget this applies to fictitious black bodies only and the frequency of the radiation has to be factored in. It is omitted in S-B, I’m guessing mainly because they knew nothing about EM at the time.
Norman, as you are aware this fiasco has been going on since November 2017 for f… sake. This cretinous troll , with the help of one or two others, has led everyone on a merry dance.There is no point in engaging in a discussion re physics with this guy. The only thing you will get is a bout of concussion. Mine lasted about a year.
The only break from his nonsense was for the month of May 2018 after Gasterisk was again banned for his extreme trolling . In that month there was no mention of lunar rotation and only 30 or so comments, out of more than 1500, that discussed the plates. The break from these discussions lasted briefly and only resumed in earnest when the ostensibly new contributors Huff and DREMT appeared on June14 and June 17 2018 respectively.
These two have been the closest companions since then and have identical highly idiosyncratic views about the moon (the relevance to a discussion about climate change was limited to say the least) and thermal physics (their/his understanding of insulation and conduction are best described at being at the level of an uneducated slime mold) that are coincidentally identical to Gasterisk’s. The evidence that these two are Gastrorisk’s sock puppet progeny is overwhelming. It didn’t t require the investigative skill of a Bob Mueller to work that out.
There also has been much mention recently regarding physics text books. The only posssible interaction that Gastrorisk and his sproglets have had with a physics text book could have been when Gastro’s exasperated physics teacher hurled a book in his direction at high school. Too bad it missed. If it had struck him in the head there was a finite chance that he may have learnt something. At least about the mechanics of projectile motion,
The sooner Dr Spencer invokes the mercy rule to, yet again, terminate the tenure of Gastro, the better. I might be in the firing line due to my numerous robust interactions with one of the troll persona but I would be happy to take one for the team and join Gastro on the side lines.
p.s. I see from below that Gastro’s sproglets are running victory laps. Presumably they are running in ever decreasing circles until they return home to the bosom of mother. I assume then they will then disappear up the appropriate orifice, hopefully to be never regurgitated.
Sorry to be so snarky but my tolerance of fools is extremely limited and if anyone deserves a good adhom bollocking it is this obnoxious troll.
Norman, don’t forget to start your comment with, ”Ball4 is wrong, because…”
This newbie, MikeR, seems to ramble endlessly with nothing of value. He’s full of personal attacks, but is devoid of any science. That’s probably why he wants others censored.
Nothing new.
Just some new troll persona they’re trying, kind of like a more verbose version of Bobdesbond. Perhaps it’s the same avatar-driver.
MikeR
g.e.r.a.n has learned something in getting banned. The other bans were because he went after Roy Spencer. As long as he trolls along with other posters Dr. Spencer lets things go. JDHuffman has learned this and avoids such attacks on the owner of the blog.
What you say it correct about the two. If you want to post to them, be prepared for endless mindless posts usually just taunts, they really are not able to do much more than that.
, taunted Norman, mindlessly.
MikeR.
See how the troll taunts to try and get some reaction.
The troll is desperate for attention.
This is what the troll taunts with: “Poor Norman is so clueless he doesnt realize the cartoon is about him. Its about people that are unable to think for themselves. Thats one common trait of clowns. They are unable to think logically.”
This is the same troll who thinks established physics equations are bogus. You can’t reason with a troll. The objective is different. They need attention. They are not interested in rational logical debate.
Again one to avoid and ignore. I just feel sorry for intelligent people like Tim Folkerts that think their is a chance rational points will reach the troll.
Norman, you’re doing a lousy job of ignoring us. You never can do what you say you will do. In fact, you tend to do the opposite of what you say.
Maybe if you say you will jump in and start insulting people….
“See how the troll taunts to try and get some reaction…”
Yes, Norman, I did see that you were taunting, to try to get some reaction, when you said,
“What you say it correct about the two. If you want to post to them, be prepared for endless mindless posts usually just taunts, they really are not able to do much more than that.”
Thanks Norman for the reminder regarding the previous bans of Gasterisk.
It doesn’t however explain the bans of the other miscreants D C and mp.a.i.n.t.. Correct me if I am wrong but they were exiled due to behaviours that closely resemble Gasterisk’s puppets.
I note that the Huff puppet claims he has no memory of our previous encounters. Either his memory is playing tricks or this puppet is after a Pinnochio award.
I also note that there is no longer any mock outrage by either puppet at the accusation that they are the left over socks of Gastrorisk.
We coukd halve the number of posts here if Gastro dropped the pretence.
MikeR
The other two trolls you listed did directly attack Dr. Spencer before being banned. The Big D did it more than once.
It appears Norman and MikeR are in a competition to see who can pound on their keyboard the most, without contributing anything of value.
In such competitions, the most ignorant clown usually has an advantage….
Thanks Norman,
I wasn’t aware that the other two had indulged in the same behaviour. It looks like we might be stuck with him.
I guess the only progress is that the twin puppets now implicitly acknowledge their unfortunate heritage.
mike r “This cretinous troll , with the help of one or two others, has led everyone on a merry dance”.
I have noted one thing about you alarmists, when your pseudo-science is not blindly swallowed, and countered with sound physics, you all start bleating about trolls.
JD, Mike, Kristian, Bart, gbaikie, myself, and a few others have tried to reason with you using physics that can be tested or at least debated intelligently.
You lot offer:
-pseudo-science that blatantly contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. When challenged on it, you resort to a fictitious net balance of energy, completely ignoring thermal energy, aka heat, and offering a blancmange of EM and heat generically offered as ‘energy’.
None of you can explain the relationship between the thermal and EM energies, or why they should be merged, in fact, ball3 argues there is no such thing as heat. I have pointed out that heat is lost when EM is created yet you lot carry on as if heat is EM and can flow through the atmosphere.
-Your buddy norman and his ally swannie support the notion that a cooler body can radiate EM to a warmer body to raise the temperature of the hotter body. That not only contradicts the 2nd law, it contradicts the 1st law as well, a contradictions that leads to perpetual motion. It’s a creation of energy out of thin air.
Your statistical experts, like barry and binny, offer number crunching with trends that omit nearly 20 years of a flat trend, without explanation.
I think JD presents physics that you cannot refute therefore you resort to the old standby of ad homs. Not one of you has proved him wrong on the non-rotation of the Moon, all you have done is move the goalposts, defining theoretical coordinate systems in which the Moon appears to be rotating.
Not one of you has met Mike Flynn’s challenge to offer a testable hypothesis to prove the GHE as defined.
I have offered proof from quantum theory, the Ideal Gas Law, and the 2nd law, that 0.04% of CO2 in the atmosphere could not possibly warm the atmosphere as claimed. That makes me a troll, simply because you alarmists lack the science to prove me wrong. You are all stumped and you turn to childish ad homs in rebuttal.
Sorry DREMT, forgot you on the good-guy list.
Gordon falsely claims: “I have pointed out that heat is lost when EM is created yet you lot carry on as if heat is EM and can flow through the atmosphere.”
What Gordon points out is wrong, EM is not heat and heat cannot flow through the atm. nor can EMR simply be be “created”. Properly thermodynamic internal energy (the KE of an object’s constituent particles) is transformed into EMR.
A cooler body can radiate EM to a warmer body to raise the temperature of the hotter body over a hotter body not in view of the EM because that process produces entropy so is compliant with 2LOT & is observed in nature.
“Not one of you has proved him wrong on the non-rotation of the Moon..”
I have proved JD wrong with my telescope watching the moon’s terminator sweep across the moon’s craters as the moon rotates on its own axis, day to night. Gordon can easily replicate that observation also but Gordon chooses not to do so.
“Not one of you has met Mike Flynn’s challenge to offer a testable hypothesis to prove the GHE as defined.”
Why even Mike Flynn has defined the GHE with a testable hypothesis and many others & several times! Gordon just turns a blind eye to Mike’s and others comments.
“I have offered proof ..”
Gordon wrote out some words but offered no proper experiment nor observation in support of Gordon’s words. The experimental science easily found proves Gordon wrong.
“you all start bleating about trolls.”
Gordon simply turns to childish ad homs in rebuttal.
“Sorry DREMT, forgot you on the good-guy list.”
No worries, Gordon. The other side (known as, “the Team”, or “the GHEDT” to be precise) distinguish themselves very clearly by their methods. There’s new members popping up all the time; bdgwx being the latest utterly transparent “character” to join their ranks.
–Thats why the original Stefan equation is only true under the ambient temperature conditions in which the Tyndall experiment was performed. So, if it was performed in open air in a lab at 20C, the relationship between T and P would be true only under those conditions.–
Well, radiant energy transfer “works better” when temperature is hotter.
Or air temperature does not make much difference to when wire is very hot.
Or have wire red hot, with x amount of current going thru it. It would not change in wire temperature much if air was 0 C or 40 C.
Or doesn’t change much if in vacuum- though vacuum will cause it glow slighter brighter.
And when consider you can increase the current, then it does matter at all what air temperature is- a bit more current will make up the difference or if in vacuum, use slightly less current.
gbaikie…”Or have wire red hot, with x amount of current going thru it. It would not change in wire temperature much if air was 0 C or 40 C”.
It would cool somewhat if you blew cool air past the filament or touched it against a heat sink.
The trick is to dissipate the heat faster than the electric current can supply it.
I am not claiming it would cool a whole lot but if you dunked the filament in ice water, it would cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL1VWr6I16o
gbaikie…interesting. Did you notice that the filaments did not glow any colour?
That was a 240 volt, 10,000 w bulb. I = P/E = 10000w/240 v = 41.7 amps. The filaments should have been glowing at least a bright red.
Thought for sure the glass would shatter.
“gbaikieinteresting. Did you notice that the filaments did not glow any colour?”
It seems filament under water would not be much above 100 C, the filament in air above the water could have been hotter than 100 C [maybe], and make guess the glass around the hole at top could reached the highest temperature [and steam could be fluctuating in temperature [and burn a hand if foolish enough to put it above it].
I also found the laminate flow and turbulence flow of invisible steam, interesting.
Also if guy was not scared of doing it, he knows more than I do- I would think I should view from blast proof window.
–With regard to the Earth, our cooler atmosphere is keeping the surface much cooler than it would be if it was not there. Lindzen has claimed even with our atmosphere in place, without convection, our surface temperature could rise to 70C.–
When air is warmer, the surface has less convection loss, and so if air is 40 C, the surface can and does warm to 70 C.
So Earth ground surface commonly warms to 70 C.
And if talking about surface air temperature reaching 70 C- if you prevent air from convecting with other air- the parked car air with windows rolled up, then this air can reach 70 C.
But this requires a noon time sun and in any given moment most of Earth doesn’t have a noon time sun. And has less of a summer noon time sun.
So if could “magically” prevent convection, the entire Earth surface could not have temperature of 70 C. Nor could the entire tropics [which gets more sunlight] have temperature of 70 C.
But if covered the tropics with solar ponds, the hot water below the surface, could maintain a constant temperature of 80 C.
So at 1 meter depth 80 C and surface water temperature of about 30 C.
This because the salt gradient is inhibiting convectional heat loss and water has a high heat content. And this has demonstrated- though wind and rain interferes with it [and clouds don’t have as much of effect- wind or rain can effect it more than few days of cloudy weather].
DR Evil. Why do you keep repeating yourself? Do you have an underlying medical condition? Tourettes is treatable. Please find some help before you drive everyone nuts again.
Begone, witless troll.
Sorry Mike,
I was referring to DREMT above.
Directly replying to a user on an Android phone using Chrome seems to take you to the end rather than where you expect. This does not seem to happen on a PC. Very strange.
So rest assured I was not referring to you Mike, unless you also answer to DR Evil.
Hope you guys at the top end are OK. It has been very blowy in some parts up there.
Cheers
Hi Begone, I like it when you sign with your name and title.
Svante, I think there might be an alternative interpretation of Mike Flynn’s comment, “Begone, witness troll” that you are not aware of. The word “begone” actually means:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/begone
“Go away (as an expression of annoyance)”
So Mike’s comment can actually be read as an expression of his wish for MikeR to “go away, witless troll”. If you really think about it, this is a far more likely interpretation, for two reasons:
1) “Begone” is not a person’s name, at least as far as I’m aware.
2) Mike Flynn already has his name, “Mike Flynn” appear whenever he posts each comment. So it would seem strange for Mike to call himself “Mike Flynn”, but also intend to be known as “Begone”.
I hope that this resolves the issue for you, as it seems to be a recurring point of serious confusion.
Svante hides in the shadows and waits for a chance to snipe at Skeptics. His only science comes from his religious leaders.
This latest discussion has been about the bogus “energy budget”. Svante swallows it without question, but can’t explain one thing about it. For example, the cartoon shows 84 Watts/m^2 for evaporation. But, it shows incoming energy is divided by 4. So, question for Svante, has the 84 Watts/m^2 for evaporation also been divided by 4?
JDHuffman says:
“has the 84 Watts/m^2 for evaporation also been divided by 4?”
No, that number would be a simple average over the globe.
Incoming solar could of course also be averaged that way, although it’s more elegant to get it with the disk to area conversion.
Evapo-transpiration and thermals can occur at night, for example in a hurricane, so disk to sphere conversion is not applicable.
Good attempt to pervert reality, Svante. But you don’t get to adjust numbers as you want in accounting. That’s called fraud.
Reality is a bitch, huh?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
I think there might be an alternative interpretation of Mike Flynn’s comment, “Begone, witness [sic] troll” that you are not aware of.
I thought I had made sense of the Molten Mike messages, I guess it was not to be. Thanks anyway.
So let’s test your new understanding. I’ll add something that should make it even easier for you to get:
Begone, witless troll Svante.
Troll, please stop emerging.
Oh dear, something obviously went wrong with your understanding. Let’s try again:
Begone, witless troll Svante.
I see now, hi Begone!
Saying hi to yourself, Begone? That’s odd.
Day 14. The Green Plate Effect is debunked, and that’s STILL upsetting the trolls.
“Plates” debunked, Moon-rotation debunked, “energy budget” being debunked–no wonder they’re so upset.
And, April 1st is next week….
Mark this date on your calendars. The date when thermal radiation, lunar rotation, and global energy budgets were authoritatively declared settled science by a couple anonymous guys on the internet. In the year to come, scientists will flock to this discussion thread to gain the insights of these giants of science. No longer will people be led astray by physics professors, thermodynamics textbooks, or industrial engineers.
T,
Hear! Hear!
Well done, Tim. You might not be as stupid and ignorant as I thought.
You forgot to point out that climate is only the average of weather, and that people such as Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann are only self styled climate scientists, but at least you are heading in the right direction.
Keep it up.
Cheers.
Losing their beloved Green Plate Effect has got to them so much, even Tim is resorting to attempted ridicule. Not sure I’ve ever seen that before.
The date I’d like to mark on the calendar is the date Tim answers simple questions, instead of avoiding them.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346314
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346363
Hehe.
‘Debunked’ has been so overused here- its meaning now could be anywhere from ‘actually debunked’ to ‘not debunked at all’ to ‘poster debunked self’.
DREMT probably uses ‘literally’ all the time when he really means ‘not actually literally’.
N,
I suppose that might be the same as pseudoscientists saying that “cooling” really means “heating”. Or that CO2 causes, or might cause, floods, droughts, heat waves, cold spells, piles and gonorrhea.
Pseudoscientists often refer to “science”, when they really mean “not science at all”.
They refer to a “greenhouse effect” which has nothing to do with “greenhouses”, and has no “effect’ whatsoever.
Carry on believing that Gavin Schmidt is a”scientist”. Just change the meaning of “mathematician” to mean “scientist”. In the case of Michael Mann, you could change the meaning of “Michael Mann is not a Nobel Prize winner” to anything you wish.
In the meantime, Nature doesn’t care. No “GHE”. No “CO2 heating”. you are still stupid and ignorant. Carry on.
Cheers.
MF Bot calling Kettle.
‘Nature doesn’t care.’ about strawmen versions of ‘GHE’ that have little resemblance to actual GHE.
‘Nature doesn’t care.’ that you think the Earth can’t warm because ‘its been cooling’. It happily warms anyway.
‘Nature doesnt care’ that you think sunshine can’t warm the Earth because of ‘night’. It warms the Earth anyway.
‘Nature doesnt care’ that JD/DREMT can’t wrap their brain around vacuum being a good insulator. It insulates anyway.
Except that it’s the green plate/s that are meant to be the insulators, not the vacuum.
DREMT can’t quite make the logical connection that without a Green plate there is no gap.
And without a gap and a Green plate there is no temperature of the Green plate.
And Nate can’t quite make the logical connection that it’s the blue plate temperature which is supposed to increase as a result of adding a green plate/s, not as the result of adding a vacuum.
The green plate/s temperature is supposed to decrease…sadly it doesn’t, in the 3-plate version.
‘its the blue plate temperature which is supposed to increase as a result of adding a green plate/s’
It does. How is it that you have determined that it does not, besides just declaring it?
‘not as the result of adding a vacuum.’
Just word games, DREMT. Just stop trolling.
“The green plate/s temperature is supposed to decreasesadly it doesnt”
Oh? No they are not SUPPOSED to do any such thing.
Sure, when you have the plates together, and they come to one equilibrium temperature…and then you separate the plates…you have always previously argued that the green plates should lower in temperature. Poor Nate is running from his previous statements. Desperate times…
‘you have always previously argued that the green plates should lower in temperature.’
Sun and one plate, Sun and two plates, Three plates w/ middle one heated.
Three different problems, three different answers.
Thats the beauty of physics that, unfortunately, you cannot appreciate, DREMT.
Applying laws of physics allows you to solve almost any problem. And you get different answers!
Always guessing the same answer, no matter the problem, as JD does, just doesnt make sense.
Eli’s equations lead to:
1) 2-plate problem: plates together, same temperature. Plates apart, green drops 24 K.
2) 3-plate problem: plates together, same temperature. Plates apart, green plates remain the same temperature.
Nate’s response:
Waves hands, condescends, tries to switch focus to JD.
Nates response:
‘Waves hands, condescends, tries to switch focus to JD’
No hand waving at all DREMT. We have already shown you the solutions to the 3 problems, and explained ad-naseum how we get the answers using real physics.
But neither you nor JD have EVER explained how you get your answers, and how you know they are correct.
That should be a clue that you don’t really understand what you are doing.
Why isn’t it?
Nate’s looking for take off, hands a blur of movement…
[I mentioned on the other sub-thread that I was done talking to him. What sort of person tries to take advantage of that, by continuing to respond to them as if they hadn’t? There’s a word that springs to mind…]
Nate is in full meltdown. He got caught with has fake “basic physics textbook”.
And now, April 1st is rabidly approaching….
And what is different about
‘3-plate problem: plates together, same temperature. Plates apart, green plates remain the same temperature.’ ?
It is different because it is symmetric. 400 in, 200 must flow out both sides, and can only come from Green plates.
For 2 plates heated on one side. Not symmetric. More heat flows out from hot side than from cold side, 267 left and 133 right.
‘Nate is in full meltdown.’
Both JD and DREMT are way PO’d at me and (sort of) stopped responding.
Haleluyah!
Clearly calling them out on their BS is having the desired effect!
I wonder on what page poor Nate found “BS” in his fake “basic physics textbook”….
And he can’t resist…
Brought to you by the guy whose beloved IR thermometer amazingly works, even though it is based entirely on the radiative heat transfer equation that he insists is ‘bogus’.
Hilarious.
Fraud Nate, on which page of your fake “basic physics textbook” can we find that a IR detector works on a bogus equation?
And, like DREMT, I won’t respond to any none sense until you can stop perverting reality.
And he can’t resist.
Brought to you by the guy whose beloved IR thermometer amazingly works, even though it is based entirely on the radiative heat transfer equation that he insists is ‘bogus’.
Hilarious.
heres how they work:
https://www.sensorsmag.com/components/demystifying-thermopile-ir-temp-sensors
They use a thermopyle, which essentially measures the temperature rise or fall of an IR absorbing layer, relative to the ambient temperature of the device, and thereby, the IR flux flowing into or out of the device.
From that flux, together with the measured ambient temperature, they use JDs bogus Radiative Heat Transfer (RHT) equation to find the temperature of the source.
Notice in figure 2. the RHT equation, the bogus one, is shown being used.
Sorry Nate, but that’s not how my handheld IR thermometer works.
What you have found is an article by some “tech writers”. They get some things right, but some things wrong. Here are just a couple of clues, in case you’re really interested:
“To properly measure the object’s temperature, the object must completely fill the sensor’s field of view (FOV).”
“This formula is valid for a sensor in a well-insulated package, typically a metal can, with inert gas or even vacuum inside, which causes the predominant heat transfer to happen through IR radiation.”
But, at least you’re not making up fake “basic physics textbooks”.
nate…”heres how they work:
https://www.sensorsmag.com/components/demystifying-thermopile-ir-temp-sensors
They use a thermopyle, which essentially measures the temperature rise or fall of an IR absorbing layer, relative to the ambient temperature of the device, and thereby, the IR flux flowing into or out of the device.
From that flux, together with the measured ambient temperature, they use JDs bogus Radiative Heat Transfer (RHT) equation to find the temperature of the source.”
**********
These guys are sadly misinformed. S-B cannot be applied as they have applied it. Furthermore S-B is not a heat transfer equation, even though these confused author’s seem to think so.
They offer an equation which they claim is a simplification of S-B [P = e(sigma)A(To^4 – Ts^4)], where To is the temperature of the device being measured and Ts is a surface in front of the object containing the thermocouple.
Their equation is Vtp = thermopyle voltage = A(To^4 – Ts^4). They claim A = RTHNSεσF; RTH = thermal resistance, N = number of thermocouples, S = Seebeck coefficient, ε = net emissivity, σ = Stefan’s constant, and F = Field of view (FOV).
This is a bogus equation for several reasons.
-There is no such thing as net emissivity that matters to anyone when the object and surface are at different temperatures. The only time emissivity is of concern is at thermal equilibrium.
-They are now bringing thermal resistance into the equation through the thermocouples. That is, the 2nd law is good for them re thermal resistance but they destroy it with their stupid two-way IR flow.
-If To = Ts, the voltage across the thermopyle’s is 0 volts. If To < Ts, they are claiming the thermopyles will reverse polarity and generate a current flowing the other way. It would not surprise me if they claimed the thermopyle was heating the object under such conditions.
-The Seeback effect, referenced as S, applies to a voltage difference created between the end of a metal when one end is heated. Obviously, with the thermopyle, it makes sense only when one end is hotter. If the thermopyle/thermocouple is hotter than the object, it can measure nothing.
Sheer nonsense. The authors are a couple of hackers raised on modern pseudo-science. There is no need to apply Planck here, or S-B. The thermocouples must be rated for a specific temperature range in which it is to operate. Since an object temperature below the thermopyle surface temperature produces IR from the thermocouple to the object only, it is quite obvious that the thermopyle can only measure temperatures higher than it's temperature.
Introducing a two-way IR into this situation is sheer nonsense.
Here's a blurb on an IR thermocouple:
http://www.hcs77.com/hcs_infrared_thermocouples.html
They are used where HIGH temperatures have to be measured. That satisfies the 2nd law, the object being measured is at a higher temperature than the thermocouple.
In the following article, in the section on IR sensors, they claim:
"When selecting an infrared option, critical considerations include field of view (angle of vision), emissivity (ratio of energy radiated by an object to the energy emitted by a perfect radiator at the same temperature), spectral response, temperature range, and mounting".
https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2011/oct/temperature-sensors-the-basics
The blurb above describes an entirely different situation than the one in Nate's article. The devices are not measuring heat at all, like the hand-held IR detector, they are comparing the frequency of IR from the object to a reference voltage produced by the frequency of IR from an object of similar temperature in a lab.
‘he devices are not measuring heat at all, like the hand-held IR detector, they are comparing the frequency of IR from the object’
No Gordon, thats not what your links indicate at all.
Not sure why you seem to be denying the validity of the radiative heat transfer equation, now, when you didnt previously.
JD ‘thats not how my handheld IR thermometer works.’
Oh? Well please do explain how yours works. And link to source for that information.
Gordon quite obviously has never tested an IR thermometer: “it is quite obvious that the thermopyle (sic) can only measure temperatures higher than it’s (sic) temperature.”
My room temperature IR thermometer accurately reads out 32F for a glass of ice water debunking Gordon’s theories.
Nate, Ball4, please stop trolling.
“…and that’s STILL upsetting the trolls.”
The twin puppet trolls are still on their victory lap. They should let the other two catch up and then they can all cross the finish line together gland in hand.
What a wonderful example of Dunning Kruger in practice. The combination of arrogance and stupidity is a sight to behold.
MR,
Maybe you could divert the subject to science, do you think? Then you wouldn’t have to spend so much time worrying about winners and losers in an apparent race of irrelevancies.
A good start might be to explain, in useable scientific terms, why the “greenhouse effect” is so-called by pseudoscientists of the climatological variety. It has nothing to do with greenhouses, and has no definable and measurable effect.
If you can’t describe the GHE, maybe you don’t actually know enough about pseudoscience.
N rays don’t exist, but at least their discoverer described them, measured them, and had at least 120 scientists and 300 published articles to back him.
Alas, the same RW Wood (who showed the supposed GHE to be a load of bollocks) cunningly removed a supposedly “essential” prism from the experimental apparatus, and the observers still claimed to see the results of N rays. He later substituted a piece of green wood for a supposed good emitter of N rays, with no reduction of observed emissions.
I believe belief in N rays persisted until the 1940’s.
About as silly as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory making the “stunning discovery” of element 118 in 1999. Just wishful thinking, supported by wishful data attempting to create fact from fantasy.
The GHE can’t even be described – precisely no experiments to demonstrate its existence. Even things that don’t exist, at least have experiments involved!
Carry on with your trolling. At least it will keep belief in the indescribable GHE bubbling away.
Cheers.
MF,
I posted an analysis of the two plate experiment here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-20170-36-deg-c/#comment-274920 way back in November 2017. It includes diagrams and Excel calculations. Is this sufficiently Sciency enough for you?
As for a “gold plated” double blind controlled studies, they are unfortunately unavailable. The closest to a twin study is Earth and Venus. There is an abundance of C02 on the latter and it is closer to the sun so it is difficult to direcly compare the two. Like an observation of a rotating moon much of science cannot be studied in a controlled fashion that would mee the stringent requirements of controlled study.
The best that can be done is to examine constituent parts and see if they satisfy the null hypothesis or not. E.Swanson has done such an experiment and, if you think he has not been rigorous enough, then you are welcome to design and implement an experiment that demonstrates the absence of back radiation. The whole edifice will then come crumbling down and you will have done humanity a wonderful service.
In the meantime, because of the nature of the beast, the science examining climate change involves a lot of modelling and of course a lot of assumptions. If you really want to contribute something remotely useful you should acquaint yourself with literature and start beavering away on your own model.
However I think baby steps are necessary . I suggest that you download the spreadsheet in the link above and start your analysis by checking for the self consistency of the calculations and whether they conform to the laws of thermodynamics and the S-B equation etc. This would be a marvellous start and you can then proceed onto the more arduous task of creating your own model with all appropriate forcings and assumptions.
I do recall that someone pointed out that there was a minor issue with the calculations in the spreadsheet. Can you please check all the calculations and see if you can locate it and provide a coherent explanation for the error?
Many thanks and Cheers
MR,
What has the two plate experiment to do with the curiously indescribable GHE? Diagrams and Excel calculations – Ooooh! I’m underwhelmed!
Are you incredibly impressed by the fact that aluminium can actually reflect infrared light? I’m not, because the principle of using a metal reflector to raise the temperature of an object, while itself remaining cooler, has been known for thousands of years.
Here –
“This contention was dealt with in 1973, when a Greek engineer undertook his own experiment to get to the bottom of Archimedes’ death ray. He assembled 70 soldiers, each holding a 5-feet by 3-feet (1.5-m by 0.9-m) mirror. The concentrated beam reflected by the mirrors set a row boat 160 feet (49 m) offshore aflame. It is possible, then, that Archimedes’ death ray could have worked.”
Useful “back radiation”, if you will. No soldiers combusted during the experiment – they remained cool.
Who needs a gold plated double blind experiment? Nature has spend four and a half billion years carrying out an experiment using the Earth. Look between your feet (if they’re not up around your ears), and you can work out whether the Earth has cooled or heated. I say it has cooled – feel free to disagree .
There is no “science of examining climate change”. Climate is the average of weather! If you think that the weather (and hence climate) has never changed – you are even more deluded than the witless women who proclaim they will refrain from giving birth until climate change is stopped. At least they will ensure they are doing their best to ensure their traits of stupidity and ignorance will not be perpetuated in the human gene pool.
You could always start by trying to define the GHE, if you feel like it. Nobody has managed to do so to date.
Or you could suggest that rational people such as myself join you in your fantasy world of stupidity, ignorance, and wishful thinking. I decline, but others may think you are wise and knowledgeable. Good luck with your pointless spreadsheets and poorly thought out “experiments”.
In the meantime, keep blathering about “models”, replete with “forcings”, “back radiation” and all the other pseudoscientific folderol. I have no intention of checking your nonsensical “calculations”, any more than I would check the calculations of an astrologer. You can check your own “calculations” until you are blue in the face – still no GHE, is there? Still no CO2 heating either. You remain stupid and ignorant. Calculate that, and let me know how you get on – if you wish.
Cheers.
mike r…”Useful back radiation, if you will. No soldiers combusted during the experiment they remained cool”.
Reflection is not back-radiation. It is a re-direction of energy. Back-radiation involves the absorp-tion of EM and the subsequent emission of same.
With the Sun, a reflection of SW solar energy is accomplished with little loss. If the reflector was parabolic, or if it was a lens that could concentrate the SW radiation on a point, you would be using the original energy from a very hot source.
The back-radiation inferred in the atmosphere, the basis of AGW, is claimed to come from CO2, making up 0.04% of the atmosphere. CO2 at the surface is in thermal equilibrium with the surface, and with altitude, the CO2 becomes progressively cooler.
You and your fellow AGW alarmists are talking about trivial radiation from a cooler CO2 source raising the temperature of the source that created the IR radiation in the first place (the surface). In other words, you’re talking about recycling heat in perpetual motion to produce amplification.
And you talk about us being trolls.
mike r …”I posted an analysis of the two plate experiment here ”
You cannot apply S-B as you or Eli have applied it. S-B represent a one way movement of energy from a heated plate to who knows where. Radiation from the cooler green plate has no meaning since it is not absorbed by the hotter blue plate.
If you get the GP close enough to the BP, especially if it is a good conductor, it will block radiation from the BP, causing the BP temp to rise toward its natural temperature with no dissipation.
You guys simply do not understand heat dissipation or losses and you have completely ignored the 2nd law.
MikeR says, “…the two plate experiment…”
was debunked (for the nth time) by adding a second green plate to the left of the blue plate, the blue now powered 400 W via an electrical supply. Extending the logic of the original experiment to this situation leads to an answer of 244 K for each of the green plates, whilst the blue rises in temperature to 290 K. An absurd conclusion which Ball4 has stated is a “clear violation of 1LoT”, because the blue plate is “rising in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy”.
For the Nth time, DREMT fails to explain why it is ‘An absurd conclusion’ that vacuum is a good insulator.
Nature doesn’t care that you think what it does is absurd. It does it anyway!
Except (for the nth time) that it’s the green plate/s that are meant to be the insulators, not the vacuum.
the green plate/s that are meant to be the insulators, not the vacuum’
Says who?
Bubble wrap is a decent insulator. Is it the air in the bubbles or the plastic around the bubbles that makes it a decent insulator?
Double-pane windows are better insulators than regular windows. Is it the glass sheets or the gap between them that makes it a better insulator?
If its the gap, then why arent they called ‘gap windows’?
You always claim you like to quantify things, Nate. Please quantify how much of “the Green Plate Effect” (the supposed rise in temperature of the blue plate) is due to adding a vacuum gap, as opposed to being due to adding green plate/s.
You are working hard to miss the point.
Cant have a gap without a plate. They come as a team.
Now stop playing stupid word games.
I’ll make it clearer for you, Nate. Please quantify how much of the supposed temperature increase of the blue plate is due to an “increase in thermal resistance due to separating the plates and thus adding a vacuum gap”, and how much of the supposed temperature increase of the blue plate is due to “back-radiation”. Failure to quantify will be taken as admission that your argument is vacuous.
Sure, I’d be happy to answer you, DREMT.
As soon as you answer my questions.
‘Bubble wrap is a decent insulator. Is it the air in the bubbles or the plastic around the bubbles that makes it a decent insulator?
Double-pane windows are better insulators than regular windows. Is it the glass sheets or the gap between them that makes it a better insulator?’
Vacuous it is, then.
I’m done talking to you, on both pointless sub-threads.
You know what response to expect, from any further comments.
Ha! Ha! Ha! What a dork.
By your rules, that is an admission that your declarations about insulation and heat transfer are all hot air!
Poor Nate got caught claiming he had a “basic physics textbook” that doens’t exist, in reality. Poor Nate is learning reality can be a bitch.
Even pathetic Norman has not claimed a false source. Norman just links to stuff he can’t understand.
Both clowns are funny.
JD, where is the real source for your physics? You are never able to find one that agrees with your perverted version.
If I provide the info on my textbooks, will you agree to not comment on this blog for 120 days?
No thanks JD, I’ve got plenty of real physics textbooks, don’t need any fake ones.
But if you show legit sources that agree with you, you could receive a boost in credibility in the eyes of your fellow posters here.
Certainly can’t get lower.
Nate, please stop trolling.
MF. “What has the two plate experiment to do with the curiously indescribable GHE? “.
Both rely on back radiation.
The Eli Rabbett thought experiment used black bodies (emissivity =1 )to demonstrate that the presence of a cooler object can increase the temperature of a warmer object (illuminated by an external source) by back radiation. The green plate radiates back 133.3 W back to the blue plate which of course increase it’s temperature.
If the object was not a black body but highly reflective (say the emissivity =0) then the reflection from the highly reflective cooler green plate will make the warmer blue plate even warmer as as all 266.7 W is reflected back onto the blue plate.
Other than that, there is no relevance.
The apocryphal story about the shields being used to reflect the light to create a death ray is interesting. There was a good reason I suspect that they did not coat their shields with carbon black.
With regard to the underwhelming Excel calculations I hope you are not making excuses. God forbid!
It should have been a trivial exercise for you to do the checks for consistency. Surely a man of your immense intellect could have knocked this over in minutes and demonstrated that these are calculations are indeed nonsense and then, without taking breath, moved on to constructing a complex climate modelling exercise. So what’s keeping you?
I can hazard a guess.
MR,
The GHE which nobody can describe relies on “back radiation”, does it? Maybe it depends on pixie dust from condensed unicorn unicorn flatus as well?
Here’s what some fool at NASA claims –
“The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy.”
Do you expect anybody to take any notice of you claiming to know the properties of something you can’t even describe?
Thats about as stupid as claiming that increasing the amount of CO2 between the sun and a thermometer (reducing the amount of energy reaching the thermometer), actually makes the thermometer hotter! Really, really, stupid!
The shield quote was not apocryphal. You can chase up the details or not, as you wish. Your carbon black comment is completely pointless and irrelevant. Tyndall experimented with carbon black and infrared radiation. You are obviously too lazy or stupid to read what actually happens.
If you think I am going to waste any my time dancing to your discordant and jarring tune, you must be suffering from a sever mental deficit. Who would bother trying to model the outcome of a chaotic system? Even the IPCC states that predicting future climate states is impossible. Maybe you could prove them wrong with your pointless spreadsheet, do you think?
Hazard all the guesses you want – maybe you can guess up a GHE description. On the other hand, I guess not.
Carry on fantasising that somebody cares what you think.
Cheers.
–Mike Flynn says:
March 26, 2019 at 4:22 AM
MR,
The GHE which nobody can describe relies on back radiation, does it? Maybe it depends on pixie dust from condensed unicorn unicorn flatus as well?
Heres what some fool at NASA claims
The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called back radiation) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy.–
It sort of like being on welfare is equivalent to working.
And sort of is, if you are working in the government, or more precisely equivalent to being on welfare and travelling daily in order to work and/or be a patient in an insane asylum.
Now, I wonder if back radiation includes indirect sunlight, indirect sunlight actually does work, and don’t recall anyone quantifying how much indirect sunlight there is.
So it seems it is possible it could be counted as back radiation.
Mike R…”The Eli Rabbett thought experiment used black bodies (emissivity =1 )to demonstrate that the presence of a cooler object can increase the temperature of a warmer object (illuminated by an external source) by back radiation. The green plate radiates back 133.3 W back to the blue plate which of course increase its temperature”.
Eli is full of crap. He was told as much by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, two experts in thermodynamics.
Eli, like you other pseudo-scientist, is confused about the difference between heat and EM. In a rebuttal to G&T, when they offered a paper disproving the GHE, he replied that if heat could only be transferred one-way, as per the 2nd law, it would mean one object was not radiating.
Eli has it in his mind that heat is transferred both ways by EM radiating between bodies of different temperatures. Heat is not even transferred through space as heat, it is first converted to EM with a loss of heat proportional to the intensity of EM emitted. Heat can be gained when EM is converted back to heat when encountering a cooler body, but such a conversion requires the EM to disappear.
Therefore a heat transfer between bodies of different temperatures requires a conversion of energy from heat to EM to heat.
EM and heat cannot exists at the same time during a heat transfer. Therefore they cannot be summed to create a net energy balance. Ergo, heat can only be transferred one way by EM, from a hotter body to a cooler body.
As G&T advised Eli, the 2nd law applies only to heat. I might add, that the 1st law also applies only to heat, and its equivalent, work. The basic laws of thermodynamics do not apply to electromagnetic radiation, even though EM does act as a messenger between bodies of different temperatures.
G&T referred to the net energy balance proposed by Eli et al as being unknown in physics. They claimed one can only add heat quantities to satisfy the 2nd law and that EM does not factor into such a transfer.
This notion that EM and heat can be summed to create a net ‘energy’ is sheer nonsense. That notion is the basis of the BP/GP thought-experiment pseudo-science.
Radiation from the cooler GP has absolutely no effect on the BP. All it could possibly do is interfere with the heat dissipation of the BP, causing it to self-warm.
MikeR, I think I can “hazard a guess” as to why you keep trying to avoid the topic of discussion which has occupied the bulk of this comment section, which would be the 3-plate (not 2-plate) problem.
Many clowns have been fooled by the blue/green plate nonsense. They do not understand that the equation used is invalid. If they understood thermodynamics, they would know “cold” cannot warm “hot”.
But, adding the third plate clearly illustrates the fallacy. With all 3 plates together, the temperature of each plate would reach 244 K, at equilibrium. Using the bogus equation, the clowns believe pulling the 3 plates slightly apart would cause the middle (blue) plate to rise to 290 K. But, they cannot explain how the temperature can go up, with no change in energy out/in.
They can solve the equation, but the equation is wrong. They get the math correct, but the physics is incorrect. Math correct, but physics incorrect, is quite common in pseudoscience.
The correct solution to 3 plates is here:
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
The comedy continues.
Gastrorisk.
Is that supposed to be a steady state solution?!!!
That solution is not even wrong!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong .
To illustrate the madness ask yourself what steady state temperatures would the two green plates be at if they also had 400W connected to them?
Talk about being skewered on your own petard.
Instead of admitting they are wrong, the clowns have to distract, obfuscate, and attempt to insult.
Nothing new.
To convince readers JD, please do the proper experiment shown in x4H tabling results w/data to support your claims. Otherwise JD has nothing but words and a cartoon like a 3-ring circus.
Also, please explain how x4H produces entropy. If JD can’t properly explain entropy production, there is no hope for x4H to be convincing.
“with no change in energy out/in.”
JD doesn’t realize there is a BIG change in energy transfer out/in in x4H from Eli’s givens. Hint: no electrical power in Eli’s givens.
Just more fluff from fluffball.
No surprise.
JD has nothing but words and a bogus cartoon like a 3-ring circus.
There’s also some of your words too, Ball4, like “a clear violation of 1LoT”, in regard to the 244 K…290 K…244 K, for instance.
Perhaps DREMT should start a comment with “Here’s a test showing why Ball4’s words are wrong”…
I agree with you on the 244 K…290 K…244 K.
JDHuffman says, March 26, 2019 at 4:14 AM:
Indeed, the JD/DREMT comedy continues.
That schematic is precisely where you show how you, for some strange reason, ignore the basic thermodynamic process of insulation and its natural thermal effect. Which is why I asked you the question to begin with – in an attempt to lead you to water. But then instead, what you did was starting your puerile game of evasion.
Which only told me you KNOW that your schematic is incorrect. You KNOW you ignore the natural thermal effect of the basic thermodynamic process of insulation. Otherwise you would’ve simply answered the question and moved on, no big deal.
So, does Kristian agree with bobdroege, Tim, Norman, Nate and the rest that the “correct” answer is 244 K…290 K…244 K, or does he agree with JD, myself, Ball4 and others that the 244 K…290 K…244 K is wrong?
I doubt we will find out, but it would be good if we could.
Kristian, it must make you feel good to claim someone is wrong, without being able to offer anything substantive, huh?
I agree Kristian, JDHuffman knows that his cartoons are bogus.
Svante, in your false religion, are you allowed to prevaricate if you believe you are saving the planet?
What other atrocities can you commit?
It’s funny how cults all invent their own morals, huh?
Yes I am unsurprisingly in full agreement with the 244, 290, 244K solution to the three plate problem , see
https://postimg.cc/14PQTkCP
The blue plate is generating 400W internally and receiving 200 W from each green plate giving a total of 800W. It is emitting 400W from each side so 1LOT is satisfied for the blue plate.
Each green plate is receiving 400 W from the blue plate and emitting 200 w to the outside and 200 W back to the blue plate. Again this satisfies 1 LOT for the green plates.
For the system as a whole , the blue pate is generating 400W and the two green plates are emitting 200 W each externally . Once again 1 LOT is satisfied for the system as a whole.
The temperatures shown in the diagram are calculated using Stefan-Boltzmann law (as Gastrorisk did for his calculations).
Unbelievably Gastro’s figure is actually correct in most respects. The colour labeling of the arrows is strange and confusing. He has two parallel arrows ,a blue and green arrow of 200 W, each instead of a single arrow in the same direction (which could off course have been any colour) representing 400W.
With respect to his mistake about the temperature of the blue plate he has a total of 400W leaving each side of the blue plate which is correct. In his schema he has one 200 W green arrow and one 200 W blue arrow leaving for each side. The fact that they are different colours is irrelevant of course.
As his diagram correctly shows 400W is leaving each side then he should have got 290 K for the temperature for the blue plate from the S-B equation, see below
Radiant Energy (W) =400
E/σ=7.05E+09
Temperature (K) =289.81
Interestingly Gastro has correctly applied S-B equation for the green plates and obtained the correct answer of 244 K for the green plate.
It is pleasing to note that Gastro, unlike some of his fellow travellers, believes in the use of the S-B equation and I am particularly pleased to note that he is a firm believer in back radiation as shown by the arrows going from the green plates to the blue plate in his depiction.
Slight correction due to mangling of the text in the calculation in the post above. It should read,
E/sigma=7.054E+09
where sigma is the Stefan- Boltzmann constant.
I should also note that T =289.81 is the 4th root of 7.054E+9.
MikeR finally catches up to where most of his fellow travellers were at over a thousand comments ago.
DREMt says “MikeR finally catches up to where most of his fellow travellers were at over a thousand comments ago.”
MikeR is becoming one of the funniest clowns. He’s behind, but believes he’s ahead! Like Norman, he beleives the more he pounds on his keyboard the smarter he will appear.
The comedy continues.
One fascinating thing about the clowns is that they are so predictable. They seldom know science and usually even have to have their pseudoscience explained to them. Once they understand the pseudoscience, they are finished. There is no critical thinking. Everything that comes along to disprove their invalid opinions is thrown out, rejected, ridiculed, and slimed. They constantly call for censorship. They only want their own beliefs discussed. They attack individuals. They abhor reality.
Clown MikeR now understands what the “244K…290K…244K” is all about. Once he understood it is full-fledged pseudoscience, he’s all for it. He claims, repeatedly, that 1LoT is “satisfied”, but he obviously avoids the fact that the blue plate must magically increase from 244K to 290K, with no change in energy in/out. And clearly, he doen’t understand 2LoT. Reality is of no concern to him.
So predictable.
JDHuffman says, March 26, 2019 at 1:04 PM:
Sorry, JD, but the jig is up. You’re busted. And what must sting the most is, you gave yourself away.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 26, 2019 at 12:49 PM:
The central plate, in direct contact with the power/heat source will of course be the warmest, while the two lateral plates, being in turn heated by the central one, will of course necessarily have to be cooler.
This should be a no-brainer.
The exact numbers, however, depend on a lot of different factors.
Hmmm, yes, it should be a no-brainer, Kristian.
Here’s what they think:
Plates together: 244 K…244 K…244 K
Plates slightly apart: 244 K…290 K…244 K.
So they are claiming that when you pull the green plates apart, they don’t get any cooler.
Happy with that?
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 27, 2019 at 2:09 PM:
Irrelevant attempt at goalpost-shifting.
The only interesting question here is this, DREMT:
Do you seriously believe that the plates on each side of the central plate in JD’s schematic will end up at the same steady-state temp as the central one, directly connected to the power/heat source, and in turn heating the other two?
No goalpost shift. Just trying to get you to confront the reality of what you’re apparently prepared to agree with.
In answer to your question, in real life, separating and moving the plates away from the heat source will of course make them cooler than the heated plate, due to radiative losses past the edge of the plates.
In the idealized thought experiment, edge effects are not considered (plates are effectively assumed to be infinite in size), so they don’t decrease in temperature when you move them apart.
‘so they don’t decrease in temperature when you move them apart.’
No, but the middle one does increase and must be warmer, unless you have a very good reason why it shouldn’t?
But you don’t, and you won’t.
Ball4 had a good reason, Nate. Why don’t you go argue with him?
Nope, he didnt.
No logic, no credit.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
“JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K”
Gastro, I have to admit I haven’t paid any attention to the 3 plate problem until a day or so ago. I didnt bother to closely scrutinize the 2000 or comments .How remiss of me .My bad.
My default assumption is that others who are capable of doing the calculations such as Tim, Kristian, Norman, Nate etc,etc would have dealt with it adequately. The corollary is that you would have used some kind of analysis which presumably would have been as nonsensical as your amazing two plate solution.
You did suggest, the figure of 244 C for the green plates. How did you arrive at this figure? Did you pluck it out from thin air,, a vacuum or some specific orifice? Alternatively the only way you could have arrived at this figure correctly was applying the S-B equation for the plate that is radiating 200 W. However your calculation of the same temperature for the blue plate radiating twice as much 400 W is extremely perplexing.
I note that you referred on previous occasions to the perverse SB equation, such as here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344802 .
Was this the version you used for this calculation ? I was not aware of the perverted form. What is the difference between the commonly accepted form of this equation? Maybe this another of your magnificent contributions to science and perhaps we can honour your role in its discovery by referring to it as the Gastritis-DoltMan equation,
To expect consistency in you use of the S-B equation was, in light of all the bullshite you generate was clearly an unrealistic assumption. About as realistic as your understanding of the differences between plates in contact and the steady state solution that describes what the eventual temperatures of the plates will be after they have been separated for sufficient time.
This time is going to relate to the heat capacity of the plates i.e. thermal response time. If they are treated ideally, one option is to assume the heat capacity of the plates is zero and then yes the transition will be immediate. In contrast if you assume that the plates have infinite heat capacity they will take an infinite time to reach steady state. In reality the time taken will be somewhere in between.
In summary, my exchanges with this ignorant troll illustrate why trying to engage with a scientific discussion with all versions of Gastro is not a fruitful experience and why I am attempting to mock him mercilessly instead.
I suspect this also will not work but he is such an easy target.
MikeR, the central blue plate is receiving 400 W. If it’s taken as being 1m^2 in surface area, x 2 sides, for ease of calculation, the plate will emit 200 W/m^2 with resulting temperature from S/B equation of 244 K. The surrounding 2 green plates in JD’s diagram are also emitting 200 W/m^2, so are the same temperature, 244 K.
Don’t feel bad for making such a basic error after your relentlessly insulting and condescending screed.
P.S: I’m done for the day, but I was hoping to see Ball4 debate Nate, MikeR, so please don’t interrupt. I’ll hope to see their debate on here tomorrow, maybe.
Gastro Dreaming,
You seen to have forgotten that the middle plate is emitting 800 W due to the internal generated power (400 W represented by the red arrow in your diagram) plus the 400 W arriving from both green plates!
Your own diagram even shows 400W being emitted from both sides of the blue plate! I know that the arrows have different colours in your diagram but their directions are the same ( leaving the blue plate in the direction of the green plate).
400 W leaving each side means that the temperature is 290K unless you are using the Gastritis-Doltman Law rather then perverted S-B law.
Gastro, your intuitive understanding of physics is truly remarkable. I don’t use that in a positive sense. Anyone with half a brain or less would have realized that a plate that is internally generating power would be at a higher temperature than the green plates, whose only source of power is due to the radiation emitted by the blue plate.
I see you are taking leave of the debate for the night/day. Excellent move! The comments section will move on and you can hope everyone can forget your contribution here.
However I think it would be an excellent career move to depart the scene permanently after your latest effort. Maybe you have some employment prospects as a village idiot. Your prolific contributions here could be used in your supporting
letter. I will be very happy to provide a reference.
No, JD’s diagram shows the blue plate receiving 400 W via an electrical source, emitting 200 W/m^2, and reflecting back the 200 W/m^2 from each of the green plates back towards the green plates. That’s what the two green arrows going back from the blue towards the green are for.
Yes, there have already been many arguments over that. Scroll up, right back to the beginning of the 3-plate discussion, to see them.
Now, back to Nate vs. Ball4…
I had a quick look at the upstream discussion about the green and blue arrows. I can see that the green arrow arrows are supposed to be reflected from the blue plate and therefore are not to be included in the calculation with the S-B equation? The exact emissivity of the blue plate (maybe it should have been drawn in black!) was not described when this 3rd plate was added but as it a supposed rebuttal to Eli Rabbet solution to the 2 plate problem, it is reasonable to assume that the plates are blackbodies. Blackbodies by definition do not reflect light (otherwise they be called dark grey light gray or white or any other colour!) so we can rule out reflection.
There was another comment when pressed where, your other persona introduced the idea that what was happening between the blue plate and green plate involved standing waves. Ssee http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345239 . You (and your other half) clearly have not been introduced to the concept of spatial and temporal coherence. You need to read up this topic before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. I see Ball4 pointed this out to you but you continued on with your fantasy. Boy talk about doubling and dumbing down.
However in the meantime, I will say that the standing wave would relevant if we were discussing a laser or maser which generates monochromatic radiation. This is fortunate otherwise your plates could phase lock and emit a pulse of infrared radiation that would fry you in an instant. As they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In that case you must be one of the most dangerous men on earth.
Call back after you have read up on the optical properties of a blackbody and optical and acoustic coherence. Hopefully you wont have self-destructed via spontaneous combustion.
Now, back to Nate vs. Ball4
Apologies to all. My discussion with Gastro about why his interpretation of the 3 plate experiment was full of holes a tractor could be driven through, has resulted in him going into one of his “please stop trolling” frenzies. He is in the high eighties for this month alone. Will he break the hundred mark by the end of the month?
I wish he could have used this valuable time to do some reading about blackbodies and coherence .Theere is lay material about these topics available on the internet but he is such a slow learner.
So what are we going to do a about a problem called Gastrorisk?
All suggestion welcome.
JD has defended his solution plenty of times, under this article, and previously with his solution to the 2-plate problem. It has been discussed ad nauseam at this point. Ultimately, even if JD were wrong, it would not mean that “the Team’s” 244 K…290 K…244 K was right.
The purpose of raising the 3-plate problem has been to challenge the logic of the Green Plate Effect. Ball4 issued this challenge to it, himself:
“JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K”
Currently, I am waiting for Nate to respond, and for him and Ball4 to debate the issue.
MikeR has appeared and I am fairly sure his intention is to try to distract as much as possible (hence the silly comment at 5:57am).
Now, back to Nate vs. Ball4…
Ball4 missed the meeting where we decided on the pseudoscience for the week.
In any case, whoever says 1st law is violated for warmer blue plate is wrong, including you DREMT.
When plates are separated, the B and G are initially at the same temp, and thus no heat flow between them. B has 400 in and 0 out, so it warms…
Until it is at 290 and now it has 400 in and 400 out.
“B has 400 in and 0 out”
The blue plate doesn’t radiate!?
And FYI, initially the G plates cool, because they have 0 input and 200 output.
That ought to make you feel better, DREMT.
But then as the B warms, they receive heat, so warm again, until steady at 244K.
“initially the G plates cool, because they have 0 input and 200 output”
The G plates aren’t each receiving 200 from the B plate, because the B plate isn’t radiating!?
“blue plate doesnt radiate!?”
Nope, not when surrounded by equal T objects, again according to ordinary not bogus laws of physics.
Erm…OK, Nate.
By not radiate, I mean no NET flux radiated.
Phew, seemed for a minute there like you were saying the blue plate actually stopped radiating, period.
So it’s kind of like how when the plates are pushed together, the blue is receiving 400 W via the electrical supply, and 400 W in total from the two green plates either side of it, via back-conduction. So, with the 3 plates pressed together, the blue plate temperature should be 290 K, right?
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
“Eli has not said anything about how the heat is being transferred, radiation, convection or conduction but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature, the temperature of the blue plate must increase as more plates are added.”
‘So its kind of like how when the plates are pushed together, the blue is receiving 400 W via the electrical supply, and 400 W in total from the two green plates either side of it, via back-conduction. So, with the 3 plates pressed together, the blue plate temperature should be 290 K, right?’
No, and weird.
Conduction and radiation behave differently – why would you expect the SAME result?
There is no internal radiation going on that leads to a T of 290K that is required by RHT law.
Again thermal resistance is MUCH higher for separated plates, therefore delta-T will be much higher.
In real metal plates, if 3 joined together, there will be a tiny temperature gradient from the point where the heat source is connected, to the surface, but it will be milliKelvin, as was calculated for you once before.
Well, Eli can be a bit weird, but there you go. At least his logic seemed consistent on the subject of back-conduction, unlike yours.
OK, so 400 W of back-conduction does not have the ability to heat. 400 W of back-radiation does have the ability to heat. Got it.
Thanks, it’s all been an interesting diversion, but you really should be getting back to Ball4’s point, eventually. Here it is again:
“JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K”
I’ll let you have some more time to think about what you’re going to say in response. Try not to change the subject this time. Also, I’m going to let Ball4 respond to whatever you come up with, so don’t be expecting a response from me, at least for a good while. I want to give Ball4 time to defend himself, properly.
“but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature, the temperature of the blue plate must increase as more plates are added”
Indeed so, but he did not say the increase will be by the same amount.
“getting back to Ball4s point”
“When plates are separated, the B and G are initially at the same temp, and thus no heat flow between them. B has 400 in and 0 out, so it warms”
The logic here is pretty simple. Can you find a flaw in it?
If not, then the sensible thing to do is let it go…
Will you?
(No response from Ball4 yet…perhaps he’s waiting for a proper rebuttal. I’ll give him some more time)
Response is here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
Good one, Ball4. Reiterate your point. After all, it hasn’t been rebutted.
DREMT,
The argument was with you. As much as you would like Ball4 and JD argue for you, what other people think, DREMT, is in the end irrelevant.
You still need to support YOUR assertions that YOU have made many times.
The last point made was this:
‘When plates are separated, the B and G are initially at the same temp, and thus no heat flow between them. B has 400 in and 0 out, so it warms’
The logic here is pretty simple. The relevant physics, the law of radiative heat transfer, is unavoidable.
Since you havent offered any rebuttal or flaw in this logic, I must assume that you have NONE.
Good, then, logically, you must agree that there is no evidence of a 1st law violation.
Well, Nate still doesn’t have anything. Over to Ball4, up to him whether he wishes to respond, or not. I’ll give him another day or so.
‘Well, Nate still doesnt have anything’
Just facts you ignore, because you can’t rebut them.
Oh well, hopes of DREMT showing maturity dashed..
(Ball4 wisely ignores Nate’s immature baiting…)
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 27, 2019 at 2:40 PM:
Yes goalpost shift. This is NOT what I’m discussing. You don’t want to address what I bring up, so you try to divert attention to a different issue. That’s a goalpost shift.
No, YOU need to confront the reality of insulation, DREMT. You have yet to do so.
Ok, so this is where you display the depth of your ignorance. This is really the *facepalm* moment, those two paragraphs.
Yes, they do, DREMT. They do.
Heard of HEAT TRANSFER? Heard of INSULATION?
This is why I posed the insulation question in the first place? Why don’t you just answer it? So that we can move on to discuss what’s actually going on here.
Or is it simply that you don’t want to move on to find out what’s really going on …? So you stubbornly hold back any kind of answer.
Kristian, there is very little substance to your comment, so I don’t really know what I’m supposed to respond to. You shout that the green plates decrease in temperature when you separate them from the blue and move them apart. Yes, I agree, in the real world, as I said. In the thought experiment, both positions (both “the Team’s” position and “my/JD’s/others” position) is that the two green plates are still at the same temperature separated as they were when pressed together with blue.
So ultimately any criticisms you have about the green plates not decreasing in temperature when moved apart from the blue plates, you should be applying equally to them as you do to me. But you’re not doing that. You are only attacking my position and not theirs.
Continuing with the debunking of the bogus IPCC “energy balance”, consider the 342 W/m^2 referred to as “greenhouse gases-thermal down surface”.
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/usys/iac/iac-dam/documents/people-iac/wild/Wild_et_al_ClimDyn_2013.pdf
342 W/m^2 is much greater than the 240 W/m^2 incoming to the system, so right away we know we are into some heavy pseudoscience.
But, after you stop laughing, also consider that 342 W/m^2 from a BB surface would correspond to 279K (5.5C, 42F). Typical blue sky overhead temperaures are about 230K. So for the average to be anywhere close to 342 W/m^2, clouds must be in the mix. But, clouds are water, NOT CO2. And clouds don’t warm the surface during the day, they reflect sunlight, cooling the surface.
You may start laughing again….
I have started laughing. From your link –
“The genesis and evolution of Earth’s climate is largely regulated by the global energy balance and its spatial and temporal variations. Anthropogenic climate change is, from a physical point of view, first of all a perturbation of the energy balance of the globe, through the modification of the atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases and aerosols.”
Ooooh! How sciencey! How meaningless! What a great load of cobblers!
Climate is the average of weather. These peanuts between them could not even even tell you what the climate of California is now, let alone how it has changed – and why.
Bumbling buffoons, suffering from a shared delusion. There is no global energy balance – night is colder than day, winter is colder than summer, the Sahara used to be fertile, as did Antarctica. Overall, the earth has cooled since it was everywhere molten!
What a crock. Future climate states are unpredictable – particularly where the future is involved.
Cheers.
The graphic is a simplified 3 layer model: 1) surface 2) atmosphere (troposphere) 3) TOA. In the graphic each layer is in energy balance (or least very close to it).
In the graphic surface-incoming is (185 + 342) = 527 and surface-outgoing is (25 + 85 + 20 + 397) = 527. So the surface is close to energy balance.
In the graphic atmosphere-incoming is (79 + 85 + 20 + 397) = 581 and atmosphere-outgoing is (240 + 342) = 582. So the atmosphere is close to energy balance.
In the graphic TOA-incoming is 340 and TOA-outgoing is (100 + 239) = 339. So TOA is close to energy balance.
In terms of the atmosphere layer you have chosen only 342 as your basis for the SB law sniff test but neglected 239. The atmosphere is actually radiating at (342 + 239) = 581 which works out to 291 W/m^2. When you use this figure and various effective emissivity values for the troposphere (0.8 to 0.9) you get a reasonable temperature range for the mid to upper troposphere.
You could imply the imbalance is 1 W-year/m^2 from the graphic, but I believe Wild rounded the figures to the nearest integer for simplicity and brevity. You can see he actually believes the imbalance to be 0.6 W-years/m^2 which he has labeled “residual”. Note that the IPCC adaptation labels it as “imbalance”.
“The graphic is a simplified 3 layer model…”
You should have stopped right there, bdgwx. The rest is billowing clouds of pseudoscience. You can do the arithmetic, but none of the numbers are valid. As I indicated, the overhead sky temperatures does not match with the 342 W/m^2. And, even if they did, all photons are not always absorbed.
You are trying to defend the indefensible. You must deny reality to belong to such a cult.
JD, your “overhead sky temperatures” are measured with the same physics as the 342 you complain about. Perhaps you should draw a cartoon instead, you know a cartoon showing all incident photons are reflected.
Why are you using 342 W/m^2 and why are you assuming the atmosphere is a perfect BB?
The “342” is shown in the diagram. Find the large orange arrow at the right, pointing to the surface. Notice the arrow is labeled “342”.
I never assumed the atmosphere is a perfect BB. Quit trying to misrepresent my words. That’s what clowns do.
There is also the large arrow pointing up. It is labeled 239. Why didn’t you use that instead?
The “342” arrow is radiance from the atm. integrated over a hemisphere of directions (steridians) & and JD wrote “also consider that 342 W/m^2 from a BB surface would correspond to 279K” so JD actually did assume the atmosphere is a perfect BB.
JD contradicts JD, nothing new, just more comedy from JD.
I’ll get to the 239 later. I’m starting with the funniest one first….
You do understand that fluxes don’t really add, right? For example, “In the graphic surface-incoming is (185 + 342) = 527…” is pseudoscience.
Do you know that fluxes don’t add like that?
b,
After four and half billion years of your simplification (and continuous sunlight), how has the energy imbalance worked?
According to me, not only has the surface lost every scrap of heat derived from the Sun during that period, but also the massive radiogenic heat during that time (when the shorter half life material was still decaying). Of course, all the heat from meteoric impacts, tidal effects, heat through all the mid ocean trenches, thermal vents, volcanoes, heat resulting from tectonic plates grinding away, orogenesis, oxygen breathing life – and all the rest, has all been radiated away. No trapping, no building up, no excess.
Keep sniffing away. You might find a different smell if you remove your nose from a pseudoscientific bumbler’s nether regions, or even your own.
Keep calculating – more spreadsheets needed? Or more brightly coloured and completely meaningless cartoons?
If you can’t find anything better to keep you occupied, you could try learning some physics. I would only use Wikipedia as a last resort, but you may do as you wish, of course.
Off you go now – spout some more nonsense.
Cheers.
Glad we agree on JD’s “brightly coloured and completely meaningless cartoons”.
S,
You are in the grip of some form of delusional obsession, obviously.
I haven’t the faintest notion what you are talking about. I know you are unable to quote what I write, for reasons quite beyond the ken of mortal man. If you want to argue with yourself, I suggest you use a mirror or an echo chamber.
You really need to take more trolling lessons, and work far harder. Your congenital stupidity and ignorance may not be sufficient to enable a reasonable standard of pointless and irrelevant idiocy.
Cheers.
Aha, you completely ignored JDs cartoons, you’re slightly more sensible than I thought.
“Begone, witless troll Svante”
“consider that 342 W/m^2 from a BB surface would correspond to 279K (5.5C, 42F).”
Yes. Your math is good.
“Typical blue sky overhead temperaures are about 230K.”
No, not really. I just went outside with an IR thermometer on a fairly clear afternoon when the air temp was about 15 C (278 K). The blue sky read about -20 C (253 K). I could try again tonight. To get -43C (230 K; 160 W/m^2) you would need cool and low humidity air.
“So for the average to be anywhere close to 342 W/m^2, clouds must be in the mix.”
Of course. The *one* thing I would do to improve the diagram you link to would be to label the downward IR as “greenhouse gases + clouds” rather than just “greenhouse gases”.
“But, clouds are water, NOT CO2. ”
Yes. I’m not sure what your point is.
“And clouds dont warm the surface during the day, they reflect sunlight, cooling the surface.”
If you had a bit of imagination, you could conceive of two things at once. For example, lifting weights causes you to lose weight by burning fat, but causes you to gain weight by adding muscles. It does both at once. Similarly, clouds cause cooling by decreasing incoming sunlight, but also reducing cooling by increasing incoming IR.
Clear blue sky here, 230 K (-43 C, -45.6F). Considering directly overhead as 0°, the Sun was about 25°, so I was likely getting a few photons directly from the Sun. Funny how the sky is much colder without the Sun….
“I’m not sure what your point is.”
The point is the IPCC AGW/GHE is pseudoscience.
“The point is the IPCC AGW/GHE is pseudoscience.”
And you deduced this because clouds are water???
“Funny how the sky is much colder without the Sun.”
Funny how the sky is much warmer than outer space.
“And you deduced this [the IPCC AGW/GHE is pseudoscience] because clouds are water???”
No clown, that is just some of the reality that busts the pseudoscience.
“Funny how the sky is much warmer than outer space.”
Tim, maybe you should memorize “It’s the Sun, stupid.” Repeat it ten times daily, or more, as required.
Glad to help.
–Tim Folkerts says:
March 26, 2019 at 1:28 PM
consider that 342 W/m^2 from a BB surface would correspond to 279K (5.5C, 42F).
Yes. Your math is good.
Typical blue sky overhead temperatures are about 230K.
No, not really. I just went outside with an IR thermometer on a fairly clear afternoon when the air temp was about 15 C (278 K). The blue sky read about -20 C (253 K). I could try again tonight. To get -43C (230 K; 160 W/m^2) you would need cool and low humidity air.–
I would guess the in tropics, the sky is much warmer.
Since tropics is 40% of earth surface, the higher sky temperature increases global average.
This similar to global average temperature of 15 C or 15 C is not a common air temperature.
The tropics average air temperature is about 26 C and this average increases the average class score of the remaining 60% of Earth surface.
And of course the warm tropics is also warming the rest of the world.
Or the tropics are 40 A+ students and rest of class are mostly morons, and the better students are helping the morons increase their grade.And in summer school the morons are helped more by the 40 students.
It seems the only value of model is trying to understand comparative values of things like amount sunlight reaching surface.
Or this budget and all others energy budget attempts, indicates the uselessness of harvesting solar energy on planet Earth.
Though if you actually get a constant 161 watts per square meter of sunlight it would be better [more valuable], as compared to our real world.
Or worst aspect of harvesting solar energy is [again, at best] is that one gets about 6 hours per 24 hour day of usable solar power.
With Earth one gets about 1360 watts at TOA and with Mars TOA is about 600 watts, but as said before, Mars is actually better place to harvest solar energy because one can harvest solar energy for longer period of time, due to it’s thin atmosphere, or you get about 12 hours a day on Mars compared to about 6 hours on Earth.
And for other reasons, such as harvesting solar energy near polar regions on Mars is as viable [or even better] as compared other regions of Mars, and with Earth this is not the case.
Anyhow, with Earth, solar energy is not a global solution, whereas with Mars it might be. Though with our Moon, the lunar polar region is excellent place to harvest solar energy- in specific areas one could get 80% of time gaining solar energy.
Of course like Mars, on average the lunar surface get 50% of the time, unlike 25% of the time on Earth, but since you can use polar region on Moon,and have grid encircle the polar area and have such small grid receiving sunlight 100% of the time. Or one panel might get 60% to 80% of time with sunlight, and when that panel is not harvesting energy there other solar panel in the grid which are harvesting solar energy.
gbaikie says “Though if you actually get a constant 161 watts per square meter of sunlight it would be better [more valuable], as compared to our real world.”
gbaikie, don’t let them fool you with their false accounting. The “161” is bogus. While they intend it to be “constant”, the figure does not mean anything in the “real world”. The corresponding S/B temperature for 161 Watts/m^2 would be 231 K (-42C, -44F).
They violate the laws of physics by simply averaging fluxes. You cannot simply average numbers that are derived using exponents. The average of 10 and 20 is 15. But the average of 10^4 and 20^4 is NOT 15^4.
Earth’s actual incoming solar is 960 Watts/m^2, adjusted for albedo. They divide that figure by 4, to get 240. Then, they subtract even more for the atmosphere, 79. That leaves 161 Watts/m^2, when the actual would be at least 644. 644 Watts/m^2 could warm a test surface to 326 K (53C, 127F), which is in the ballpark for peak temperatures we experience in our “real world”.
So our real world is much warmer, from solar, than the IPCC tries to imply. They purposely try to reduce the solar impact to make it appear that CO2 is doing the warming. They fool many.
–JDHuffman says:
March 27, 2019 at 5:41 AM
gbaikie says Though if you actually get a constant 161 watts per square meter of sunlight it would be better [more valuable], as compared to our real world.
gbaikie, dont let them fool you with their false accounting. The 161 is bogus. While they intend it to be constant, the figure does not mean anything in the real world. The corresponding S/B temperature for 161 Watts/m^2 would be 231 K (-42C, -44F).–
Well, if times 161 watts times 24 hours you get: 3864 watt hours
or 3.8 kw hours.
If harvesting solar energy and you only get an average of 3.8 Kw hours per day it’s not good location to harvest solar energy.
Anywhere in Germany gets about 2 Kw hours per day or less on average in a year’s time. Germany is lousy place to harvest solar energy.
Though Spain might get around 3.8 Kw hour on average per day and desert regions of Southwest US may get as much 6 Kw watt hours per day per year on average.
What saying is 161 watt constant sunlight is better than 6 kw hour average.
So Earth doesn’t get a constant amount of sunlight and only gets about 25% of 24 hour day that one can get usable solar energy, but if you could get constant amount of sunlight and if it was merely 161 watts, it better than anywhere on Earth. And if one could 80% rather than 25% and the day total was 3.8 Kw hours, it’s also better than anywhere on Earth surface.
And with Mars 600 watts time 12 hours is 7.2 kw. Mars better place to get solar energy than Earth is.
Lunar poles is 1360 watts times 24 hours times 80% of the time:
26.1 kw hour
And Earth Geostationary orbit is 1360 watts times 24 hours time about + 95% of the time or about 30 kw hours.
So best is GEO, followed by the Moon, followed by Mars orbit, followed by Mars surface and then Earth surface is dead last and Germany one worst place on Earth surface.
Or in Earth orbits, we are actually using solar energy, and on Earth surface, we are kidding yourselves [it’s a governmental Hoax/Scam].
Oh, also in Low earth orbit, the earth blocks sun about 40% of the time, or gets 60% time at 1360 watts per square meter. Which is pretty good, but not as good and lunar polar regions.
though there are some orbits in LEO which can get sunlight 100% of the time [polar orbits- wiki:
“A Sun-synchronous orbit (SSO, also called a heliosynchronous orbit[1]) is a nearly polar orbit around a planet, in which the satellite passes over any given point of the planet’s surface at the same local mean solar time.[2][3] More technically, it is an orbit arranged so that it precesses through one complete revolution each year, so it always maintains the same relationship with the Sun.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit
“They violate the laws of physics by simply averaging fluxes. You cannot simply average numbers that are derived using exponents. The average of 10 and 20 is 15. But the average of 10^4 and 20^4 is NOT 15^4.”
I agree in terms of temperature, and particularly if your average temperature includes highest temperature at noon.
Though it doesn’t matter as much with average ocean temperature- and global average temperature is mostly ocean temperature.
But we have been measuring land surface air temperature.
Which I would describe a piss ass way to measure ocean average surface temperature or global average temperature.
The best I can say about global average temperature is that Earth is about 15 C and northern hemisphere is about 1 C warmer than southern hemisphere.
And more importantly, that average surface air temperatures [measuring the high temperature of noon average with night low air temperature] is about 10 C
And global average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.
Or tropical ocean about 26 C and rest of ocean average surface temperature is around 11 C.
And what determines or makes global average temperature is the entire volume temperature of the ocean.
And in our Ice Age, this ocean temperature is in range of 1 to 5 C and currently it’s about 3.5 C.
“And more importantly, that average surface air temperatures ”
Should be: “And more importantly, that average LAND surface air temperatures ”
And since I am Here. I will note because measuring highest daytime average land surface, the 10 C average temperature has upward bias or it’s “actually” colder than 10 C or way measured temperature is done it gives illusion it’s warmer.
Or as said many times, before: Land cools and ocean warms.
‘They do not understand that the equation used is invalid.’
Said by the guy who gleefully detects temperatures of clouds with a device that can’t possibly work unless ‘the equation’ is valid.
Nature doesnt care that you think its laws are invalid, it goes right on obeying them.
Said by the guy who gleefully acknowledges he has no clue how an IR detector works.
(That probably wasn’t covered in his fake “basic physics textbook”.)
N,
And the experiment that Nature conducted with the Earth over the last four and a half billion years demonstrates that the earth has cooled, and continues to do so. Nature doesn’t care about your equations. it seems.
No GHE. No CO2 heating. Anyone who believes otherwise is free to believe whatever they like. The fact that not one of them can actually describe the the GHE (the mythical object of their worship) might make recruiting new lemming-like followers a bit difficult.
Carry on with your meaningless attempts to deny, divert and confuse – I wish you the best of luck.
Cheers.
No Mike, nature decided that cooling was so last eon. Now the hip thing to do is warm, so it is.
It doesnt care what idiots on blogs say it cannot do.
Yes Nate, the surface is no longer molten. The Earth has cooled, whether dummies like you can do basic arithmetic or not.
Be as hip as you like. Still no GHE. No CO2 heating, but keep trying.
Cheers.
Mike, Please do share with us the ‘basic arithmetic’ that requires the Earth to continue cooling, and not warm.
Day 15…and boy, are they getting desperate…
Not desperate. Just bemused.
No, desperate.
Bemused is correct since if the DREM Team had any proper physics & testing results to argue with then the desperate DREM Team would do so & provide cites. Fun to watch their 3-ring circus in action.
JD argues his IR thermometer shows temperature of the atm. while using bogus sensor math. If JD’s cartoons were correct, the IR thermometer would not be able to correctlyy measure thermometer temperature. Yet it accurately does so in practice, proving JD’s cartoons and arguments are bogus.
Obviously JD lives rent free in fluffball’s head.
And JD notes there is plenty of room….
See: no physics – if the DREM Team had any proper physics & testing results to argue with then the desperate DREM Team would do so. JD is the most desperate team member by popular opinion, JD is so amusing. Learn some physics JD.
Fluffball, you wouldn’t know physics if someone stuffed it down your throat.
Your history of “fluff” here is well known. You seldom get anything right and mostly you just make up stuff.
The latest example was your instant swallowing of the “345K”. Norman presented the 345K, and you gulped it down. You even made comment, after comment, peddling the 345K.
Then DREMT told you the 345K was wrong! Norman had made a mistake in his calculation, and you couldn’t find it. A Skeptic had to teach you your own pseudoscience!
And later, you made another mistake that DREMT caught. You tried to deny the “244K…290K…244K”, because you thought it was from me. DREMT is still holding that up to your face, but reality doesn’t phase you.
Nothing new.
JD must have me confused with another commenter, nothing new &
See: no physics if the DREM Team had any proper physics & testing results to argue with then the desperate DREM Team would do so.
Maybe you didn’t gulp down the 345 K, Ball4, but plenty of “the Team” did, and the rest of JD’s account of events is correct.
Later on, Norman revealed that just by adding another couple of green plates either side of the blue, the blue plate would get to the 345 K, in any case.
So the 101 K temperature increase ridiculousness is still part of the fun and games.
“At 244 K, the blue plate might cause frost bite to human skin. Separating the plates could cause burns to human skin”
The “Pseudoscience Sandwich’. Yum, yum.
And entertained.
Another chance for DREMT to spread fertilizer…too bad the demand has gone to 0.
They have to be pretty desperate, even bothering to respond to this!
Ball4 relentlessly attacks even though he’s actually partially in agreement. He never challenges any of the others, even though he disagrees with the 244 K…290 K…244 K for the same reasons we do. Also, nobody ever challenges him.
Kristian’s entire argument was to spend day after day baiting and goading with his insulation question, then when he finally made his point it was basically just him shouting “it’s insulation” and declaring that JD “knows he is wrong”. That was it.
Nate got hysterical, starting laughing like a robot (ha! ha! ha!) and writing his name “NAte”, poor guy.
Even Tim was resorting to ridicule.
Desperate, and now slightly boring.
‘now slightly boring’ Good time to leave.
Might as well hang around for your debate with Ball4.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 27, 2019 at 2:03 PM:
LOL! And you still haven’t answered. Why so scared?
If you recall, I pointed out “it’s insulation” long before asking you the simple question of “what does insulation do?”, a question which apparently had you completely stumped.
Are you going to show us that you understand how insulation works, DREMT, or are you still just gonna run and hide?
😂
The poor sod is crying. Must be hard.
Yeah, it’s a bit of a strain on the old ribs.
But still not providing an answer to the simple question, I see. Still just playing the evasion game.
Still not providing an answer to the simple question about the length of the piece of string, I see. Still just playing the evasion game…
…and, evading reality. I suppose you get to believe in whatever you wish, though. If you want to believe in fairy tales about magical plates that spontaneously increase in temperature by 101 K, that’s up to you. There’s clearly no point trying to reason with any of you about it, as there’s no limit to what you’re prepared to accept on the subject.
Mike Flynn says:
“not one of them can actually describe the the GHE”.
David Appell says:
October 15, 2018 at 4:04 PM
Description of the greenhouse effect:
“IN its normal state, the Earth-atmosphere system absorbs solar radiation and maintains global energy balance by re-radiating this energy to space as infrared or longwave radiation. The intervening atmosphere absorbs and emits the longwave radiation, but as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, it absorbs more energy than it emits upward to space. The energy that escapes to space is significantly smaller than that emitted by the surface. The difference, the energy trapped in the atmosphere, is popularly referred as the greenhouse effect, G.”
– A. Raval and V. Ramanathan, Observational determination of the greenhouse effect, Nature v342 14 Dec 1989, pp 758-761
https://www.nature.com/articles/342758a0
https://www.nature.com/articles/342758a0.pdf
S,
I’d think you were joking, if I didn’t realise you are too stupid to realise the difference between fantasy and reality. The authors have obviously overlooked a couple of things.
First, after four and a half billions years of continuous sunlight and supposed heat trapping, the Earths surface has cooled. Second, the surface cools at night. If you weren’t quite so stupid and ignorant, you could work this out for yourself.
Fumbling bumblers. About as deluded as Hansen, Schmidt, Mann and all the rest of the pseudoscientific climatological cult members.
Do you really believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun makes the thermometer hotter? Keep arguing with facts – I wish you the best of luck, choosing to live in an alternative universe.
Cheers.
Yes. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes the surface warmer than it would be otherwise.
Now bdgwx, why spread such nonsense?
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere can NOT make the surface warmer.
JDHuffman says, March 27, 2019 at 12:20 PM:
It most certainly CAN, theoretically. Hint: Insulation.
But is there any evidence suggesting that, therefore, it also MUST and WILL and IS? Nope.
Kristian, CO2 is NOT a “radiative insulator”. It is a “radiative conductor”.
Learn some physics.
Every insulator is also a conductor so it is JD that needs to learn some physics.
JDHuffman says, March 27, 2019 at 12:53 PM:
Ah, the great JD opens his heart on insulation! What an occasion!
No one’s calling the CO2 molecule itself a “radiative insulator”. Are you playing as dumb again as you did during this fairly recent exchange of ours: “ME: How does insulation work, thermodynamically? YOU: It doesn’t do any thermodynamic work, stupid. Learn som physics. ?
The glass wool inside my walls conducts heat. All insulative materials do. Even so, they still insulate.
Do you understand why that is, JD?
Klown, CO2 is NOT a “radiative insulator”. It is a “radiative conductor”.
Learn some physics.
(You may consider this my last word on the issue, unless you come up with something substantive.)
JDHuffman says, March 27, 2019 at 1:44 PM:
The “substantive” part is right there above your comment:
The glass wool inside my walls conducts heat. All insulative materials do. Even so, they still insulate.
Do you understand why that is, JD?
Kristian…”It most certainly CAN, theoretically. Hint: Insulation”.
If you compared the 0.04% of the atmosphere represented by CO2 to a blanket or coat, both of the latter would be so threadbare as to be useless. ☺
“blanket or coat, both of the latter would be so threadbare as to be useless.”
If the blanket or coat increased your body temperature 33K like Earth IR active atm. does near surface air, then you would not survive which means the blanket or coat would hardly be useless or “threadbare”.
Roll on.
bdgwx says, March 27, 2019 at 11:42 AM:
Where’s the observational evidence from the real Earth system supporting such a claim?
In the published literature on the topic.
Like …?
–Kristian says:
March 27, 2019 at 12:28 PM
bdgwx says, March 27, 2019 at 11:42 AM:
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes the surface warmer than it would be otherwise.
Wheres the observational evidence from the real Earth system supporting such a claim?–
There isn’t any. Of course there is correlation of warming world that is followed by increasing CO2 levels.
Also same correlation of warming world is followed by increasing water vapor.
Or warmer times in Earth history has had “tropical like” condition in polar regions.
But I don’t think there has ever been instance of colder oceans with warmer average global temperature.
And there has been times of high CO2 and ice age conditions and cold oceans.
I would define cold ocean as 1 C to 5 C.
And colder ocean less than 10 C.
Warm ocean as more than 10 C
Warmer oceans as more than 15 C
and warmest oceans as warmer than 20 C
And our average volume temperature of our ocean is about 3.5 C
UAH is one such source. Note that the lower troposphere change is +0.13C/decade while the stratosphere change -0.23C/decade. This is consistent with the GHE hypothesis which states that many polyatomic molecules will block IR radiation and either convert it into thermal energy directly or redirect it back toward the surface. This causes the warming below and cooling above. Most of the trapped heat ends up in the ocean which is accumulating it at a rate of +10e21 j/yr right now.
Most of the satellite/Argo era imbalance ends up in the ocean…
bdgwx says, March 27, 2019 at 2:00 PM:
How? If anything, the UAH tlt data constitutes one part of the best evidence AGAINST any notion of a necessary temperature rise as a direct causal result of an increase in atmospheric CO2.
But in what way exactly is the difference in temperature trends between the troposphere and the stratosphere actual EVIDENCE that more CO2 in the atmosphere will make the surface warmer?
All you’re doing here is explaining how things SHOULD be connected, according to the hypothesis that we want to test.
But I’m not asking what the hypothesis claims. That’s all well and good, but ultimately irrelevant. The hypothesis isn’t reality. Reality is reality. I’m asking you to produce actual observational evidence from the real Earth system to support what the hypothesis claims.
“Note that the lower troposphere change is +0.13C/decade while the stratosphere change -0.23C/decade.”
is:
“actual observational evidence from the real Earth system to support what the hypothesis claims.”
Kristian,
It is evidence in support of the GHE hypothesis because an observation other than a warming troposphere/hydrosphere simultaneous with a cooling stratosphere would falsify it. It is an experiment being conducted on the “real Earth system”.
bdgwx, an observation other than a warming troposphere/hydrosphere simultaneous with a cooling stratosphere would only be inconsistent with the hypothesis.
And that would have to be way over 30 years to be meaningful in terms of WMO climate standards. The many cyclic variables over much shorter periods can hugely outweigh the hypothesis, witness the top post.
ball4, good point. I should have said “inconsistent”. And I agree, this needs to be evaluated over long periods of time.
Ball4 says, March 27, 2019 at 2:29 PM:
No. That is evidence of a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere, not of the CAUSE of the two.
This is pretty basic stuff, things you learn in school.
bdgwx says, March 27, 2019 at 6:23 PM:
No, bdgw, then you don’t understand what I’m asking for. You can’t show evidence of warming as evidence of what CAUSED that warming. For that you need evidence showing your proposed MECHANISM in effective operation. You haven’t.
Let me give you a hint, bdgwx.
A warming troposphere could theoretically be caused by of any number of different mechanisms, a “strengthening GHE” from an increase in atmospheric CO2 being just one. We need to TEST any claim against reality before we can conclude we have the correct mechanism. We can’t just assume we do without testing.
At the same time, a cooling stratosphere could theoretically be caused by any number of different mechanisms, a “strengthening GHE” from an increase in atmospheric CO2 being just one. We need to TEST any claim against reality before we can conclude we have the correct mechanism. We can’t just assume we do without testing.
Moreover, what happens in the troposphere is NOT necessarily directly translatable to what happens in the stratosphere. The thermal structure of these two levels of the atmosphere are, after all, determined and maintained by vastly different heat transfer processes, the former convective, the latter radiative.
“That is evidence of a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere, not of the CAUSE of the two.”
Kristian didn’t initially want the cause only: “actual observational evidence from the real Earth system to support what the hypothesis claims.”
If Kristian wants the cause over long periods of time, then that cause hypothesis has been identified theoretically in the literature, through testing in the lab, and observations out in the wild. Consult the published literature in many different journals/different authors over long periods to identify the cause.
“A warming troposphere could theoretically be caused by of any number of different mechanisms…a cooling stratosphere could theoretically be caused by any number of different mechanisms”
Then ought to be easy to name even one mechanism with observed climate data over climate periods (say 75 years with which the hypothesis is consistent & a priori predictions were confirmed) that does both. Or at least one in the satellite/Argo era that monotonically does both at same time in theory and observation.
bdg…”Note that the lower troposphere change is +0.13C/decade”
As I have tried to advise the alarmists here, that trend is a number-crunched trend and very misleading. The first 17 years of the trend represented a recovery from cooling and the trend from 1998 onward has been relatively flat despite two major El Ninos.
If anyone from UAH is asked to produce an average warming between the endpoints of 1979 and 2019, they must provide it as a number-crunched average. Even though UAH cooperates with such a scientific protocol they also explain the contexts to which the data applies.
In their 33 year report, UAH pointed out the recovery from cooling during the first 17 years and, overall, that little or no true warming has occurred during that 33 years. The same applies today, there has been little or no warming over the 40 years of the record, depending on where you live.
If you took that trend over 4 decades, the warming should have been 4 x 0.13C = 0.52C. That has not happened, or anywhere near it. If we’ve had 0.2C true average warming over the past 40 years it would surprise me.
From 1998 – 2015 there was no warming. The IPCC admitted it was so for 15 years of that span. The early 2016 EN produced a relatively lengthy warming but it has cooled off almost all the way back to the 18 year flat trend.
Ball4 says, March 28, 2019 at 7:32 AM:
And the hypothesis claims that more CO2 in the atmosphere CAUSES global warming, troll.
Difficult?
Added IR active atm. gas adds to the existing surface GHE Kristian. In the case of added CO2 ppm in the 75 years after 1938, about 0.7C as predicted & which was observed.
Ball4 says, March 28, 2019 at 1:57 PM:
Troll,
Predicting warming and then observing warming is NOT evidence that your postulated mechanism is what CAUSED the warming. Correlation is not causation.
NASA managed to predict the orbital parameters of the New Horizons spacecraft years before launch, subsequently the spacecraft flew the predicted trajectory well enough to get the job done despite a whole bunch of unknowns.
By Kristian’s logic: NASA predicting the trajectory and then observing the trajectory is NOT evidence that NASA’s postulated orbital mechanics is what CAUSED the trajectory. Correlation to predicted trajectory is not causation OF that trajectory.
The New Horizon’s success was just a lucky shot by NASA according to Kristian’s logic. Kristian should know better.
Troll, I’m gonna say this one more time, and then we’re done:
Evidence of warming isn’t evidence of what CAUSED that warming.
Stop trying to tell me what kind of evidence I’m asking for. I’m not asking for evidence of warming. Got it?
I simply pointed out Kristian’s logic failure & did not point out what evidence Kristian needs as that’s up to Kristian. NASA only needs the scientific method.
Evidence of warming IS evidence of the cause when the cause of the warming is well understood based on fundamental theory, lab tests, and observations in the wild as predicted a priori. That’s the same logic NASA used to get $ & accomplish its New Horizons mission.
In the case of global mean T affected by added CO2 ppm in the 75 years after 1938, about +0.7C as predicted a priori was eventually observed in the wild just as predicted from using the logic of the scientific method.
—but as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, it absorbs more energy than it emits upward to space. —
If the atmosphere was much colder than the surface, it would absorb more energy than it emits upwards to space.
Or if one magically make the atmosphere 10 K cooler, within days, it would warm back up [and warming back up means it’s absorbing more energy- and maintaining that energy level- but once it’s roughly maintaining that energy level, it not absorbing or gaining more energy than it emits upward to space.
And, if one magically make the atmosphere 10 K warmer, within days it would cool down.
But if warm or cool the ocean surface or ground surface by 10 K, it takes minutes to warm or cool back down.
And if warm or cool the entire ocean by 1 K, it takes centuries to warm or cool back down. And it’s the temperature of entire ocean which determines global temperature and it takes centuries of time for global temperature to change significantly.
Or you can’t detect a change in global temperatures in periods of time, less than a decade or two.
“…the energy trapped in the atmosphere…”
Svante loves his pseudoscience.
Svante says, March 26, 2019 at 6:32 PM:
Yes, and in that very paper Raval and Ramanathan state the following:
“DETERMINATION OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
If E is the longwave flux emitted by the surface at a certain location, and F is the flux leaving the top of the atmosphere (TOA) directly above that location, then the greenhouse effect G for that location can be defined as G = E – F.”
Cool, let’s try it.
We compare The Congo (5N-6S, 10-27E) and the Sahara-Sahel region (20-14N, 15W-36E), using sfc and toa all-sky LW_up fluxes averaged over the period 03/2000-02/2018 from the CERES EBAF Ed4 dataset. (Worth noting: Also according to CERES, these two regions get more or less the exact same average heat input to the surface from the Sun.)
The Congo
LW_up(sfc), E: 439.44 W/m^2
LW_up(toa), F: 225.23 W/m^2
The ‘strength’ of “the greenhouse effect”, as defined by Raval & Ramanathan above, in the Congo is then:
G = E – F = 439.44 – 225.23 = 214.21 W/m^2
Sahara-Sahel
LW_up(sfc), E: 479.12 W/m^2
LW_up(toa), F: 279.10 W/m^2
The “GHE” in the Sahara-Sahel region is thus considerably weaker than in the Congo:
G = E – F = 479.12 – 279.10 = 200.02 W/m^2
Yet the average surface temperature in the former region, with a much stronger “GHE”, is substantially LOWER (by several degrees Celsius) than in the latter region, with a much weaker “GHE”.
With this, we have just officially established that according to R&R’s definition, the basic premise that the strength of the “GHE” is necessarily, solar input being equal, what controls the average temperature at the surface (stronger “GHE” – higher T_avg, weaker “GHE” – lower T_avg), is invalid.
‘the average surface temperature in the former region, with a much stronger GHE, is substantially LOWER (by several degrees Celsius)’
Yeah, but the heat content (enthalpy) of the air and soil in the Congo is higher. It contains more water vapor.
Just try to cool a house in Congo vs Sahel. The AC in the Congo will require more energy.
Nate says, March 27, 2019 at 5:07 PM:
*Sigh*
But this is no counterargument, Nate, and you know it. You’re only making my point for me. You’re flailing – the uncomfortable swell of cognitive dissonance taking hold …?
Dryer – weaker “GHE”, but hotter. Wetter – stronger “GHE”, but cooler. My point exactly. Strange how hard this point this is for you to grasp, because you’re always trying to use it against me, as if it proved your side of the issue and not mine …
Read again what I wrote:
“[We have] established that according to R&R’s definition [of the strength of the “GHE”], the basic premise that the strength of the “GHE” is necessarily, solar input being equal, what controls the average temperature at the surface (stronger “GHE” – higher T_avg, weaker “GHE” – lower T_avg), is invalid.“
Ugghh..
This is what the paper you cited said:
” the greenhouse effect G for that location can be defined as G = E F”
But you are the one who decided to create the strawman version of the GHE by stating:
“what controls the average temperature at the surface (stronger ‘GHE’ higher T_avg, weaker ‘GHE’ lower T_avg), is invalid.”
No reputable climatologist or meteorologist would ignore latent heat when discussing the GHE and its consequences.
This is a favorite meme that is oft repeated, as you do here, that deserts are hotter than the tropics, and thus something must be wrong with the GHE.
But it is a red herring.
nate…” the greenhouse effect G for that location can be defined as G = E F”
These guys have radiation on the brain. They cannot conceive oif any other form of heat transport other than via radiation.
Radiation is a poor transport medium for heat at terrestrial temperatures. There’s no way radiation from the surface makes it all the way to the TOA. As Lindzen pointed out, most of the surface heat is in the Tropics where it is transported via conduction and convection high into the atmosphere and polewards.
Lindzen did not specify the heat was transported by WV and CO2. It’s obvious the heat is transported by the majority gases, N2 and O2. As the heated air rises, it expands and loses heat naturally during expansion. There must be a way for N2 and O2 to radiate to space at 0K. I cannot accept that N2/O2 have magical properties that prevent them radiating to cool.
“There’s no way radiation from the surface makes it all the way to the TOA.”
Yet astronauts, satellite cameras and orbiting instruments can observe radiation from Earth’s surface. So there’s a way.
Nate says, March 28, 2019 at 7:15 AM:
Nate, 2 questions for you:
#1 What is “the greenhouse effect” meant to be? What is the actual effect? What is the “GHE” supposed to be all about?
#2 If it can be shown that the “GHE” isn’t doing what it is supposed (defined</em) to be doing, then wouldn't it be only fair to point out that it cannot be said to be a NECESSARY outcome? It is a postulate only. An assumption.
I’m not saying that climatologists or meteorologists ignore latent heat, Nate!!!
You’re still not getting what I’m saying!
Pay attention! If making the troposphere wetter (more WV, more clouds) LOWERS the average temperature of the surface below, EVEN AS “the greenhouse effect”, as defined by R&R (G = E – F), is greatly strengthened, then you cannot use as a premise to all your prognostications about future climates that strengthening the “GHE” will inevitably force the average surface T to rise. Because that premise is shown to be INVALID, Nate.
That’s all I’m saying.
ALL mainstream climatologists use this premise every single day. They operate on the notion that it is TRUE. They have to. Otherwise, if it weren’t true, then the explanatory and predictive powers of the “AGW” hypothesis as a whole completely evaporate (pardon the pun!).
Latent heat is there in the models, but it cannot REVERSE the net warming effect of the “GHE”. It can only REDUCE it.
Because in the models, an increase in the transfer of latent heat (basically, of evaporation=>condensation) only comes as a result of (a feedback to) rising surface (and/or tropospheric) temps. It isn’t itself an independent player.
In reality, it most definitely is. As we observe for instance in the Congo.
And once evaporation and convection and cloud cover become independent players, varying in strength fully irrespective of any changes in radiative parameters, then all bets are off.
WE HAVE TO TEST WHAT’S GOING ON. What’s in control. We can no longer simply speculate based on our own theoretical ideas.
Yes, changing the radiative parameters of the troposphere MIGHT (!!) affect the average surface T positively. Theoretically it could definitely happen. ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.
But in reality, we do not know! Becasue there are so many OTHER factors at play at the same time.
So we have to CHECK!
– – –
Why is it that you CO2 heads find this simple circumstance so bloody hard to accept? Or even grasp!?
‘#1 What is “the greenhouse effect” meant to be? What is the actual effect? What is the “GHE” supposed to be all about?’
Real models take into account that additional heat loss due to evaporation and convection, which of course are much less in the desert. And the General Circulation, which of course moves warm air out of the tropics and into the deserts.
When one does all of that, spatially averaged warming is the result.
“what controls the average temperature at the surface (stronger ‘GHE higher T_avg, weaker ‘GHE’ lower T_avg)”
At one location, Nope.
So indeed you have easily knocked this down, but that is irrelevant to the real GHE.
That is why it is a strawman, and you should know better.
‘At one location, Nope.’
Should say ‘Nope, not when comparing different locations.’
Nate says, March 28, 2019 at 12:33 PM:
No, Nate. What is the actual effect postulated to be? At its most fundamental level.
Stop evading.
Yes, in the MODELS, Nate. In the MODELS. Based on your THEORY being true. But there is no real-world evidence that it is true. There are ONLY theoretical considerations. And there is no evidence that what the models claim will happen is actually what happens IN THE REAL WORLD. Because the real world is made up of regions, and regionally, wetter tropospheres make cooler surfaces on average, while dryer tropospheres make warmer surfaces on average, heat input being equal. THAT’S what we know.
But, Nate, you have not shown that, globally, it somehow works. While I have shown that it DOESN’T work regionally.
This is simply argument by assertion.
You need to start SHOWING things, not just CLAIM things.
– – –
Anyway, according to Nate, when Raval & Ramanathan state the following: “DETERMINATION OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
If E is the longwave flux emitted by the surface at a certain location, and F is the flux leaving the top of the atmosphere (TOA) directly above that location, then the greenhouse effect G for that location can be defined as G = E – F.”
then the “THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT” they’re referring to is an entirely different phenomenon than the “real GHE”.
Again I have to ask you, Nate, because you appear not to know:
What is “the greenhouse EFFECT” supposed to be about? Is it a temperature effect, or isn’t it?
It is not a straw man. It is a basic real-world observation showing us how the fundamental premise behind the “GHE” is invalid – it’s a possible, but not a necessary outcome.
But you, as a fervent CO2 cultist, simply cannot get yourself to concede even such a small point. Laughable.
K,
As I pointed out, its obvious that OTHER factors, besides the GHE strength, are important in determining Desert vs Tropical temp.
“additional heat loss due to evaporation and convection, which of course are much less in the desert. And the General Circulation, which of course moves warm air out of the tropics and into the deserts.”
Therefore, your assertion that Desert vs Tropics temperature ought to be determined by relative strength of GHE, alone, else there is something wrong with the GHE…
is a red herring, a strawman.
That was my only point.
Agree or not? If not why?
I see you TRIED to explain why it is not a strawman, but really you flailed and failed.
“What is ‘the greenhouse EFFECT’ supposed to be about? Is it a temperature effect, or isn’t it?
That is why it is a strawman (…)
It is not a straw man. It is a basic real-world observation showing us how the fundamental premise behind the ‘GHE’ is invalid”
You double down, triple down, tie yourself in knots. Par for the course.
‘Is it a temperature effect, or isn’t it?’
Is it? Only if your intention is to dumb it down so much as to more easily raise doubts about it.
An enhanced GHE is fundamentally an energy imbalance.
That leads to a build up of thermal energy, which can cause increased air temperature, enthalpy, melted ice, or ocean heat content.
To ignore these other ways in which the additional energy can manifest, is… intentionally misleading.
Nate says, March 29, 2019 at 8:35 AM:
Hahaha! Nate, Nate, Nate.
Yes, it IS “obvious that OTHER factors, besides the GHE strength, are important in determining Desert vs Tropical temp.” In the REAL WORLD. Because that’s how the world works.
It is, however, NOT (!!!) obvious within the realm of the “GHE” ideology, which is, at its very core, detached from reality, as pure theoretical speculation.
According to the “GHE” ideology, if the radiative heat loss of the surface is substantially reduced from having an atmosphere on top with a much increased level of IR opacity, then the surface will have to warm in order for the other available heat loss mechanisms (including the evaporative one) are able to work at a higher level of efficiency, simply forced to by the reduction in the radiative loss.
In this situation, if you reduce the radiative heat loss from the surface, but keep the heat input the same, then that surface will HAVE TO BECOME WARMER, no matter what. Because you can’t increase evaporation in such a situation before you’ve made the surface … WARMER.
And this is EXACTLY the idea of how “the enhanced GHE” is supposed to force the surface to warm towards a new and higher equilibrium temperature, to make up for a reduction in radiative heat loss?
Come on, Nate. Why are you pretending you don’t know this?
So, even with as much heat coming IN, but with much, much less radiative heat going OUT from the surface, the average surface temperature in the Congo is about 3 degrees Celsius LOWER than in the Sahara-Sahel region! Why isn’t the much, much reduced surface radiative heat loss in the Congo forcing its average surface temperature to much HIGHER than in the Sahara-Sahel? As per standard “AGW” ‘logic’.
Because: Increasing the IR opacity of an atmospheric column sure appears to reduce the radiative heat loss from the surface underneath, but it most certainly doesn’t thereby necessarily force the average surface temperature to rise. Due to the simple real-world fact that there are also factors OTHER than pure radiation involved.
Which is MY point exactly, Nate. Not yours.
Theory, meet Reality.
That’s the problem with religious zealots like yourself, Nate.
As soon as someone points you to a real-world observation refuting a basic tenet of your doctrine, you immediately try to switch your argument from that of theoretical fundamentalism to one of practical malleability, where everything goes, everything’s somehow included, as long as you can go on believing your overarching doctrine to be True. So you attempt, on the sly, to adopt that real-world observation as your own, pretending it was in fact already an integral part of your doctrine, when in fact it directly contradicts it; which is why you try your best to make sure those two dots are never connected.
Nate, you can’t have the cake and eat it too.
‘It is, however, NOT (!!!) obvious within the realm of the “GHE” ideology, which is, at its very core, detached from reality, as pure theoretical speculation’
Yes, by attacking an tearing down the ‘ideology’ ie the strawman version created by you, rather than critiquing the actual science and real models, you are making my point very well.
And yet you quadruple down because your opinions rise above all facts.
‘Theory, meet Reality.’
More like strawman meet real science.
As you should know, but are pretending otherwise, real climate science is about ‘radiative-convective equlibrium’.
‘In this situation, if you reduce the radiative heat loss from the surface, but keep the heat input the same, then that surface will HAVE TO BECOME WARMER, no matter what. Because you can’t increase evaporation in such a situation before you’ve made the surface … WARMER.
And this is EXACTLY the idea of how ‘the enhanced GHE’ is supposed to force the surface to warm towards a new and higher equilibrium temperature, to make up for a reduction in radiative heat loss?’
Sure, when comparing one location, before, and after increasing the GHE, the surface temperature must rise.
But you have not done that at all. You are comparing one location with another. One of which, Congo, has more ways to shed added heat:
1. Much stronger evapotranspiration.
2. Poleward heat transport from equator by General Circulation.
So, obviously, Congo does not need to increase in temperature by the same amount as Sahel, in order to reach a new equilibrium.
To ignore these facts, again, makes the comparison a STRAWMAN, a RED HERRING, a FRAUD.
LOL! Yup, here we go. More self-righteous drivel and zero substance. Typical. In fact: Q.E.D.
As I pointed out, there’s no talking to religious zealots.
You see it in the way they ‘argue’. The way they’re careful always to miss, and thus misrepresent, the central point of the opponent. How many times now have I tried to spoon-feed the point I’m making to Nate, during this exchange alone? But he just doesn’t want to open his mouth. Rather, he simply turns his head away in disgust [Ughhh …]. Every single time he starts his game of evasion and diversion, it makes it clear he’s not here to debate or discuss; he’s here to shut down any sort of rational, objective discussion. He’s here to bury any sign of opposition to his doctrine. He is not in the least willing to see his opponent’s perspective, not at
all ready to concede even a single point, no matter how small.
Which are all among the calling cards of the religious zealot. And it’s all so transparent, so easy to spot. Because they’re all the same. All using the very same tired old set of tactics.
Joe Rogan, on his pod.cast, said it best, describing their kind:
People like Nate here have been conditioned to automatically interpret any view that disagrees with theirs on this particular issue (“GHE” and “AGW”) as a personal attack, one they simply can’t let pass, against them and their very identity. It happens because they crave the solution to their imagined problem. To them, “global warming” exists because “the global solution” to it does not. They WANT to believe. They MUST believe. Believing in “The Cause” – their Cause – is part of WHO they are. And after that, after all, arguing and debating is no longer worth the trouble. Talk of “solutions” is all there is …
This entire issue started with a “Problem” already concluded upon and a political “Solution” to that “Problem”. And only AFTER came “The Science”.
These people must believe in (and ferociously defend, as in ‘attack any opponents to, minor or major’) this “Science of Doom”, any aspect of it, as a direct consequence of believing in “The Solution” to “The Problem” as originally declared …
Nate says, March 31, 2019 at 7:11 AM:
Hahaha! The models. Always the models. So the models don’t claim that increasing the atmospheric IR opacity must and will cause the surface to warm, no matter what else happens at the same time, even if there’s an overall increase in evaporation and convective power …?
Is that what you’re saying? The tropics won’t warm?
Or are you just waffling on to make it SEEM you have a point?
It appears it’s YOU who’s promoting the strawman version of the “GHE”, the one that escapes any kind of clear definition, no matter what you do to try and pin it down, it just slips away into something else; that vague, that flexible. Teflon, that’s what it’s called, isn’t it, Nate?
Nate says, March 31, 2019 at 8:18 AM:
Yes, and …?
Why? Where do you see this, Nate? How do you know? You’re just postulating this, based on your own theory of how it SHOULD be. Such unsubstantiated postulates from CO2 cultists like yourself is exactly what I put to the test by looking at the real world. And there is no such real-world test in support of your postulate. When you look at the real world, what you see is: wetter atm means cooler sfc, dryer atm means hotter sfc, on average, heat input being equal.
Your going ballistic whenever I point this simple fact out just tells me how potent this piece of information from the real Earth system really is. You have no rebuttal, so instead you start shrieking and beating about, throwing an endless string of inconsistent, incoherent word salads my way, in the hope that I will eventually tire. I can tell you, I’m soon there.
Of course. The simplest, cleanest and most direct test ever.
*Sigh*
But the TOTAL heat input and heat output are the SAME in both regions. Only, the RADIATIVE heat output is much SMALLER in the Congo. So why is it still so much COOLER …!?
You STILL don’t see it? Why is it cooler, Nate? Because … Say it!
Yeees. And the Sahara-Sahel has much stronger radiative loss. The total loss is the same, as is the total gain.
So what does this tell you, Nate? What is the most important heat loss mechanism when it comes to surface temperature? Radiation or evaporation-convection?
Not at the surface, Nate. At the surface, the heat is coming IN laterally. At the surface, the heat escapes to the sides via general circulation in the SUBtropics, not around the equator.
“Yet the average surface temperature in the former region, with a much stronger “GHE”, is substantially LOWER (by several degrees Celsius) than in the latter region, with a much weaker “GHE”.
With this, we have just officially established that according to R&R’s definition, the basic premise that the strength of the “GHE” is necessarily, solar input being equal, what controls the average temperature at the surface (stronger “GHE” – higher T_avg, weaker “GHE” – lower T_avg), is invalid.”
Well, I think land cools. And land obviously can have higher daytime temperature.
Or you don’t find 40 C [104 F] air temperature over an ocean, whereas it’s possible and common over land.
Global warming is entirely or at least almost entirely about warming regions outside of the tropics.
Tropics is 40% of Earth and global warming is about warming the other 60% of Earth.
Tropical land doesn’t warm the 60% of the rest of the earth, but it can dump more energy into space and thereby limit amount warming to the 60% of Earth.
Anyhow the pseudo science of greenhouse effect theory leads many people to think global warming is about hotter days. Or few are terrified of living in the climate of a tropical island paradise [which obviously has a high average temperature].
So Germans are in country which has average temperature about 9 C and they are terrified about living in Oregon’s average temperature, and have clearly proven their fear by wasting a trillions dollars on things which was supposed to related to stopping global warming [but it didn’t].
Anyhow the tropics over the millions of year [and during our long Ice Age] has not change much in terms of it’s average temperature and what has changed a lot is the temperature of remaining 60% of the planet. Nor I do know of any evidence suggesting the tropics has over billions of year ever gotten much hotter or colder.
But since we have tropical plants which die, in colder weather [I can’t grow them in the high desert of California because it gets too cold, here, and in this climate, this temperature would cause the extinction of such tropical plants] one can assume tropics never got cold enough while these plant species existed.
In terms of hot air, I think the hottest air which has occurred on Earth [due to warming by sunlight] is at bottom of the dried out Mediterranean sea- and that wasn’t global warming causing that.
A lukewarmer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1385&v=zcsSn7ehZ1g
“William Happer is one of our most renowned and esteemed physicists, a professor emeritus from Princeton University. He decidedly does not agree with the current panic about the horrors of “climate change.”He says, and explains why CO², carbon dioxide, doesn’t have much of anything to do with warming, and we really need more of it — not less. CO² is food for plants. The slight increase we have had is greening the earth. You can see it from space.”
https://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2019/03/25/learning-a-bit-about-co%C2%B2-and-mass-hysteria/
linked from:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/
So, yes we are in a “CO2 drought”
But Happer didn’t mention that we in an Ice Age.
He did mention the “father” of greenhouse Effect theory, thought CO2 would make the world warmer, and that Svante August Arrhenius, thought a warmer world would better.
Happer said in the Youtube that Arrhenius was correct about the doubling effect of CO2 concentration causes increase in global temperature.
But it seems to me, Arrhenius thought a doubling of CO2 cause more warming. Because Arrhenius was trying to explain what causes glacial and interglacial periods. So, Arrhenius thought doubling could cause as much as 5 C warming.
Anyhow, Happer thinks it’s about 1 C increase per doubling.
I don’t think the increasing levels of CO2 could warm Earth more than about .5 C within a time period of hundred years, but over longer periods of time, if a CO2 level is maintained it could be more than .5 C.
Though predicting 100 years or longer is problematic in terms of global temperatures. Or seems over such time periods global temperature could remain where they are at or even decline. But it seems quite likely that if include all factors, that global temperatures will not rise more than 1 C within 100 years and unlikely to cool by more than .5 C within 100 years. Or no reason to assume that in next 100 years will become as cold as temperatures in last 200 years.
But anyhow I think over next 50 years, global temperature will not become .5 C warmer nor .3 C cooler. Though it seems there could be fair amount uncertainty in regards to Solar Grand Minimum longer term effects and within 10 years it’s possible, there is evidence indicating more cooling is possible. But it seems in terms of next 50 years, volcanic activity is more likely source of cooling as compared to just the possibility of greater possible effects than Solar min.
And tend to think a .2 C cooling is worse than .2 C warming and that a further warming of 1 C in 100 years would be a good outcome. And it’s less warming than Arrhenius thought would be good news for the world.
Also related to our current CO2 drought [for millions of years]
if we had twice as much CO2 we should get less desert area.
So, they say that 30% of land area is deserts in our present low levels of CO2, but with addition of more CO2, satellites indicate global greening particularly in drier region, as result of our small increase in CO2 level over the last few decades.
So if we had say 600 ppm of CO2 and over time period +50 years we could get a lot greening then we have had. And longer periods and higher CO2 levels could amount to having 20% land area being desert rather 30%, without even having more global water vapor.
If add in a warmer average ocean surface temperature over long periods of time, one reduce it so we have only 10% of land regions being deserts.
And reduction of deserts should cause land to have a less global cooling effect.
So CO2 enrichment could cause changes in land vegetation which causes less cooling effects from land regions- or global warming.
gbaikie…”Svante August Arrhenius, thought a warmer world would better”.
Not only Arrhenius but the other guru modern alarmists lean on, Callandar. He too thought warming would be beneficial.
We can see the point of Arrhenius since he lived in the post-Little Ice Age era and likely experienced the brutal cold winters of the LIA. Warmer to him would have been much better than the LIA era.
It’s amazing that the IPCC has completely overlooked re-warming from the LIA while focusing on a trace gas in the atmosphere as the cause of modern warming. I mean, till 1850, global temps were over 1C cooler than normal and that lasted on and off for 400years.
Let’s hope we don’t experience that in our life times. Warm is good. People live longer and feel better, as do the plants and trees.
There is a lot of amazing stuff going on, though our long history is also filled with it.
Some call it evil and others being more generous, label it stupidity or the inherent nature of Man.
I think bureaucracies are quite amazing, and I imagine that if anyone could actually manage one in successful manner, it would amount to the second coming of Christ.
bfgwx asked for a discussion of the “239 Watts/m^2” that appears in the bogus “energy balance”. The “239” arrow is the orange arrow pointing upward, labeled “thermal outgoing TOA”. Here is the link if you haven’t seen it:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig2-11.jpg
The “239” assumes a perfect sphere at Earth’s distance from Sun, and Earth’s albedo, at equilibrium temperature. (Often, you will may see “240” instead of “239”.)
The bogus graphic indicates 239 Watts/m^2 is being emitted to space, from the atmosphere. So already, they have it WRONG. The 239 is from the SURFACE, not TOA! It’s another magic trick. If you increase the distance to TOA, you must change the flux. Flux decreases with the square of the distance (inverse square law). So what is the distance to TOA?
Typically you see 100 km mentioned as the height of TOA. But, satellites still experience atmospheric drag even at 200 km. So you probably have to go to at least 500 km to be completely free of atmospheric mass. That increases the radius of the new sphere by 500 km, or 8.3%, reducing the flux to 204 Watts/m^2. (See why fluxes can’t be “balanced”?)
The IPCC wants to convince you that the atmosphere is trapping heat. (That’s the 0.6 Watts/m^2 shown bottom left in the graphic.) But, just correcting one error cools the Earth by
35 Watts/m^2.
“The bogus graphic indicates 239 Watts/m^2 is being emitted to space, from the atmosphere.”
That bogus sentence misses the component of the 239 emitted from the surface as shown. The 239 is measured from an oblate spheroid thus is NOT assuming a perfect sphere. The altitude the 239 is measured is the orbital altitude of the CERES packages on the various satellites.
JD has so much physics to learn, it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
Yes, the 239 includes the “atmospheric window”.
Next sentence is wrong.
Next sentence adds nothing new–the altitude measured from is the satellite altitude, DUH!
“Next sentence is wrong.”
No JD, you just have a lot to learn. For a perfect sphere the factor is 4.000, the CERES Team tells us they use 4.003 for Earth as an oblate sphereoid:
“To determine global mean quantities in edition 4, Earth is assumed to be an oblate spheroid instead of a sphere…..the well-known So/4 expression for the mean solar irradiance of a spherical Earth becomes So/4.003 for an oblate spheroid, where So is the TSI.”
JD has so much physics to learn, it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
“Oblate spheroid” is another of your distractions.
You have some reality to avoid:
* Fluxes can not be “balanced”.
* Surface is not TOA.
* Flux decrease with distance
* The “energy balance” has errors far greater than any reported “warming”.
JD has some reality to learn, I see JD has not worn out the asterisk key formerly overused before JD became a two time loser by pounding on JD’s keyboard:
* Fluxes cannot be “balanced”. They are if the observed temperature is unchanged in the control volume.
* Surface is not TOA. Right, there is an IR active (semi-opaque) atm. in between causing 398 vs 239.
* Flux decreases with distance. No kidding.
* The “energy balance” has errors far greater than any reported “warming”. Not any more JD, the many satellites and Argo have remedied that situation.
JD has so much physics to learn, it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
* Wrong.
* Irrelevant.
* You got one right, but don’t understand the relevance.
* Wrong.
So how does the atm. surface temperature change in the control volume of interest if the fluxes in/out are balanced?
The difference 398 vs. 239 is hardly irrelevant, indeed it’s the whole relevance.
Last two – Provide the basis for your assertion otherwise as stated: no physics, nothing new since if the DREM Team had any proper physics & testing results to argue with then the desperate DREM Team would provide them.
Fluffball queries: “So how does the atm. surface temperature change in the control volume of interest if the fluxes in/out are balanced?”
Ffuffball doesn’t understand my original statement: Fluxes can not be “balanced”. The statement does not involve changing temperatures. A BB sphere absorbs 960 Watts/m^2, but emits 240 Watts/m^2. 960 does not equal 240. The flux in does not equal the flux out.
Just one topic at a time, fluffball. You’re confused enough already.
“A BB sphere absorbs 960 Watts/m^2, but emits 240 Watts/m^2.”
Bzzzt! Irrelevant. Those are NOT balanced JD, the BB temperature is changing, now try to focus on an answer to the question asked based on what you stated “Fluxes can not be “balanced””: So how does the atm. surface temperature change in the control volume of interest if the fluxes in/out ARE balanced?
Once again, fluffball demonstrates his deficiencies in physics. A BB sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 and emitting 240 W/m^2 is in equilibrium. There is NO temperature change.
Fluxes don’t “balance”. 960 does not equal 240.
fluffball refuses to learn.
“A BB sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 and emitting 240 W/m^2 is in equilibrium.”
No, that’s incorrect JD. Any real object of surface area ~5.1 x 10^8 km^2 absorbing that much more power into the control volume surface than it’s emitting out of the control volume surface means its global mean temperature (thermodynamic internal energy) is fast increasing. Eventually that ideal sphere will achieve equilibrium at powered 960in=960out.
Earth surface system is nearly in balance 398in~398out from 10,000+ measurements over years, so the global mean surface air temperature changes slowly over months/years as shown in top post.
And you STILL did not answer the question.
Fluffball continues to demonstrate his deficiencies in physics.
A BB sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 and emitting 240 W/m^2 is in equilibrium. There is NO temperature change.
Fluxes don’t “balance”. 960 does not equal 240.
fluffball refuses to learn.
No, that’s incorrect physics JD. Learn some physics.
JD, aside from the fact that 960 W/m^2 isn’t even the correct value to use for the input your statement makes no sense because an object with an input of 960 W/m^2 and an output of 240 W/m^2 will not be in equilibrium.
“an object with an input of 960 W/m^2 and an output of 240 W/m^2 will not be in equilibrium.”
Must admit I haven’t fully being following this discussion, but surely that depends on the surface area of the part of the object receiving the 960 W/m^2 and the surface area of the part of the object emitting the 240 W/m^2?
bdgwx and fluffball both deny that a BB sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 emits 240 W/m^2 at equilibrium.
Once again, clowns prove they have no knowledge of the relevant physics.
Nothing new.
Here is my statement: “A BB sphere absorbs 960 Watts/m^2, but emits 240 Watts/m^2.”
Fluffball and bdgwx cannot understand the simple statement. They do not understand physics..
A BB sphere receives 960 Watts/m^2 on one hemisphere, which appears as a circle, a “disk” to the incoming flux. The area of the “disk” is A.
At equilibrium, the BB sphere emits the same energy as it absorbs, 960A.
But the flux emitted is over the entire surface of the sphere, 4A. So, outgoing flux = 960A/4A = 240 Watts/m^2.
The size of the sphere does not matter.
“A BB sphere absorbs 960 Watts/m^2, but emits 240 Watts/m^2.”
Yes, that makes sense. 960 W/m^2 incoming, but that is only received over a quarter of the surface area that the 240 W/m^2 is leaving. So the sphere can be at equilibrium despite receiving 960 W/m^2 and emitting 240 W/m^2. Guess Ball4 and bdgwx were both wrong, and will have no problems acknowledging that.
“A BB sphere receives 960 Watts/m^2 on one hemisphere”
JD changes JD’s own premise to try to correct his blatant initial error; won’t work JD, the internet does not forget. Only magicians do that, you know like the ones in a three-ring circus. Here you show you try to learn some physics. At least that’s a start.
JD has so much physics to learn, it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
JD, at what point did you come to the realization that the 960 figure was for the disk area and 240 is for the spherical area of Earth? In all of these posts I never got the sense that this had clicked for you. Remember, the graphic isn’t meant to represent the disk area. It is meant to represent the spherical or actual area of Earth. Can we now agree that 340 TOA is the correct value to use in this graphic?
bdgwx asks: ” Can we now agree that 340 TOA is the correct value to use in this graphic?”
If all you are interested in is pseudoscience, then you can consider the incorrect value as correct.
In reality, however, fluxes do not “balance”. That’s just one of the reasons the IPCC “energy balance” is ludicrous.
JD, I don’t even know what “you can consider the incorrect value as correct” even means. Do you understand that the graphic is using the spherical or actual surface area of Earth for each value on the graphic? Do you understand that an object with an input of 960 W/m^2 and an output of 240 W/m^2 will not be in equilibrium? I’m talking about one object here. It’s surface area does not magically change from one moment to the next. It is static.
bdgwx, if the sphere is receiving 960 W/m^2 over only a quarter of the surface area that the 240 W/m^2 is leaving from, then energy in = energy out. So the sphere is in equilibrium with an input of 960 W/m^2 and output of 240 W/m^2. Not hard to understand.
bdgwx, let’s go real slow.
Do you know what a “sphere” is?
DREMT, yes we are all very aware of the distinction between the “disk” area of Earth and it’s spherical or actual area. We are trying to convince JD of this distinction and that the 1360 or 960 figures do not belong on the IPCC’s energy budget graphic because Earth isn’t actually a disk.
JD, yes I know what I sphere is. I also know that the surface of Earth does NOT received 960 W-years/m^2 of energy during one orbital cycle. It actually receives 240 W-years/m^2. I think you’re starting to realize this. Can you confirm?
Okay bdgwx, if you now claim you understand what a sphere is, do you also understand how stupid you sounded here:
“JD, aside from the fact that 960 W/m^2 isn’t even the correct value to use for the input your statement makes no sense because an object with an input of 960 W/m^2 and an output of 240 W/m^2 will not be in equilibrium.”
And again, here:
“Do you understand that an object with an input of 960 W/m^2 and an output of 240 W/m^2 will not be in equilibrium?”
These are your exact quotes, bdgwx. Do you want to remain stupid, or admit you got it wrong?
And don’t try to spin your way out of your own web. You were responding to my statement which used “sphere”, not “object”.
JD, I’m not wrong on this point. You are. It doesn’t matter what the shape of the object is. It could be a sphere or it could be a cube or something entirely different. If the input energy is 960 W-years/m^2 and the output energy is 240 W-years/m^2 then the object will not be in thermal equilibrium. And furthermore Earth’s surface still does not receive 960 W-years/m^2 of energy during the course of a year no matter what strategies are employed to divert and deflect away from this contention.
bdgwx, if the sphere is receiving 960 W/m^2 over only a quarter of the surface area that the 240 W/m^2 is leaving from, then energy in = energy out. So the sphere is in equilibrium with an input of 960 W/m^2 and output of 240 W/m^2.
DREMT, Yes. We are fully aware of that fact. But we aren’t sure JD is. He has been arguing that the IPCC’s energy budget graphic is fundamentally flawed because they use 340 instead of 1360 at TOA. He’s also been arguing that the values in the graphic cannot be added or subtracted and other strange statements like “The 340 incoming is used to compare to the 239 outgoing. This is pseudoscience for several reasons. The 340 is NOT the incoming solar. It is not even the average incoming solar. It is the average TSI divided by 4. You cant simply divide radiaitve fluxes. They do this to compare to the 239 outgoing so they can have an energy imbalance. ”
The graphic in question is here.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig2-11.jpg
and described here
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/usys/iac/iac-dam/documents/people-iac/wild/Wild_et_al_ClimDyn_2013.pdf
Right. So when you said this:
“Do you understand that an object with an input of 960 W/m^2 and an output of 240 W/m^2 will not be in equilibrium?”
You were wrong, in the case of the sphere being discussed. Agree?
DREMT,
No. A sphere with an input of 960 W/m^2 and an output of 240 W/m^2 will not be in thermal equilibrium. It doesn’t really matter what the shape is though. That applies to any object of any shape. If the input and output are unbalanced then the object will not be in thermal equilibrium.
I feel like you may be making the same mistake as JD. 960 W/m^2 is not the average flux for the surface of Earth over the course of one orbital cycle. The correct value is 240 W/m^2. And for TOA it is not 1360 W/m^2 but 340 W/m^2.
I’m not sure I can explain it any more clearly than I already have. Let’s try again:
bdgwx, if the sphere is receiving 960 W/m^2 over only a quarter of the surface area that the 240 W/m^2 is leaving from, then energy in = energy out. So the sphere is in equilibrium with an input of 960 W/m^2 and output of 240 W/m^2.
I’ll elaborate.
The flux received is 960 W/m^2. Let’s say that is received over an area of the sphere equal to 1m^2, for simplicity. So the sphere is receiving 960 joules per second.
The flux emitted is 240 W/m^2. That’s emitted over the full area of the sphere, so over 4 m^2. So the sphere is emitting 960 joules per second.
So the sphere is at equilibrium with an input of 960 W/m^2 and an output of 240 W/m^2, because energy in = energy out.
If you still don’t understand, you are beyond my help.
bdgwx is just another uneducated “follower”: “A sphere with an input of 960 W/m^2 and an output of 240 W/m^2 will not be in thermal equilibrium.”
I honestly believe that even Tim could figure this out. But, we know fluffball and most of the rest can’t.
A BB sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 will be absorbing 960A Joules/sec and will reach an equilibrium temperature of 255 K. (“A” being the area of the “disk” in square meters.) At that temperature, it will also be emitting 240 W/m^2 over the entire surface of the sphere, for a total of 960A Joules/sec.
Flux in does NOT equal flux out.
Energy in does equal flux out.
They don’t know the physics, and often they don’t even know the pseudoscience they are so devoted to.
DREMT,
Yes. If a hypothetical sphere receives 960 W/m^2 over 1/4 of its surface area and it emits 240 W/m^2 over its total surface area then I agree that it would be in equilibrium. However, it needs to be clearly communicated that the 960 W/m^2 figure is in reference to a different or subset of the surface of the whole sphere. This is not what JD is contesting here as best I can decipher. Chime in JD if I have misrepresented your argument.
“Yes”
Finally.
JD,
You are framing the problem in a different way now. By stipulating that the 960 W/m^2 is in reference to the “disk” area of the sphere and not the actual area it changes the result. What you should have said was something along the lines of “A sphere receiving 960 W/m^2 over 1/4 of its area will be in equilibrium if the sphere also emits 240 W/m^2 over all of its area”. But that’s not how you or DREMT originally framed the problem
But here’s the thing. The Earth isn’t a disk. The flux is “landing” on the entire area of the Earth as it rotates and orbits the Sun; not just 1/4 of it. And when you integrate the amount of energy received over one orbital cycle that works out to 240 W/m^2 received at the surface; not 960 W/m^2. Using 960 W/m^2 on an energy budget graphic is absolutely the incorrect value to use because 1) the Earth is not a disk and 2) you cannot multiple the figure by time to get a realistic figure for the energy received and 3) it’s not even the right figure to use in the first place.
Let me repeat…the graphic as it is presented in the Wild publication and adapted for IPCC AR5 is correct at least at a conceptual level. I will give you that the exact values in the graphic are certainly debatable, but not to the extent that you can argue that the 340 W/m^2 should have been 1360 W/m^2.
Can we agree that 340 W/m^2 and not 1360 W/m^2 is the average flux received at TOA over the course of one orbital cycle?
DREMT,
Do you agree that 340 W/m^2 and not 1360 W/m^2 is the average flux received over the course of one orbital cycle at TOA?
If yes, then we have always been on the same page.
If no, then you are likely making the same geometry mistake as JD.
“if the sphere is receiving 960 W/m^2 over only a quarter of the surface area”
How do you manage to get only one-half hemisphere (1m^2) of your 4m^2 area sphere illuminated by collimated rays from a source ~93mln miles away?
So yes, only works “in reference to a different or subset of the surface of the whole sphere” where a giant lens is focusing those collimated rays only on one-half a hemisphere.
JD misses this also, in addition to improperly using the albedo of a disk for a planetary albedo. Properly for earth planetary S=S0(1-planetary albedo)/4 ~ 240in=240out, at equlibrium
Energy in = energy out, at equilibrium
Energy per sec per m^2 in = Energy per sec per m^2 out, at equilibrium
As in the energy budget balance illustration linked above.
The point is, flux in and out doesn’t have to balance for an object to be at equilibrium, energy does. That’s all the sphere example illustrates as far as I’m concerned.
Everything else, people are (as usual) just putting words in my mouth, trying to make out like I’m claiming something I’m not.
I only interjected because it seemed people were missing a simple point (and they were). My work is done. You finally understood the sphere example. Great.
“The point is, flux in and out doesn’t have to balance for an object to be at equilibrium, energy does.”
Your object also balances both as it must. You have twice the intensity focused on 1/2 the area. And the albedo of a disk is unknown, you have to apply the 0.3 to the planet as that it where it is measured. Sure, the albedo arithmetic works but there is no fundamental backing for the albedo arithmetic with the 960.
bdgwx, quit trying to change the story.
Here is my statement: “A BB sphere absorbs 960 Watts/m^2, but emits 240 Watts/m^2.”
You are wrong. Fluffball is wrong. Norman is wrong.
Nothing new.
The pathetic fluffball doesn’t even know where the “960” comes from.
“JD misses this also, in addition to improperly using the albedo of a disk for a planetary albedo.”
1360 Watts/m^2, after adjustment for albedo is 960 Watts/m^2.
The poor clown is running out of fluff.
Sure, but that BB is not at equilibrium. 240in=240out is equilibrium. So is 960in=960out equilibrium, by that is meant steady state equilibrium.
1360 Watts/m^2, after adjustment for disc albedo is 960 Watts/m^2. JD has no fundamental backing for a disk having an albedo of 0.3 to do the adjustment, it’s just arithmetic using measured planetary albedo.
JD has so much physics to learn, it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
Other issue JD hasn’t worked out yet is that the TSI (average of 1360 W/m^2) isn’t even possible for many locations on Earth. In fact the only regions on Earth that could experience the TSI value are between 23.5S and 23.5N and it’s only a single spot at any given moment in time.
bdgwx, you’re not learning. You keep making the same mistakes over and over.
The 1360 is not the average for all locations on Earth. It is the average impacting the “disk”. After albedo, the 1360 becomes 960. Again, that is the average impacting the “disk”. If the Earth were a perfect BB sphere, it would have an equilibrium temperature of 255 K, and be emitting 240 W/m^2.
On real Earth, not every area receives the full 960, because the surface is spherical. The flux is neither equally absorbed, nor equally emitted. And, in areas where is is absorbed and emitted, the temperatures are non-linearly related. These are just some of the reasons why the simplistic and erroneous “energy balance” is pseudoscience.
I doubt if you will understand any of that. Because if you ever did, you would realize how stupid most of your comments have been.
“It is the average impacting the “disk”. After albedo, the 1360 becomes 960″
The disk albedo is unknown, JD mistakenly uses the planetary albedo simply because the arithmetic works out.
JD has so much physics to learn, it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
Roll on.
The 239 figure isn’t an assumption. It’s an actual measurement. And Ball4 is right. The measurements used for the graphic are primarily (though not exclusively) from the CERES project. You can find more information at the following links.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/
Sorry bdgwx, but you’re still not thinking for yourself. You see what you want to see, and disregard the rest. This is from your own source:
“The major sources of uncertainty in the CERES estimate are from instrument calibration (4.2 W m-2) and the assumed value for total solar irradiance (1 W m-2). After adjustment, the global mean CERES SW TOA flux is 99.5 W m-2, corresponding to an albedo of 0.293, and the global mean LW TOA flux is 239.6 W m-2. These values differ markedly from previously published adjusted global means based on the ERB Experiment in which the global mean SW TOA flux is 107 W m−2 and the LW TOA flux is 234 W m−2.”
There is no “actual measurement” for “thermal outgoing” that means anything. You would have to take 10,000 measurements, continually, for years. Everything at this point is “modeling”.
To ignore reality, you must also ignore all salient points:
* Fluxes can not be “balanced”.
* Surface is not TOA.
* Flux decrease with distance
* The “energy balance” has errors far greater than any reported “warming”.
(More to come, i.e., more reality to ignore.)
“You would have to take 10,000 measurements, continually, for years.”
Which has been done.
False. Fluff. Fantasy. Fluff.
But, funny….
“The “energy balance” has errors far greater than any reported “warming”.
No JD, you are incorrect. The satellite era/Argo results have reduced the uncertainty so that at 95% significance level now (early 2018) the global mean TOA net flux monthly anomaly trend is positive – in line with UAH TLT. Driven mostly by interannual variability in ENSO and changes in arctic sea ice coverage.
fluffball, all you have is your usual fluff. The “energy balance” is pure pseudoscience. It’s not even an “energy” balance! They’re trying to balance fluxes. That can’t be done with simple arithmetic, and no meaningful data.
You and your assemblage of clowns need to learn the relevant physics. Then, learn to embrace reality.
Right JD, any arithmetic calculation has to have theory/observations backing to be meaningful. In the satellite/Argo era, the energy budget observations are statistically meaningful – by early 2018.
JD has so much physics to learn, it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
Just continuing with your meaningless fluff only indicates you aren’t learning.
Nothing new.
See: no physics, nothing new – if the DREM Team had any proper physics & testing results to argue with then the desperate DREM Team would do so.
JD is the most desperate team member by popular opinion, JD is so amusing. Learn some physics JD, meanwhile it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
Inability to learn, clearly demonstrated.
Nothing new.
(And this clown is one of Norman’s heroes. Poor Norman.)
See: no physics, nothing new.
Roll on.
bdgwx
Are you figuring out what most posters already know? JDHuffman does not have even remote knowledge of real physics. He is one who gets all his information from some clown blogs like Climate of Sophistry
and comes here to peddle this phony physics.
He also lacks any understanding of geometry, logic or rational thought. He comes here only to provoke other posters and get troll reactions. His partner (who some believe is just him DREMT) jumps in to support his trolling. Neither of these posters has any interest in physics.
JDHuffman does not think fluxes balance or can be added. He makes up stuff as he goes. Also this phony poster will NEVER support even the most simple of his idiot declarations. Waste of time.
I like posting here but not with that idiot jumping in and wrecking all good debates with his childish trolling.
Norman Grinvalds, the hilarious clown from the ghetto of Yutan, Nebraska, jumps in with more of his constant whining.
Wah wah.
JDHuffman
Well g.e.r.a.n you finally messed up and revealed your other alter ego. You finally had to use g.e.r.a.n’s pet word “hilarious”.
You did not understand geometry, physics, concepts or how to read as g.e.r.a.n and as JDHuffman you are the same.
I guess Ball4 finds your troll tactics funny and amusing. You certainly have not learned even remote knowledge of heat transfer.
By the way, fluxes do add silly one. You have a 300 Watt/m^2 EMR flux hitting a one meter surface and a 700 Watt/m^2 EMR flux hitting the same surface, there are 1000 joules/second reaching that surface. The amount of energy that will be absorbed depends upon the surface. The energy does add just like water does if you have two hoses of water filling a tank. One is at 700 GPM and the other at 300 GPM your tank will fill the same as if it had one hose flowing at 1000 GPM. You not only need to learn physics and geometry. Trying to develop rational and logical thought process would seem to be a necessary step for you.
So far I have not seen one point you are remotely correct about. I have not seen any point that is logical, intelligent, thoughtful or based upon any actual science. You are about zero in all these departments.
You score well on making up stuff (like g.e.r.a.n’s cartoon you use) and making unfounded declarations that you have not yet supported.
Poor Norman, sticks his foot in his mouth, again: “So far I have not seen one point you are remotely correct about.?
960 Watts/m^2 in does NOT equal 240 Watt/m^2 out. Fluxes don’t “balance”.
960A Joules in equals 240(4A) Joules out. Energy “balances”.
Norman can’t learn physics because he has a juvenile obsession with personalities.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Against all better judgment, I will again attempt to reason with you.
YOU: “960 Watts/m^2 in does NOT equal 240 Watt/m^2 out. Fluxes don’t “balance””
There is nothing remotely logical about your statement. You are using some value 960 W/m^2 that exists nowhere and comparing it to an averaged energy flux for the entire atmosphere. Then you are using these unrelated terms to prove an incorrect conclusion that fluxes don’t balance.
Fluxes definitely balance if your surface is in a steady state condition.
If you want to take a global average for energy emitted by the TOA then you need to take the average energy that enters the TOA which is 960/4 = 240 W/m^2. If you average one you need to average both.
Fluxes ARE energy flows and have to balance in a steady state condition. The area of the Earth is not changing, it is a constant so it has a constant amount of square meters. Since the area is constant and the time is also constant you are left with a certain amount of joules entering and leaving. They have to balance in a steady state.
Norman, you’re still making the same mistake. To understand things, sometimes it helps to memorize them. So, memorize this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-347031
JDHuffman
I should listen to my better judgment. Even when someone clearly shows the errors of your bad thinking you are not able to see them and correct them.
Carry on with your phony made up physics. No one really cares anyway.
Norman incorrectly believes: “Fluxes ARE energy flows and have to balance in a steady state condition.”
960 Watts/m^2 incoming does NOT balance with 240 Watts/m^2 outgoing, at equilibrium.
Norman is WRONG, again.
Nothing new.
JD writes: “A BB sphere absorbing 960 W/m^2 and emitting 240 W/m^2 is in equilibrium.”
Then JD writes: “960 Watts/m^2 incoming does NOT balance with 240 Watts/m^2 outgoing, at equilibrium.”
So JD once again argues with JD not to leave anyone out – not even himself: balanced per JD then NOT balanced per JD. Like Gordon, JD just can’t keep his stories straight.
JD has so much physics to learn, it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
JD, it seems like you’re still confused. Get 960 W/m^2 out of your mind. It has little relevance to reality since the Earth isn’t a disk. The correct value for incoming surface flux averaged over a sufficiently long period of time is 240 W/m^2. Likewise the energy received in one year by the Sun at the surface is 240 W-years/m^2. And while I don’t think this is a trivial geometry problem (I doubt many adults could work through it) it’s not like its an insurmountable problem especially for someone who has taken the time to try and discuss these issues.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-347098
JDHuffman
You are not using the same values. I try to point this out. Why is this hard for you to understand?
The 960 W/m^2 you state is NOT any real flux that is hitting any really spherical surface. Do you realize that are you that ignorant.
The 240 watts emitted by the TOA is also not a real value but an averaged one. It is measured but it is also averaged. At the equator the emission is much greater than at the poles.
Ball4 is so right about you. You do have a lot to learn. I mean really a lot, your ignorance is a legend among people who dare take the time to read you posts.
bdgwx, it is you and fluffball that are confused. And, your confusion is not minor, it’s major.
You both confuse flux with energy. You get that because the bogus “energy balance” is trying to balance flux, not energy. Neither of you knows a twit about physics. Want just one example?
bdgwx; “Get 960 W/m^2 out of your mind. It has little relevance to reality since the Earth isn’t a disk.”
Poor physics-deprived bdgwx wants to throw out the 3/4 of the energy impacting Earth, just to make the incorrect cartoon “balance”. He has little regard for the reality that there would be no “240” without the 960.
They love their pseudoscience over reality. And, there is no sign they want it any other way.
Norman, you’re just rambling in circles, with your usual insults, misrepresentations, and false accusations.
Maybe if you just keep pounding on your keyboard….
JDHuffman
The one really stupid thing I do is try to reason with you.
Okay since you are immune to logic and reason I will present you with data, values from measured quantities. Not that it will matter to you. You are a science denier and scientific data has no meaning to you. Others can view it and see what it means. You are not able to do so.
Here is science.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1355/measuring-solar-insolation
There IS NO value of 960 W/m^2 reaching the Earth’s surface to be absorbed. There are many values at various regions. You can average them to get a real world value for a location.
If you need help in converting the units in this graph to Watt/m^2 you can use this tool.
https://barani.biz/apps/solar/
Now to see emission from the TOA from actual measured values.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/RemoteSensingAtmosphere/remote_sensing2.php
You can see that there is no 240 W/m^2 leaving the Earth system, there are various values. The 240 is what you get when you average all these values.
No one here can help you. You are too far gone in your made up Universe to help.
Norman, you’ve wandered way off topic.
Here’s the topic: “960 Watts/m^2 in does NOT equal 240 Watt/m^2 out. Fluxes don’t ‘balance’.”
And, I see you found some more links you can’t understand.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
YOU: “Here’s the topic: “960 Watts/m^2 in does NOT equal 240 Watt/m^2 out. Fluxes don’t ‘balance’.”
The first part is correct. If you have 960 Watts/m^2 in, it does not equal 240 out. But your conclusion is illogical. That does not prove that fluxes don’t balance. It means if you have 960 Watts/m^2 going in and 240 W/m^2 going out, the surface will heat up until it is emitting 960 W/m^2 and then the fluxes balance.
Not even sure what point you are making here. It sounds really stupid and pointless like 99% of your posts.
Asking you to explain this is worthless. You never will and are not able to. Your line here is only to divert from your own ignorance. You can’t understand the links at all, they make no sense to you so you pretend, like the phony you are, to understand them and use a pointless defense against your inability to comprehend with this: “And, I see you found some more links you can’t understand.”
So exactly what don’t I understand about the links? I think I will wait a very long long time for any answer to that question. You don’t have an answer, more phony lines maybe?
“It means if you have 960 Watts/m^2 going in and 240 W/m^2 going out, the surface will heat up until it is emitting 960 W/m^2 and then the fluxes balance.”
Good grief. How is it that you people still don’t get it? Some of you even indicate that you do, but then go back on it! What was difficult to understand in this comment?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-347098
Wrong again, Norman.
If a BB sphere is only absorbing 960 Watts/m^2, then it will never be able to emit 960 W/m^2. To emit 960 W/m^2, it would have to be absorbing 960(4A) Joules/sec, or 3840 Watts/m^2.
You’re unable to learn because your mind is closed.
JDHuffman
People have tried many times to explain it to you. You lack any logic or rational thought process and you do not understand geometry at all.
A sphere IS NOT receiving 960 Watts/m^2 over its area. You have been told this. It receives 960 W/m^2 only over a small area for a short time. That is why I gave you a link of actual measured values of surface radiation. In one day, around the equator, a given meter can receive over 300 watts/m^2 but northern regions receive much less.
Once again you are totally wrong (typical for you). My mind is very open. The difference is you are not logical or thinking. You have a stupid idea in your head and you can’t see it is wrong on so many levels then you accuse people of not having open minds because they are smart enough to see how bad your points are.
Look at the links again and attempt to understand them.
Norman, you appear braindead.
The sphere is not receiving the 960 over its entire area. The “disk” is receiving the 960 over its entire area.
But, the 960 is just an average. There are places on Earth that have have been measured well over 1000 W/m^2. 1100 W/m^2 is not uncommon, with very clear skies.
And your links don’t prove me wrong, they mostly are irrelevant or prove you wrong. You can’t understand your own links, because you don’t have the background necessary. You can’t even understand “960 does not equal 240”.
Nothing new.
“If a BB sphere is only absorbing 960 Watts/m^2, then it will never be able to emit 960 W/m^2.”
This is a great cartoon caption. JD should put it at the bottom of all JD’s cartoons.
The Earth is a near BB sphere only absorbing 240 Watts/m^2, and Earth is quite able to emit 240 W/m^2 in near steady state equilibrium as observed & thereby debunking JD.
Fluffball continues to confuse his fluff with physics.
The energy absorbed in one second is 960A Joules. The energy emitted in one second is 960A Joules. Energy in/out balances.
The flux absorbed is 960 W/m^2. The flux emitted is 240 W/m^2. Flux in/out does not balance.
The fluff continues, along with the comedy.
The flux absorbed is 960 W/m^2. The flux emitted is 240 W/m^2. Flux in/out does not balance when the object is not in equlibrium steady state.
JD has so much physics to learn, it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
An object can be at equilibrium with a different incoming and outgoing flux, so long as energy in = energy out.
No.
Oui.
Yes. I’m starting to learn the lay of the land around here. There are some bumpy patches along the way for sure.
One such bump is your attempt to misrepresent a “sphere” as an “object”, so you could pervert the physics I was explaining.
Just one example:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346986
Things do get bumpy when you try to pervert reality, huh?
Well, if you have any questions, just walk across the office and you can ask Tim, bobdroege, Nate, Ball4, Norman and the rest of “the Team”. In fact you could probably just turn around and raise your voice.
bdg…”The 239 figure isnt an assumption. Its an actual measurement”.
Your first link quoted Trenberth who foisted the pseudo-science of an energy budget on us as well as the myth that the oceans are storing the ‘missing’ heat.
That nonsense came shortly after he was caught in the Climategate email scandal lamenting the fact the warming has stopped, a situation he claimed a travesty because no one knew why.
I am afraid no one has any idea what is actually happening in the atmosphere.
No one except the tens of thousands sounding rockets & weather balloons. But especially Gordon since Gordon shows no signs of having studied and accomplished anything in the field of meteorology.
Rockets and balloons measure things like wind speed, pressure, temperature, and relative humidity. Very few, if any, measure radiative flux.
Ground based radiometers also provide data on what is actually happening in the atm. (more continously) in addition to balloon soundings:
https://technology.grc.nasa.gov/featurestory/radiometrics
Radiometers are also carried on balloons:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5004051/
Good for you to learn about these things JD. And Gordon.
fluffball, maybe it will help if I repeat:
“Rockets and balloons measure things like wind speed, pressure, temperature, and relative humidity. Very few, if any, measure radiative flux.”
And don’t try to claim solar flux is what I am talking about. Misrepresentating my words just makes you a clown.
Oh….
Now JD claims solar flux is not radiative flux. JD had an opportunity to learn but, sadly, messes up.
Fun to watch JD’s confusion though. JD has so much physics to learn, it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
Did I predict it, or what?
Clowns are so predictable.
ball3…soon to be ball2…”No one except the tens of thousands sounding rockets & weather balloons”.
Trenberth made the statement about the worming having stopped around 2007, about in the middle of the IPCC admitted range of no warming from 1998 – 2012.
All the rocket??? sounders…do you mean AMSU sounding units??…and the weather balloons agreed there was no warming in that era. Even the fudgers at NOAA and GISS admitted to a flat trend before NOAA retroactively fudged the SST to get a trend. Of course GISS, being the faithful puppy dogs they are, followed NOAA to a tee.
Which warming did Trenberth mean, the atm. as measured by satellite and thermometer OR the ocean?
B4,
You wrote –
“Which warming did Trenberth mean, the atm. as measured by satellite and thermometer OR the ocean?”
Are you too lazy, or too incompetent to look it up? Why would choose to believe GR? Don’t you know the motto of the Royal Society – Nullius in verba?
Some people are so gullible they would believe the GHE is real! Or that CO2 makes thermometers hotter!
What a crock – there must be at least one born every minute – a pseudoscientific cultist, that is.
Cheers.
Mike – Obviously you are too lazy, or too incompetent to look it up and let us know if GR got it right or not. And then to let us know if whatever Trenberth actually wrote is still true today.
Perhaps carboard really is a gas, I didn’t actually look that up. So who knows?
Roll on.
The 0.6 W/m^2 isn’t an assumption either. It is an actual measurement. It is derived from the oceanic heat uptake over the last few decades of about +10e21 j/yr which is equivalent to about 0.6 W/m^2.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-019-8276-x
Right, the 0.6 is the imbalance not what JD writes: “The IPCC wants to convince you that the atmosphere is trapping heat. (That’s the 0.6 Watts/m^2 shown bottom left in the graphic.)”
The 239 mean thermal energy leaving TOA vs. the 398 mean thermal energy leaving surface is the result of the IR active (semi-opaque) atm.
Fun to watch JD’s confusion though. JD has so much physics to learn, it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
The margin of error on the 0.6 W/m^2 is about 2 Watts/m^2, conservatively.
Again, no JD, you are incorrect, Argo uptake of energy: 0.61 W/m^2 +/- 0.09W/m^2
Fun to watch JD’s confusion though. JD has so much physics to learn, it’s fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
“uptake of energy”!
Fluffball always comes up with the funniest fluff.
Says JDFluffman.
Svante, does your cult teach you that you get to heaven by hiding in the shadows and trying to knife people in the back?
Nate, in his usual pointless fashion, fabricated some nonsense, and claimed I wrote it.
He wrote –
“Mike, Please do share with us the basic arithmetic’ that requires the Earth to continue cooling, and not warm.”
Of course, I will not provide the desired response to such a stupid and ignorant troll. If he was intelligent enough to ask for clarification of something I wrote, rather than something I didn’t, I would obviously provide clarification.
But he didn’t, so I won’t. If he is so stupid that he cannot accept that the Earth’s surface is no longer molten, then he is a good candidate for joining the GHE cult. I wish him well – I don’t gain any satisfaction from unnecessarily taunting those less capable than myself.
I leave climatological predictions to those fools who believe they can divine the future by intense scrutiny of the past.
Cheers.
By the way, introducing MikeR, everybody!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345588
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346125
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346289
Have a read through from each of those comments onwards…
I am very, very pleased that Gastro is going to act as my publicist and I also encourage the reader to follow the links and read our exchanges.
I have been described in the past as having a wry sense of humour but others who have been the brunt of my humour describe it as weird or even perverse. Humour is such a subjective thing so it can be a matter of taste.
I also leave it to the reader to decide who in these exchanges appears to be the humorless twat repeating tediously the same thing over and over.
So again please read. The middle link is a bit of a satire and I may have another one in the works based on the death of Stalin.
Creepy pervert Mike “Sqeeerm baby Sqeeerm” R, you striked me as the sort of person who was very pleased with himself. Your response confirms that.
You waste your time responding to someone who is just saying the same thing to you over and over again. You try to bait and goad me into saying anything different. All your tricks and manipulative abusive nonsense is revealed.
You look ridiculous. And you’re proud of it.
You admit that you post repetively saying the same thing over and over. These posts imply everyone else is a troll. Your lack of awareness of the self referential nature of these posts is remarkable.
If you cease and desist these repetitive objectionable and boring posts I will be very happy to stop skewering you. I have offered you this deal to you in the past but you have refused the offer. Maybe you need to reconsider.
“If you cease and desist these repetitive objectionable and boring posts I will be very happy to stop skewering you”
What’s objectionable about them? You’re trolling, I ask you to stop.
You don’t think you’re trolling? Ignore it.
MikeR, I think you might just be the single most upset person, by the most trivial thing, I’ve ever known. A few people have grumbled about it in the past but most can look past it and get on with their lives.
And you actually think you’re offering me some kind of “deal”!
“Skewer” away. If it brings you pleasure being as creatively unpleasant as possible, knock yourself out. I know I enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself.
Gastro, If you don’t understand why your repetitive posts suggesting others to stop trolling, is in itself an objectionable form of trolling, then so be it.
I gather from latest comments that you seem to be rather upset by my reactive responses but despite this you are not showing any willingness to compromise.
Accordingly in the absence of a detente, I will attempt to keep skewering you within my normal constraints such as time, state of my psyche etc..
Look our exchanges are a bit of a cat and mouse game and usually it doesn’t end well for the mouse. In the meantime I get some perverse pleasure playing and you are such good sport.
Hopefully when this sequence of comments concludes at the end of the month then you might have a bit of down time. You should take the opportunity and consider how others might perceive you.
In the meantime I again offer you a deal.
MikeR, how about this deal?
You get a life, quit being so full of yourself, learn some physics, and face reality.
Or, just remain another braindead troll.
Gastro,I see your other persona has come up for air. Has your other multiple personality absconded?
With regards to learning some physics, one Ph.D. per lifetime in that field is more than enough for me.
I am not suggesting you need to endure the similar rigours of an advanced degree. Just simply reading up on blackbody radiation and optical coherence would be an excellent start.
Along with this knowledge,you might lose some of your unwarranted confidence in your own abilities. Realizing that you have been responsible for a series of howlers would be sobering.
Don’t forget that Google is your friend but stay away from Google scholar, therein lies danger.
MR,
Do you have a copy of a useful GHE description? How about a testable GHE hypothesis? No?
Are you really, really, stupid and ignorant, or just a witless troll?
Cheers.
Mike, thank-you for your enlightening questions. My answers to your first two questions are personally no and no.
For the third I can state categorically that I am not really, really stupid and ignorant, just bog standard stupid and ignorant. There are others here who dwarf my meagre stupidity . I can’t possibly compete with them unless I have a full frontal lobotomy.
As for being a troll, I am not aware of any Norweigan blood in my ancestory. Maybe I could be a leprechaun. I might need to check my DNA on the Ancestory web site.
Mike, do you have any Scandivian ancestory by any chance?
MikeR, quick reality check for you. You’ve not added a single point to any of the discussions here that hadn’t already been raised by someone else. The rest has just been you trolling.
So, your comments are:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345701
Again many thanks for posting the link above.
In the unlikely event that anyone is actually following these exchanges,other then myself and the many faces of Gastro, they can surely make up their own minds as to the merits of your Gastronomical opinion.
In the meantime, how are you all going with reading up on blackbody radiation and the necessary coherence conditions for standing waves?
I do hope you can take some time off from your prolific posting (850 and still counting) and do some reading. It can broaden the mind.
BobdesbonddesMikeR, what have I posted 850 of?
Gasterisk. 850 is just the output of your multiple personalities.
What multiple personalities, bobdesbonddesMikeR?
What day are we on…Day 17…sheesh. They still can’t let it go.
Im impressed. Day 18, and nobody has felt the need to respond. They must have finally come to terms with the fact that the Green Plate Effect is debunked. Took them long enough.
Upthread we are discussing what “global warming” is.
I am thinking a few:
Global warming is when tropics warms up.
Global warming is when more heat is generated in tropics which then warms the rest of world more.
Global warming is “somehow” outside of the tropics it increases in temperature.
Or all three, or 2 of three.
Of course there other option like everything flies out of control and Earth become similar to Venus. Or sea monster are involved or whatever.
mike r…who’s missing??? Alarmists, that is?
Binny, David A, Crackar, bobdes, bobd, snape, myki, entropic???
Who is Mike R? Which one is he?
I have excluded Tim, swannie, and Barry, they don’t seem the type to show up with different nyms.
Same basic personality type as bobdesbond…just goes on a lot more. Haven’t heard from BDB for a while, could be the same person behind it.
I am actually Dr Jekyll who has just dropped in after a long absence. I see Mr Hyde and his evil twin have dominated in my absence. I am trying to control these two but to no avail.
dr no…”I am actually Dr Jekyll who has just dropped in after a long absence. I see Mr Hyde and his evil twin have dominated in my absence. I am trying to control these two but to no avail”.
Ah, yes, Dr. No, the Aussie troll.
Gordon,
I am actually Dr Maybe. I normally like to see the evidence before I say yay or nay.
If you are after a troll I am a bit busy at the moment. However I can refer you on to others who specialise in providing this service.
If you require a troll from down under then you might look at Mad Mike but my recommendation, particularly if you after prolific repetive trolling, are the two puppet trolls. They are always available and can provide around the clock service in the case of an emergency. I highly recommend the one who claims to lead an Emergency Team of Manic Trolls but you can get the identical service from the other.
You can’t control a force of nature. Truth just eventually wins out.
My god, they are running amok again.
Shhhhhhhhhh.
b wrote –
“Note that the lower troposphere change is +0.13C/decade while the stratosphere change -0.23C/decade. This is consistent with the GHE hypothesis which states that many polyatomic molecules will block IR radiation and either convert it into thermal energy directly or redirect it back toward the surface. This causes the warming below and cooling above.”
More pseudoscientific blather, of course. Without describing the GHE, it is impossible to devise a testable GHE hypothesis. Saying something is “consistent” with something that doesn’t exist, is the mark of the fool or the fraud.
In any case, your “evidence” is completely stupid and irrelevant – demonstrating a complete ignorance of even basic physics. For example, cardboard is comprised of molecules and blocks IR radiation. If you place it between the Sun and the surface, the surface cools down. This obvious fact escapes the climate cultists.
b is both stupid and ignorant – obviously. Maybe he can dive into Wiki and unearth more misleading or flat out incorrect information. Who knows? I wait with bated breath!
Cheers.
Cardboard is not a gas Mike, perhaps you missed that fact. Who knows?
B4,
I’d be inclined to ask you where the description of the GHE doesn’t include solids such as cardboard, or liquids such as water, but you can’t describe the GHE, so the question is irrelevant.
CO2 has no more ability to provide heat than cardboard. No GHE. Night is cooler than day, winter is cooler than summer, and the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years.
No GHE description, no testable GHE hypothesis, no science.
Just a ragtag mob of pseudoscientific fumbling bumblers, making stuff up as they lurch erratically from silliness to silliness.
Carry on with charade.
Cheers.
ball3…”Cardboard is not a gas Mike, perhaps you missed that fact. Who knows?”
Yes, cardboard blocks IR because it has atoms tightly bound together. Gases don’t and they allow it to pass freely.
AGW proponents claim that 0.04% of CO2 mixed in a gas that is comprised of 99% nitrogen and oxygen can block IR, which is wishful thinking at best. The bigger laugh is that the same amount of CO2 in a cooler part of the atmosphere can back-radiate IR to raise the surface temperature or that it can form a blanket to trap heat.
Even in the band of frequencies in which CO2 can absorb IR, it only absorbs 5% of surface IR. I don’t believe that figure either but I’ll humour the AGW types and go with it.
Also cardboard isn’t a great analog because it also blocks shortwave radiation. One defining characteristic of a GHG is that they are mostly transparent to shortwave photons but opaque to longwave photons.
b,
It’s pretty telling that solar radiation reaching the ground is more than 50% longer than visible wavelengths. That is, infrared. This is your cue to tell me all about the properties of the non-existent GHE. Off you go, now.
Maybe you could define a GHG in such a way that accounts for the surface cooling at night or as winter approaches. You might as well throw in a GHG reason for the Earth’s surface cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so.
Oh dear, how does your sciencey sounding pseudoscientific nonsense cope with fact?
Maybe you need to read up on Mike’s Nature trick, or Trenberth’s missing heat. Deny, divert, confuse – that might help, do you think?
How’s that testable GHE hypothesis going? How hard can it be?
Cheers.
b,
Ah, well. Maybe you prefer something like glass. Seems to be pretty transparent to visible light, but pretty opaque to some IR wavelengths.
Maybe you could build an imaginary little glass house. You could claim that the glass would admit shortwave radiation, but trap longwave photons. You could call it the Greenhouse Effect (being based on a greenhouse, you see).
You could say even NASA supports you, because on the NASA website it says –
“A greenhouse stays warm inside, even during the winter. In the daytime, sunlight shines into the greenhouse and warms the plants and air inside. At nighttime, it’s colder outside, but the greenhouse stays pretty warm inside. That’s because the glass walls of the greenhouse trap the Sun’s heat.
Just more pseudoscientific nonsense. Nope. No GHE. CO2 heats nothing. Fill a room or an enclosed space with CO2, and the temperature doesnt change. Use your vast pseudoscientific jargon to explain why, if you wish.
Cheers.
Mike …”Thats because the glass walls of the greenhouse trap the Suns heat”.
That is one of the most stupid statements I have ever heard from NASA.
The glass walls and roof trap molecules of air trapped by the glass. There is no heat directly transferred from the Sun. The heat created when short wave solar EM is converted to heat, creating highly energetic molecules, composed 99% of nitrogen and oxygen, is the energy of those highly energetic molecules.
If you read further into the NASA pseudo-science, they will begin blathering about the greenhouse glass trapping IR. That’s where they got the ridiculous notion that CO2 acts like a blanket to trap heat.
In other words, they are claiming that the IR absorbed by 0.04% of the air in the greenhouse causes the warming as the IR somehow bounces around inside the glass as it is absorbed and emitted by CO2.
MF/GR,
How do you think weather satellites track water vapor in the atmosphere?
How do you think the new GOES-R ABI “CO2” channel operates? What is it measuring? How is it related to CO2?
bdgwx, are red-herring questions your only “evidence” of AGW/GHE?
Pretty fishy, huh?
The question is open to you as well. If you think all of this is just pseudoscience then surely you have an explanation for how satellite based radiometers are working. You should also have an explanation for how scientists and engineers working with laws of physics that you consider pseudoscience were able to get any of this working if they’re designs were based on fishy physics. My challenge is for you is to lay your cards on the table. This is your opportunity to educate us on how this was accomplished.
bdgwx, the more you reveal your ignorance, the funnier it gets.
A properly engineering system is based on science. Hokey, made-up, numbers, and perverted physics is pseudoscience.
There is NO evidence you know the difference, based on your comments above.
JD, and which science would that be? How does an infrared radiometer detect water vapor for example?
bdgwx, obviously you don’t understand what a dumb question that is. You probably can’t fathom the connection between “infrared” and “water vapor”. No surprise.
Let’s get you back on track trying to support your bogus “energy balance”.
Please provide a link that indicates Earth’s outgoing electromagnetic spectrum at TOA. You must have one readily available.
That would be most entertaining.
bdg…”How do you think weather satellites track water vapor in the atmosphere?
How do you think the new GOES-R ABI CO2 channel operates? ”
The latter is an interesting question since the spectrum of WV overlies the spectrum of CO2. Much of the CO2 spectrum is garnered from climate models and other guesses.
bdg…”One defining characteristic of a GHG is that they are mostly transparent to shortwave photons but opaque to longwave photons”.
Please explain how a GHG like CO2, making up 0.04% of the atmosphere can block anything. If you had 0.04% of a real blanket, you’d have a few threads.
Gordon Robertson
The 0.04% has already been explained to you many times. You are comparing the amount of IR active CO2 to inactive gases like N2 and O2. There is plenty of CO2 in a 3D column to absorb all the IR emitted from the surface in the bands that CO2 absorbs. Your unwillingness to learn real science is a sad state. Your continuation of peddling things that have been explained to you is really getting old.
There are actual spectrum measurements of outgoing Long Wave IR that clearly show that all surface IR in the 15 micron band is absorbed by this 0.04% CO2. You are gabbing on crumbling ground. No science to back up your opinions. Of course nothing will ever change you. You are ingrained in your blind beliefs.
Norman believes, and states: “There are actual spectrum measurements of outgoing Long Wave IR that clearly show that all surface IR in the 15 micron band is absorbed by this 0.04% CO2.”
False, Norman. A sampling is not representative of the entire Earth. And a computer model isn’t any better. Think about what you are saying. If you understood the relevant physics, you would know that CO2 both absorbs and emits.
But, you don’t understand the relevant physics. “You are gabbing on crumbling ground. No science to back up your opinions. Of course nothing will ever change you. You are ingrained in your blind beliefs.”
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Boy are you on the wrong page with your post. I doubt you even know what the point I am making is but you jump in and show how ignorant you are. You can’t even follow an argument. Will you make up more nonsense to cover you yourself?
I do understand all the correct physics. You are the one peddling fantasy physics with zero support. So you have me who has read actual textbook physics on heat transfer and we have you that got all their knowledge from skeptic blogs.
The satellites cover the whole Earth, they take samples of the IR but they are moving around the entire globe. Not sure where you get your nonsense from and I don’t know who cares. It is wrong and phony and you are clueless of any actual physics.
Make up some more, it is all you have. Nothing new.
JDHUffman
YOU: “If you understood the relevant physics, you would know that CO2 both absorbs and emits.”
Did your buddy Bozo tell you to post that? When did I state CO2 does NOT absorb and emit? The IR in the 15 micron band is from cold CO2 emitting IR in that band. If the CO2 did not absorb the 15 micron band the IR would be the same as emitted from the ground, the surface. Boy do you have to put out effort to be so stupid or does it come naturally to you?
Dumb as a box of rocks.
Pretend you know actual physics. You don’t but you pretend you do.
JD, are you acknowledging that CO2 absorbs and emits radiation?
Norman, your wandering, rambling opinions don’t have enough substance to warrant a response. You’re welcome to try again.
bdgwx, are you acknowledging that you can read my comments but have difficulty with your comprehension?
Here we go again,
JD goes off spouting about stuff he neither knows nor understands.
“False, Norman. A sampling is not representative of the entire Earth. And a computer model isn’t any better. Think about what you are saying. If you understood the relevant physics, you would know that CO2 both absorbs and emits.”
You know nothing JD
boob, I see you got out of drug rehab. Good. You’re just in time to go down with the sinking ship.
Your task, should you decide to help your fellow clowns, is to provide a link to a credible representation of Earth’s electromagnetic spectrum at TOA. (They seem to be having a hard time.)
You should enjoy that task, since it’s so close to April Fools’ Day….
JD,
You are not such a bright guy, so why don’t you find a link yourself. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Your task list does not include assigning homework to guys who can properly quote the second law of thermodynamics.
A little quid pro quo would go a long way, eh Clarisse?
I note you said credible, which means one you would believe, which would be one that doesn’t show a greenhouse effect, which doesn’t exist.
bob jumps in to sling his slime, and then retreats just as quickly.
Nothing new.
Whattsamatter JD,
Can’t find the MODTRAN site on the web?
Engage brain, then type
norman…”The 0.04% has already been explained to you many times. You are comparing the amount of IR active CO2 to inactive gases like N2 and O2. There is plenty of CO2 in a 3D column to absorb all the IR emitted from the surface in the bands that CO2 absorbs”
Rubbish!!! Prove it.
We did a calculation based on a graphic you provided and the amount CO2 absorbed at it’s peak was about 5% of surface radiation. I don’t believe the graphic since it is a projection only. I think CO2 would absorb about 0.04% of surface radiation on a good day.
The amount absorbed is measured in milliwatts.
bd wrote –
“JD, are you acknowledging that CO2 absorbs and emits radiation?”
What a zinger! CO2 absorbs and emits radiation!
So does everything else in the known universe – including bananas (which are also radioactive).
Obviously, bd is a potential pseudoscientific climatology cultist. He has mastered the art of the completely irrelevant and pointless comment.
Wow! What next? Maybe acknowledging that sometimes water is wet? The mind boggles!
Cheers.
Still no GHE explanation. Still no testable GHE hypothesis. No AGW theory. Not much of anything, really – just the usual pathetic attempts to deny, divert, and confuse.
A large blob of molten stuff hanging in space continues to cool. People on the surface burn lots of stuff to keep comfortable while they live. They also find other interesting ways of making lots of heat that eventually flees to space – nuclear fission, extracting energy from the movement of water and air, conversion of high energy photons from the Sun into electricity and hot water.
Jumping up and down, rubbing hands together – all these things create heat. Just being alive creates heat. There are urban heat islands, there are geographical heat islands, even continental heat islands. The seas are plied by at least 50,000 merchant ships, and an unknown number of naval vessels, both on and below the surface. All generating waste heat. Heat that makes things hotter than they otherwise would be.
It is a great pity that none of this heat results in any any increase in the temperatures of thermometers around the world, seeing that this anthropogenic heat production continues unabated both night and day – unlike the heat from the Sun. Obviously a rich field for research – why is anthropogenic heat production undetectable? It is most definitely a travesty!
This might well be Trenberths missing heat, as it apparently cannot be measured using a thermometric instrument. Oh well, that’s life.
Cheers.
“the Team” needed a new avatar to be a “serious” defender of the GHE. A slick, professional sophist who would comment prolifically on “the science” and not focus too much on personalities, like some of the others. Up popped bdgwx.
“the Team” needed a professional insult-monger, to lay on reams of ridicule on anyone who dared to question the narrative. Up popped MikeR.
“the Team”: they know what they’re doing (TM).
Gastro,I am a mere amateur at this game. I am truly in awe of your abilities in this regard. You should have obtained professional status by now with your prolifically offensive output of over the past year or so.
Only someone whose job description includes posting such copious amounts of material could have time for this nonsense. As for me I still have a day job.
Addityionally if you want to avoid ridicule then maybe you should consider modifying your behaviour. It is clear you can dispense it but you have a glass jaw that is shattered if someone takes you on at your own game.
By the way, what is this bdgwx you speak of? Sounds like consonants in search of a vowel.
Yes, you’re right, you’re pretty rubbish really. Forget I said you were a professional.
bdgwx is a new commenter who has already written dozens of comments here, and especially at the newer article. You probably haven’t noticed because you don’t really seem capable of following what is going on around you. You could try obsessing about them instead and tell me how many comments they have already written here, and under Dr Roy’s newest article. It must be a lot.
MR,
You are going to have to put in a lot more work to reach the rank of amateur in the pseudoscientific climatological Game Of Fools.
You will need to master the pointless and irrelevant art of asking people if they admit that bananas absorb and emit radiation, or whether turning up the heat makes things hotter.
Babbling about forcings and feedbacks, quantum mechanics, wavenumbers, molecular vibration modes, TOA, DWLWR, UPLWR, back radiation, front radiation, twirly whirly sideways radiation, greenhouses, consensus, CAGW, AGW, weird weather and all the rest, is a good entry into the rich world of pseudoscientific nonsense.
If you want to avoid the work involved in such pointless games, you might find or write a useful description of the GHE, and then formulate a testable GHE hypothesis. How hard can it be?
Let me know if you want any help. Ill let you know the answer in advance – “You must be joking!” Stupidity and ignorance needs no help. It does fine without any outside assistance.
Cheers.
Mike,
I am glad you have no preconceived ideas about forcings and feedbacks, quantum mechanics, wavenumbers, molecular vibration modes, TOA, DWLWR, UPLWR, back radiation, front radiation, twirly whirly sideways radiation, greenhouses, consensus, CAGW, AGW and weird weather.
Mike, you seem to be in desperate need of an argument. Do you want the 5 minute argument or the full course of 10? Actually according to the above I would go for the 1 femtosecond argument. It will save time.
MR,
Maybe you could address what I wrote, rather than what I didn’t. One easy way of doing this is to cut and paste what I wrote. This will save you the time and effort involved in fabricating and making stuff up. This might appear foreign to you, but rational people do it all the time.
Why do you leap to the conclusion that I am in desperate need of an argument? Are you suffering from delusional psychosis like Michael Mann appears to be?
I would gladly challenge you to a battle of wits (for fun, of course), but I have been taught from an early age that it is bad form to duel with an unarmed opponent. This, of course, gives you the opportunity to play with yourself, if you so desire. In the meantime, still no GHE. CO2 heats nothing, and the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years or so.
You seem to be a bit slow on the uptake, even for a humble physicist. Are you a follower of Raymond Pierrehumbert? He is a physicist and self proclaimed climate scientist to boot. Or perhaps Michael Mann? He is a physicist (didn’t quite manage to get a physics doctorate, but no matter). Both exhibit strange claims to be climatologists. They both seem to be somewhat confused about the relationships between heat, temperature, and energy. Are you confused also? Do you you believe that megawatts of energy delivered from a source emitting 300 W/m2 can be used to heat even a drop of water? How about trillions of watts?
Maybe you are even stupid and ignorant enough to believe that reducing the amount of energy reaching a thermometer increase its temperature. For example, by increasing he amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer.
Cheers.
Spoken like a true professional troll. I cannot meet your demanding standards unfortunately as I am unable to devote that much time reading the two thousand comments but thanks for pointing out the comments of bdgwx. They all seem to be well thought out and eminently reasonable. I just hope he has the stamina to pursue you down your rabbit holes.
I gave up trying to deal with your highly creative ideas about physics a year ago, with only the occasional relapse.
I wish bdgwx luck and God’s speed.
Not sure what you’re blathering on about. Was just interested in bdgwx’s figures, as he’s one of the new trolls here.
Gastro, Easy to find. If you are using Chrome just click on the vertical dots on the top right corner , scroll down to the Find menu item and then enter “bdgwx says”. Currently 79 comments. Your twin persona are running now at about 900 combined. Not even close.
128, including the comments also made at the newer article, there are no “twin persona”, I wasn’t trying to suggest they comment more than me, and I’m aware I comment a lot.
It’s a lot for someone who has just suddenly appeared out of nowhere, is all.
Are there more? Surely not.
Shhhhhhhh.
bd wrote –
“The question is open to you as well.” Oooooh! How lucky I am! bd will graciously allow me to answer a “question”!
If stupidity and ignorance was an(?) Olympic event, then no doubt bd would win gold. If he failed (unlikely), he could embark on a career as a stand up comedian. I’m laughing already, and I haven’t even paid!
Oh, the faux humility! Oh, the lame attempts at trolling!
The PC climate cultists need to take a teaspoon of cement, and harden up. Then they won’t have to endlessly whine about real scientists dismissing their “consensus” nonsense. No GHE. No CO2 heating. The Earth has cooled for four and half billion years. Tough.
Cheers.
I asked MikeR –
“Do you have a copy of a useful GHE description? How about a testable GHE hypothesis? No?
Are you really, really, stupid and ignorant, or just a witless troll?”
MikeR responded (in part) –
“Mike, thank-you for your enlightening questions. My answers to your first two questions are personally no and no.
For the third I can state categorically that I am not really, really stupid and ignorant, just bog standard stupid and ignorant. There are others here who dwarf my meagre stupidity . I cant possibly compete with them unless I have a full frontal lobotomy.”
Ah. No useful GHE description. No testable GHE hypothesis. He hasn’t specifically said he can’t obtain either, but of course it is impossible to get a copy of something that doesn’t exist.
Another unsupported assertion that he is not really, really, stupid and ignorant. Appealing to his own authority, just like other really, really, stupid and ignorant pseudoscientific dimwits. I’m sure Gavin Schmidt believes he is a climate scientist, and Michael Mann claimed to be a Nobel Laureate.
MikeR may be underestimating his stupidity and ignorance – I leave it to others to make their own assessment of a person who personally doesn’t posses either a useful GHE description, or a testable GHE hypothesis. Maybe he might claim he could always find a copy, if he could be bothered.
Personally, I’d rather have a full bottle in front of me, than a full frontal lobotomy. Tish boom!
Cheers.
Mike F,
I make no claims as to being a climatologist. I am just a humble physicist. In areas that are outside my area of expertise I try to restrain myself from comment, sometimes unsuccessfully, but at least I try.
I haven’t been able to ascertain what expertise you have but if I were you I would you try a more modest approach. People then might not get the wrong idea about your competence compared to your overinflated self regard.
Having a bottle of wine in front of you might not be a good idea as alcohol consumption not only leads to misjudgements but is a predictor of early onset dementia. Probably safer to go for the lobotomy.
MR,
You are not me of course, so what you would do, if you were me, is quite irrelevant. You may continue to exercise all the false modesty you wish, if you think it will help people ignore the nonsense you spout.
I am surprised you would think that I give a toss what ideas people get (or don’t get), about my self regard. Feel free to think any nonsensical thing you like. I dont mind.
As usual, you have not managed to find any disagreement with anything I wrote, which can be substantiated by fact. Good for you!
As a humble physicist, I see you are unable to restrain yourself from commenting on areas outside your area of expertise. You state that “alcohol consumption . . . is a predictor of early onset dementia.” If this particularly ignorant and stupid statement emanated from your study of physics I apologise, and suggest you ask for a refund of your tuition fees.
If not, you either purposely left out a few key words (making you a fraud), or left them out due to incompetence (making you a fool)
All very diverting, but it still has not led to the existence of a GHE. CO2 still heats nothing, and night is still usually cooler than day. You remain ignorant and stupid, and I see why use use a pseudonym. Your employer might not be well pleased by you demonstrating your lack of knowledge of physics. Even if your employer happens to be NASA, I suppose. Maybe you are a physicist in the same sense that Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist?
Carry on.
Cheers.
Mike,
As you are a Territorian I would have thought you would have been aware of the dangers of alcohol see https://www.dementia.org.au/about-dementia/types-of-dementia/alcohol-related-dementia .
I think you need to get out a bit more.
However if you want to continue in your current vein then rather than trying to get across your message regarding the validity of the GHE at this forum why don’t you publish your thoughts in a journal? You would no longer need to exchange comments with people, unlike yourself, that have very little climatalogical expertise.
Most importantly your message would be more widely disseminated particularly if you have irrefutable evidence as to the non-existence of the GHE.
You will have saved the world from its folly. Saved trillions of dollars of unnecessary expenditure. The agencies and university departments that employ the fraudsters such as Schmidt and Mann and their ilk can be abolished. No need to worry about green energy, flood mitigation and all that other nonsense. The Chinese, Indians and other inhabitants of Asia can dispense with their masks and breathe easier. They will have no need to buy smokes as it will continue to be free for all.
So many global benefitsif you can do the work required, not to mention the fame and fortune showered upon you personally.
The Nobel committee can withdraw their past award to the IPCC and give it you instead and the prestigious Nobel in Physics would also be yours.
Mike F get to work .If you need some help then the valuable insights of the other members of the brain trust could be invaluable.
MR,
Your link doesn’t offer you much support. does it?
“It is currently unclear as to whether alcohol has a direct toxic effect on the brain cells,. . .”
I don’t really care what you think. Why should I?
As to the rest of your blather, if you can find a definition of the GHE, you will have achieved the impossible.
Unlikely.
I’m quite content with my situation in life. I don’t seek fame, and I have the resources to do as I wish.
You wrote –
“The agencies and university departments that employ the fraudsters such as Schmidt and Mann and their ilk can be abolished.”
Maybe you could send your suggestion to the US Government. I am surprised you imagine I have the power to carry out your suggestion. Thanks for the flattery, though.
The Nobel Committee did inform Michael Mann that they had withdrawn his self awarded Nobel Prize. I am prepared to wait for a real one.
You seem determined to waste your time telling me what to do. Carry on appearing stupid and ignorant, if you wish. You certainly don’t need my help with that.
Oh well, feel free to remain stupid and ignorant, while I remain wise and knowledgeable – as usual.
Cheers.
Mike F,
If you don’t want believe in the science, as is your propensity, here is another link
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/196197?wvsessionid=wv610527140b704e589fa178f67fd1fb3c&utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=J_Am_Med_TrendMD_1 .
I know you don’t like my recomendations but i would suggest keeping off the turps. It will maximize your chances of staying as wise and knowlegable as you currently are.
NR,
Your original statement –
“. . . alcohol consumption not only leads to misjudgements but is a predictor of early onset dementia.”
From your link –
“How alcohol consumption affects the incidence of dementia is less clear.”
See the difference? Facts do not care whether you believe in them or not. Science is an activity – nothing to do with belief. Here is one definition of belief –
“. . . an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.”
You might wish to complain about something I wrote, rather than your own opinions. Your feeble attempts to read my mind have come to nought, and I treat your pointless suggestions as the erratic maunderings of a disturbed mind.
That is one of the differences between being wise and knowledgeable (like myself), and stupid and ignorant (like yourself). Good luck with your efforts trying to modify the behaviour and thinking of people you know nothing about. That will be me you hear laughing in your fantasy. Carry on.
Cheers.
Mike F. From the information contained in the links above you are quite right. The aetiology of Korsakoff’s syndrome is not clearly known but the statistical relationship with alcohol consumption is clear. I was referring to the latter. I hope this clarifies things.
Anyway, here’s hoping you can stay healthy, wealthy , wise and also knowledgeable while retaining your unshakeable self belief in your own abilities.
With regard to the latter the six letter acronym, FIGJAM is highly appropriate.
Good night Mike.
Ball4 wrote –
“Mike – Obviously you are too lazy, or too incompetent to look it up and let us know if GR got it right or not. And then to let us know if whatever Trenberth actually wrote is still true today.”
Not really. I can’t think of a single cogent reason why I should bother. Do you believe me when I tell you that the GHE is nonsense? What about when I tell you that you are stupid and ignorant?
Why would I waste time providing factual answers to someone who is not going to believe facts, anyway?
Try harder.
Cheers.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 27, 2019 at 2:40 PM:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-346941
Yes goalpost shift. It is NOT what I’m discussing. You don’t want to address what I bring up, so you try to divert attention to a different issue. That’s a goalpost shift.
No, YOU need to confront the reality of insulation, DREMT. You have yet to do so.
Ok, so this is finally where you display the depth of your ignorance. This is really the *facepalm* moment here, those two paragraphs.
This isn’t about them decreasing in temperature when moving apart, DREMT. It’s about them always being cooler than the central plate, while still insulating it, which means it is also about the central plate being warmer with those two other plates in place (attaced or not attached) than if they weren’t.
Ever heard of HEAT TRANSFER? Heard of INSULATION?
This is why I posed the insulation question in the first place? Why don’t you just answer it? So that we can move on to discuss what’s actually going on here.
Or is it simply that you don’t want to move on to find out what’s really going on …? So you stubbornly hold back any kind of answer.
Here’s my response:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-347297
You can reply up there, or down here, don’t mind which.
Just realized that the version of the comment Kristian posted down here has some differences to the one he posted further up – which is the one I responded to. Man, that’s sneaky. At first glance it looks the same, and you would have assumed he just posted the same comment twice…that maybe by accident one got posted down here. The differences totally change the context of my response.
Yup, because I realised I hadn’t read YOUR sneaky reply up there thoroughly enough before responding, hence my change of words down here. This response is my final one. Key point:
“This isn’t about [the two lateral plates] decreasing in temperature when moving apart, DREMT. It’s about them always being cooler than the central plate, WHILE still insulating it, which means it is also about the central plate being warmer with those two other plates in place (attaced or not attached) than if they weren’t.
Ever heard of HEAT TRANSFER? Heard of INSULATION?”
Klown, this issue is NOT about “insulation”. “Insulation” is not relevant to radiative energy transfer. A perfect vacuum does NOT hinder photons. You’re off on some irrelevant tangent, demonstrating your lack of understanding of the relevant physics.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
You are correct about Kristian that he does not know the relevant physics but neither do you. Kristian’s view is closer to the real one than yours. He at least understands that the surrounding temperature will alter the temperature of a heated object. You are further from the truth than him.
I do not think either of your will crack open a textbook on heat transfer and read it. I have linked both of you to real physics textbooks many times with zero effect. You peddle your phony expert status anyway.
You think, for no good reason at all, that IR from a colder plate to a warmer one is totally reflected. It is total nonsense and not based upon any physics yet you pretend it is reality. Why are you like this? What prompts you to delude yourself so strongly?
Wrong again, Norman.
You don’t understand the relevant physics. You just BELIEVE you do.
If you understood even the basics, you would recognize that the enthalpy of the blue plate is increased without a change of energy in/out. You would recognize that that is impossible.
But, you just don’t have the educational background. All you have are your opinionated beliefs. That’s why you always resort to insults, false accusations and misrepresentations.
Nothing new.
“Yup, because I realised I hadn’t read YOUR sneaky reply up there thoroughly enough before responding”
What sneaky reply? And, you posted your two comments, one up there and one down here, within 8 minutes of each other. You must have had your two responses ready before posting them.
JDHuffman says, March 31, 2019 at 3:07 AM:
OMG! You’re even more ignorant than I gave you credit for. And that says a lot.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 31, 2019 at 6:14 AM:
That thing about their temperature having to drop. That’s not what we’re discussing, after all. We’re discussing the fact that they will always stay cooler than the central plate. Attached or not attached.
Kristian, on the sub-thread further up, I wrote a response to one of your questions days ago, if that’s what you are referring to. There was nothing sneaky about it. You didn’t respond, the subject moved on. Then, when it had got to the point where some of the others found themselves in a little bit of a pickle, you all of a sudden, out of nowhere, decided to respond (which at that point in the discussion was something of a diversion). But, not only did you do that, you also decided to post a similar, but slightly different (one sentence removed, one paragraph added) response down here, 8 minutes later. What’s up with that?
Your first response, upthread, was discussing the temperature drop when separated.
Down here, you’re saying that attached or not attached, the green plates stay cooler than the blue. And that, once again, is in contrast to their position as much as it is ours. Both positions, theirs and ours, have the three plates the same temperature when pressed together. And, once again, you are only criticizing our position, not theirs.
JDHuffman
Wow you looked up a new word trying to impress people “enthalpy”. Not going to work. You still pretend to be an expert but don’t know what you are talking about.
The energy flowing into and out of the blue plate is definitely changed when you move the two green plates away. You are so clueless you don’t understand that even when explained to you.
When the plates are all together conduction is transferring energy from the heated blue plate to the two green plates.
When you move the green plates away, conduction is no longer taking place. You have greatly altered the energy flow of the blue plate. It still gains 400 joules/second, as before, but now it does not transfer 200 joules/second via conduction. Now it radiates 200 joules/second from each side. It is also gaining energy from each green plate (this is a reality you don’t accept…read some actual textbook physics, they all say YOU ARE WRONG…just because you get two people Gordon Robertson and DREMT to think you know heat transfer does not mean much).
The green plates send energy back to the blue plate, it is still gaining 400 joules/second from the supplied energy source and it is also receiving 200 joules/second from each green plate. It is now receiving a total of 800 joules/second and will have to radiate 400 joules/second from each of its surfaces which leads to a higher temperature.
You really need to study actual physics like from a textbook and not your nonsense blog versions. You won’t. Nothing new. You will continue to be a phony peddler of false and intentionally misleading fake physics. Phony people like you torture the internet.
“The green plates send energy back to the blue plate, it is still gaining 400 joules/second from the supplied energy source and it is also receiving 200 joules/second from each green plate. It is now receiving a total of 800 joules/second and will have to radiate 400 joules/second from each of its surfaces which leads to a higher temperature.”
…and if you wanted to try to argue along those lines, you could equally claim that when the plates are pressed together, the blue plates is gaining 400 W from the electrical source, plus 200 W from each green plate via “back-conduction”…
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
It is an easy explanation. I hope you follow it. I think you spend to much of your time on the Joseph Postma blog. You will learn nothing of value from him. He is a lunatic, one can’t even hope to reason with him as he savagely attacks anyone who does not agree with him and also he bans them from ever using his blog. I read this same idea on his blog and I could tell him why he is wrong but that will not happen.
Look at this Newton Cradle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LnbyjOyEQ8
The “backconduction” would be what happens when the energy goes through the balls to the last one and it moves up and comes back returning the energy to the first ball that had the initial kinetic energy. In the case of the plates it would be as if you cut the line of the last ball as it moved to its peak. The energy is gone. With the green plates the energy moves from the heated blue plate through the green plate via molecular vibrations (like spring compressions). If you had a really good insulator at the surface of the green plate (instead of a vacuum) you would get your backconduction and the blue plate would heat up. In the case with a vacuum the energy leaves the green plate surface and is gone, it cannot return to the blue plate via conduction like in the Newton’s
Cradle. If the green plate is separated it now can return some energy to the blue plate (if it is a blackbody, it would return half the energy it receives). Now if you had the Newton Cradle to use to show this, it would be like you shot another ball back to the end ball returning some energy to the device. I think if you use logic and reason you will understand what is being said.
OMG, K is STILL harping on insulation!
Hey Klown, when you finally get tired to pretending you understand insulation, learn something about “enthalpy”. As in, the enthalpy of the middle plate increases, with NO change in energy flow. That’s what is known as “impossible”. Learn about it.
That’ll take you a few years….
Impssible for the middle plate to warm? Why?
See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/
Two irresponsible questions and a link back to the top.
Amazing incompetence.
Nate, JD reasons incorrectly that his x4H cartoon is reality. JD wants you to agree that the incident radiation on the blue plate from the green all reflects back to the green, a process which does not increase entropy so can’t exist in nature.
Thus, according to JD, the enthalpy of the blue plate can’t be increased by the green plate which is just JD’s pseudoscience. Testing proves JD wrong of course. Which is why JD avoids any testing.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344414
This is also why JD can’t and won’t explain the process of insulation.
Speaking of incompetence, fluffball shows up….
And, I always enjoy when he mentions “testing”.
Like his acceptance of the “345K”, followed by then denying the “142K…190K…132K”, and now supporting it.
Amazing incompetence.
Should be “244K…290K…244K”.
(I was laughing too hard.)
“Like his acceptance of the “345K””
JD still has me confused with some other commenter.
All you need to do to prove me wrong JD, is explain the process of insulation and do a replicable test showing data proving your x4H cartoon is reality. The blog world waits.
That would help you learn some physics JD, meanwhile it’s still fun to watch JD’s struggles to avoid doing so.
Ball4 tries to get involved, tries to criticize JD in any possible way he can, but it’s too late for him. He has already said that the 244 K…290 K…244 K violates 1LoT. So either Ball4 needs to do something unimaginable (say that he was wrong – never going to happen in a million years) or he pretty much just needs to butt out. It’s pretty ridiculous him trying to do what he’s doing.
Here fluffball, you get to argue with yourself:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344713
Ha, JD sends out pleas for help, the DREM Team arrives to try & support a sycophant with gish gallop. Here’s what I actually wrote:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-347191
All you need to do to prove me wrong DREM Team, is explain the process of insulation per Kristian’s repeated requests and do a replicable test showing data proving JD’s x4H cartoon is reality. The blog world waits.
Yes, here’s what you wrote:
“JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K”
Thanks for your support, Ball4.
JD 5:34pm still has me confused with some other commenter, that link is NOT an example of “Like his acceptance of the “345K””.
More fluffball arguing with fluffball…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344716
The comedy continues.
“Thanks for your support”
Always glad to help DREM Team learn some physics.
Right JD, your comedy continues.
What we don’t see is your explanation of insulation process or any replicable testing proving your x4H cartoon.
Glad to help.
According to Norman, with a couple of extra green plates each side of the blue, the 345 K is still on the cards. 101 K temperature increase!? Sure! Yum, yum. Tasty pseudoscience.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344865
DREM Team 5:57pm provides proof of JD’s commenter confusion, thanks for your support.
Always fun to watch JD’s confusion proven out.
And here’s Norman coming up with the 345 K value for only 2 green plates, which he later agreed was incorrect, yet many of “the Team” gobbled up at the time, without question.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344427
JDHuffman says, March 30, 2019 at 9:28 AM:
Hehe, of course I am. Because you’re STILL too scared to respond. That’s what’s so funny. Your game has already been exposed. You run and hide, and then a bit later you show up somewhere else from under your rug, pretending to still be on top. And this cycle on endless repeat.
Why so afraid to face up to reality, JD?
Klown, it’s YOUR game that has been exposed. You just blab. You aeldom make a relevant point, and when you do, it’s wrong. You try to hide behind semantics, because you don’t know physics. Like Norman, you look up some definition and try to argue without a full understanding.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman
Since you pulled me in again. Like all your many posts this one is wrong as well!
YOU: ” Like Norman, you look up some definition and try to argue without a full understanding.”
False! I read textbook material on heat transfer and get the correct understanding of it. You do not do this. You make up your own nonsense and pretend you have this deep knowledge of physics. You have nothing! A poster, E. Swanson did an actual experiment in a vacuum showing your stupid cartoon is bogus fake physics. You deny the reality showing you are wrong and continue in your endless error. You keep pretending you know physics. This is where the damage is. If you quit pretending to be a phony expert on a topic you know nothing at all about, you might actually be able to learn something. However, you won’t learn and you will keep posting your fake physics. Nothing new. Keep trolling.
As with fluffball, I enjoy your bogus “experiments”. Swanson won’t produce the important data, but you don’t need data. You have your opinionated beliefs. In your incompetent and uneducated head, that is all you need.
Nothing new.
JDHuffman says, March 31, 2019 at 2:48 AM:
Hehe, nope. YOU’RE the one playing games. Games of evasion. And you’re still doing it. Here, now. I simply asked you a question.
Kristian, you’ve already come out with your points on insulation. So this whole game of yours of continually asking the question about insulation is now null and void.
JDHuffman
E. Swanson’s test has all the information to prove your cartoon is bogus nonsense! He has the temperature of the blue plate and green plate given on continuous graphs. When the green plate is moved up the green plate warms (gaining energy from the blue plate) and the blue plate likewise reaches a higher temperature with the IR emitted by the green plate being absorbed and adding to the internal energy of the blue plate.
You are just wrong. You can’t admit it though.
Evidence of your total error is not changing your opinion. Do the experiment yourself. You will see your understanding is wrong and misleading and dishonest (dishonest because you pretend to be an expert in physics but you are just a clown with makeup on hiding the ignorance and hoping people can’t see through this disguise).
“E. Swanson’s test has all the information to prove your cartoon is bogus nonsense!”
Not in the least. Plus, we’ve moved on to the 3-plate problem, now, Norman. Try to keep up.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
You need to study actual physics as much as your favorite poster does.
The three plate and two plate situation are the same physics.
You say E. Swanson did not prove JDHuffman wrong? That is a false statement.
Here is what your clown friend believes is true.
https://postlmg.cc/HrxkJyBB
He has the separated plates at the same temperature and does voodoo physics to try and explain a reality that is not.
The reality is here:
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
You do not have enough knowledge on the topic to have an informed opinion. If you don’t read you never will. JDHuffman is deluded and will never see his error. I don’t know how unthinking you are, if you suffer the same problem. I do not have much hope for you. I have none for Huffman.
“The three plate and two plate situation are the same physics”
I agree. Some of your fellow travellers have disagreed, at points. Generally, you’re all over the place.
Here’s one of the times JD requested the information:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344919
Swanson didn’t provide it, and he most likely never will.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
E. Swanson provided more than enough information. The rest is just JDHuffman diverting away from the reality his cartoon physics is awful and wrong.
What more do you think E. Swanson needs to provide for you? He has temperature graphs which is all that is really needed. If you need more you should do your own experiment and gather the data you seek. Not that it would change anything at all. JDHuffman would still be wrong. That will not change.
“What more do you think E. Swanson needs to provide for you?”
Read the linked comment. Plus, try this one too:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/02/australias-record-hot-january-mostly-weather-not-climate-change/#comment-341911
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
Neither of the comments you linked to are relevant. Read E. Swanson’s response to JDHuffman’s point.
The fact is that in a vacuum condition, moving a green plate in front of a heated blue plate caused the temperature of both plates to increase.
Now all you need is a mechanism to explain how that is possible. The points of JDHuffman and Mike Flynn are pointless diversions. They do not change what is going on.
You have your ignorant buddy JDHuffman propose something not supported by any physics at all and clearly goes against the E. Swanson experiment (in Huffman’s world the blue plate cannot get hotter from the green plate regardless of what material it is made of). JDHuffman is wrong that is clear.
–This isnt about them decreasing in temperature when moving apart, DREMT. Its about them always being cooler than the central plate, while still insulating it, which means it is also about the central plate being warmer with those two other plates in place (attaced or not attached) than if they werent.
Ever heard of HEAT TRANSFER? Heard of INSULATION?–
How much warmer? And does more insulation make warmer, and by how much.
Now, I thought these surface were suppose to “resemble” ideal blackbody surfaces.
And I would say an Ideal blackbody surface has no insulative properties [or the least which is possible].
But perhaps the insulation refers to the vacuum between the plates-
it is vacuum, isn’t it? Or do we have air between them. Though no see ever seen a complete vacuum, or zero of all “things” per cubic cm.
Now, were the middle plate the highest temperature, would the middle plate be the best plate to “draw” energy from?
Or I am asking is any practical applicable to having middle plate be highest temperature.
It seems to me that inside of first plate has to be same temperature or warmer than second plate, and outside of first place has be same temperature or warmer than inside of first plate.
And more energy flowing thru a plate, indicates more difference [unless it’s “ideal” or magical]. And amount of energy flowing is amount energy leaving backside of third plate.
And it seems if back plate is radiate as much as first plate absorbs, there is no insulation.
“And I would say an Ideal blackbody surface has no insulative properties [or the least which is possible]”
Exactly. In fact, not only are they blackbodies, the plates are supposed to be perfect conductors. “The least which is possible”, indeed.
gbaikie says, March 30, 2019 at 12:52 PM:
The actual quantification depends on a lot of different things. But, yes, insulating an object will make it warmer IF that object is already connected to a constant power/heat source. Because what insulation does is reduce the rate of heat loss from a surface at any given surface temperature. And so, if the heat INPUT to that surface/object stays the same, the insulation will create a positive heat imbalance for the insulated surface/object:
Q_in > Q_out = +Q_net => +U => +T
This was already explained quite some time ago, way upthread, to DREMT and JD. They didn’t (or didn’t want to) get it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344392
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344615
Try and read those two comments, gb.
Er, yes. That makes no difference whatsoever. Being a blackbody simply means your emissivity is 1.
Of course it does. Everything that is somehow able to slow the heat transfer rate from a body to its surroundings is insulating that body. Insulation isn’t some magic property possessed only by a special selection of objects or materials. Everything can potentially insulate something else.
No, a vacuum specifically does NOT reduce a radiative heat transfer rate. It will, however, reduce to zero any kind of conductive and/or convective heat transfer.
So, in this case, the vacuum isn’t it.
The middle plate is warmer than the other two simply because it’s closer to the original power/heat source. It is in turn itself the heat source of the other two plates. Down the heat source hierarchy, so to say.
Just like the Sun being the original heat source, heating the surface of the Earth, and the surface in turn being the secondary heat source, heating the troposphere above. Hot => warm => cool. Down the hierarchy. Cold space is the final heat sink.
In this ideal case, internal conduction is apparently ignored. So the central plate has ONE temperature, as do the other two – there is ONLY a temperature difference BETWEEN the plates, not within them.
Yes, there is. See above.
Insulation is about the rate of HEAT transfer, not about the amount of photons flying from one BB to another. The number of photons flying back and forth between two BBs at, say, 6000K is immensely larger than the number of photons flying back and forth between two BBs at, say, 300K; there is absolutely no comparison.
But THE HEAT TRANSFER RATE between the first pair of BBs is exactly the same as between the second pair: ZERO.
Because the radiative HEAT is simply the “NET transfer”, the average of ALL photon exchanges.
K: “Everything that is somehow able to slow the heat transfer rate from a body to its surroundings is insulating that body.”
An idealized perfect vacuum is NOT a radiative insulator, Klown. You’re trying to change the problem to fit you iincorrect physics.
K: “The middle plate is warmer than the other two simply because it’s closer to the original power/heat source. It is in turn itself the heat source of the other two plates. Down the heat source hierarchy, so to say.”
Exactly, but because of the ideal circumstances, the blue (middle) plate is only infintesimally warmer than the others. There are no losses in the system, so 200 Watts/m^2 net goes to both green plates, which then emit it out of the system.
https://postimg.cc/KKx5hx4H
JDHuffman says, March 31, 2019 at 3:01 AM:
Exactly. Just as I pointed out to gb. Do you have a hard time reading?
Nope. The vacuum isn’t it. The presence of those other plates is.
How bloody hard is this? WHAT DOES INSULATION DO, THERMODYNAMICALLY, JD?
No. It is much warmer than the others. You simply do not understand heat transfer, JD. And you show it. No wonder you didn’t answer my insulation question. You are UNABLE to answer it.
Of course not. And still the central plate ends up much warmer than the other two. Imagine that. The magic of insulation!
You need to go read a textbook on heat transfer, JD. And try to actually understand what it says. Because now you’re just embarrassing yourself.
Kristian,
Much of what you wrote is misleading, irrelevant, unclear, or just wrong.
For example you wrote –
“Insulation is about the rate of HEAT transfer, not about the amount of photons flying from one BB to another. The number of photons flying back and forth between two BBs at, say, 6000K is immensely larger than the number of photons flying back and forth between two BBs at, say, 300K; there is absolutely no comparison.”
I’m not sure why you find standard definitions of thermal insulation inadequate. However, I suggest that your statement about photon emission is both misleading and incorrect without being more specific. The number being emitted by a BB at 6000 K, may or may not be bigger than that emitted by a BB at 300 K. Pedantic? Sure. Picky? Sure.
Why not? You are supposedly demonstrating superior knowledge to people seeking information. Hoping that people can read your mind, and blaming them if they do not know your unstated assumptions, is just silly.
For example, a tiny BB at 6000 K will emit fewer photons than a 300 K BB large enough to emit more. And so on. All this nonsense about black bodies is pointless. Even trained physicists generally have only a vague understanding of the relationship between heat, energy, and temperature. The more deluded GHE enthusiasts do not even understand that units such as W/m2 have no particular relationship to temperature.
Ice can emit 300 W/m2. So, theoretically, can a body at 6000 K. One is definitely hotter than the other. Some silly GHE supporter might even foolishly claim that the two bodies are in thermal equilibrium, exchanging photons.
Still no GHE. CO2 heats nothing.
Cheers.
Mike Flynn says, March 31, 2019 at 4:04 AM:
Oh, but on this we agree, Mike. But that’s NOT because insulation somehow doesn’t work.
“So, in this case, the vacuum isn’t it.”
As far as Kristian is concerned, the vacuum gap isn’t the insulator. So, that’s one in the eye for Nate and the gang, who had been trying to imply it was. We’re left with this concept that somehow adding perfectly-conducting green BB plates, that possess the least insulative properties possible, cause the blue plate to rise in temperature by 46 – 101 K, without a change of energy in/out.
You’re in denial, DREMT.
What does insulation do, thermodynamically? I’m gonna keep asking you this question, until you stop avoiding it like the plague.
This has been explained to you so many times now. But you just won’t read and take it in, will you? Instead, you’re turning your blind eye and go “la-la-la-la!” Repeatedly. Habitually. THAT’S a state of denial. And we all see it. YOU’RE the laughing stock here. And for every one of these “updates” of yours, we only laugh harder.
You’re in denial, Kristian.
How long’s a piece of string?
Why are you so afraid to answer this question? You’re like a naughty child that knows it’s been caught. You know where the other end of the piece of string leads. And what really hurts, is that you gave yourself away.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 31, 2019 at 7:14 AM:
How did you reach the conclusion that I’m afraid to answer it? It’s the first time you posed it.
I have no problem answering it: It’s as long as you make it.
You still haven’t answered MY question to YOU, though.
“It’s the first time you posed it”
I think it’s the fourth time. You might not have been paying attention, though, previously.
“It’s as long as you make it.”
Wrong answer. Please try again.
Guesstimates for March anomaly?
Should be well up on January and February looking at the surface temperatures, but I will go relatively conservative for March, say 0.4 C.
CFSR 2mT is coming in a little over +0.1C compared to Jan. and Feb. I’m with MikeR. UAH of +0.4C for Mar. seems like a conservative guess at this point though based on the CFSR I could see it pushing the mid-0.40’s even. We’ve had the ONI in El Nino territory for going on 5 months now so it wouldn’t be unexpected to start seeing the troposphere respond now.
Day 20. 20 days of denial. I thought they might have come to terms with it a couple of days ago, but no. Looks like they might never get over it.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says, March 31, 2019 at 6:41 AM:
Only, you’re the one in denial, DREMT. We all see it. You’re in denial of the basic thermal effects of insulation. And it very much seems you simply cannot come to terms with it.
Kristian pops up, immediately, to shout “no, you are!”
They’ve got it really bad.
Hahaha! Just keep going.
Hahaha! Kristian just keeps on going.
I’m impressed, I must say. Seldom do I come across a blog that’s both educative and amusing, and let me tell you, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
The problem is something which not enough folks are speaking intelligently about.
Now i’m very happy that I came across this in my hunt for
something concerning this.
Please let me know if you’re looking for a writer for your weblog.
You have some really good posts and I think I would be a good asset.
If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d absolutely love to write some articles
for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine.
Please blast me an e-mail if interested. Thank
you!
Hello, Neat post. There is an issue with your web site in web
explorer, might test this? IE still is the market chief and a good portion of folks will
omit your wonderful writing due to this problem.
Thank you for sharing your info. I really appreciate
your efforts and I am waiting for your further write ups thank you once again.
Hello! Do you know if they make any plugins to protect against hackers?
I’m kinda paranoid about losing everything I’ve worked hard
on. Any suggestions?